I think "complex" and "harder to win" are being confused as synonyms. They aren't. A lot of the discussion revolves around this error.

It is pretty tilting how delusional live mtt pros are about their skillsets. Go on one solid heater and you begin to believe you are playing some superior strategy to the rest of the players. I would almost guarantee you in a live mtt that Daniel Negreanu, Vanessa Selbst, Jason Mercier would think they are in the same category of players as an Ike or ragen70 all because they have been slapped in the face repeatedly by run good. Especially Negreanu.

here are some top live flippers



the 3 kids left laughing bring to my mind the elite live mtters

live tourn skills n volume vs online come down to that vid

with the difference that coincidences arent meaningless moneywise

Case and point hehe

gr33ni3 does have a point though. Negreanu is so tilting with his "newly gained confidence" and the sentiment that he's "back on top of his game etc" after luckboxing a couple bracelets. But it's fairly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Busquet is an amazing player and person but his tweets struck me as particularly uncalled for and unnecessarily controversial. Didn't really see the point of posting them but I guess he got what he was looking for.

What the, I don't even...

I'm probably getting leveled here but since nobody bothered addressing this I will.
Online you can see far far more hands per hour and accumulate statistical information and data to better analyze and refine your strategy lightyears faster. Due to the slow nature of live (dealers, no multi tabling), they are simply unable to acquire the experience, volume, and relevant sample sizes mathematically to evolve at the same rate you can online. <Continuing with the lame analogies from this thread> If someone were trying to get better at basketball but was only able to play 30minutes a day, consider how behind the curve they will be against someone grinding it everyday all day. Experience is critical, obviously.

They are limited by how fast they can improve by factors outside of their control. Although now with the information available on the internet, a live player could technically study what online players have been able to figure out and then hypothetically apply it to live games.

What? They do. Think about all the winning online regulars throughout the years poker has existed and the ones you don't see grinding online right now full time. Very large % of these players have migrated to live poker. The standard line for the previous HSNL winners from before is to simply migrate to HSNL live instead to sustain a similar earn. But so long as they can still win online then playing online is preferable due to the convenience and ability to multi table.

They have. But since live poker has a much larger player base than online poker did with casinos all over the world, the effects haven't been felt to the extent they have been online fortunately. But it seems you don't realize just how many online players are indeed grinding out live now.

The question of whether live is easier to simply beat isn't even in dispute here. People are now just discussing whether live poker could arguably be more complex as far as maxing out your winrate only due to the fact that you have less known information. This doesn't mean live poker is more complex to beat (it's far easier to beat), it just means top tier online players being able to come up with the optimal strategy for winrate is more complex live since you have less information. But for some random live grinder who doesn't even have the fundamental framework in place to think about the game this way, this doesn't even apply to them.

You can think of it as online poker being where the game and approach for winning is constantly advancing the most, and when using that same framework to play live it becomes more complex to analyze, but since live players aren't even in the same stratosphere of thinking or approaching the game this way and not operating under that same framework (most, not all), you'd still win regardless, but now playing GTO becomes more complex since there's more gueswork involved.

Wasn't a level.The question was straightforward. If onliners can run over live games, it makes no sense that they wouldn't unless there were serious roadblocks.

To answer that, you seem to be saying they cannot easily apply their winning online techniques to live play because the game is too slow.

I guess that's fortunate for all those weak live players..

boobies;

"but now playing GTO becomes more complex since there's more gueswork involved. "

I thought that
GTO isnt dynamic, it isnt adjusting, doesn't it got a mapped out play which happens to be in NLHE so big it's not computable for now and years to come, that the ranges and balance of these ranges are set, along with betsizing etc, everything. Wouldn't it mean that a HUD is the absolutel opposite of GTO, whenever you adjust to something you pick up from data/numbers off the HUD you exploit. Id imagine if you were a "true GTO-player" you would turn off the HUD, or at the absolute maximum only keep hero stats to keep 'track'.


I think people, or onlineplayers love to call themself nGTO-players just because they have studied a bunch off the tables and come up with something they percieve as leakfree or close to, when in fact it's fo the most part ppl just mimicing trends/'fall into the current metagame' and try not to stand out much and then exploit as a mother****er whenever they see fit.

The trends/metagame have shifted lots over the years but the game is so advanced nowadays we would probably not see any huge changes preflop or anything in a 5max-setting but id love to look back in 10 years and laugh at how ****ing ******ed everyone played 2013.... will probably not happen.

good posts mrgreen and lefort itt.

my conclusion is that ragen just wins poker overall regardless of medium.

How can live poker be solved but not online poker? After all that's the biggest difference between checkers and chess :P

What is difficult to understand? Playing 100x the amount of hands per year at 1/10th the win rate is better.

It's difficult to understand how an online player can justify not trashing those live games because live games are somehow different, and the online skills do not cross over.

It's like saying a Ferrari will beat a dune buggy as long as they don't race in the sand.

But even owning a live game for a lot higher stakes than your reg games online will still likely be a far lower hourly rate. So its not really worth the bother.

Is there no situation where a competent onliner making X-dollars/hr would win more playing the softer, live games at some higher stake?

I'm sure there is but lets make this real simple. Why don't a significant number of the marginally losing onliners choose to become winners simply by playing live? Nobody wants to lose if they can help it.

I love how live players get offended. There is nothing, literally nothing that can defend "live poker" argument. It's simple, if you play 200-400 mtts a week, even without any special talent or math degree you are going to be better than live tournament grinder who plays like 60 tournaments a year tops?

All this b/s about "live tells" is so overrated. Solid players (both live and online pros) will give you zero reads (unless it's NSB literally making that guy fold A9 on A93 board), you will have more reads from their sizing, betting patterns, bluffing frequencies, etc. rather than trying to see if he blinked or looked at his stack after flop came or whatever b/s and guess what it means.

And overall live mtt grind is kind of like a roulette even for better mtt'ers. If you can go on a year downswing online, chances are, you can be on a life dowsnwing live.

Why do you post so much? You are the worst poster on this forum. You weigh in on every thread whether you are knowledgeable or not. 90% of the time I read an ignorant yet confident post I look over and see your name. Please for the love of God stop. Why do you post so much? I don't understand. Please post less.

dude, that's a stupid question but I will answer. First and foremost, you can put 100x more volume online and while your live roi might be MUCH higher than online (due to the fact that live games are much softer), you can still make more money online because of the volume of hands you can play there. Secondly, by playing online you constantly improve your game and stay on top of things, you can't do that live. Last, live poker is boring and sometimes irritating: you play 20 hands an hour or 1 tournament a week, you gotta travel a lot, you gotta communicate with all kinds of scumy idiots who constantly smoke at the table, don't stop talking or berate the dealer.

No, you completely misunderstood my post. I believe your misunderstanding comes from misinterpreting this part:

This should have been read as:
Reread the post with that clarification in mind.

To simplify the rest, once online players can win online at mid stakes+, they always have the option of being able to find a casino they will be able to win at for equivalent stakes or higher using online-2007-era strategy. This is already happening to a large degree. Plenty of online winners have made the switch to playing live. Like I said, you could list out hundreds if not thousands of online regs from 2003-2012 that are no longer frequenting the tables and a huge % of them are probably grinding live because online has become more difficult and less profitable because of it. You keep suggesting this isn't happening but it's 100% happening.

Do you not notice all the online players more involved in televised poker events and invitation tourneys now? You just don't notice it in cash games because the games in live casinos will take longer to dry up because of a much larger player base that can handle the influx of online regs into the games, but even then, some of the bigger casinos have definitely felt the increase if you read the brick and mortar forums here around the month after black Friday. Your posts seem like you don't even play neither live poker or online.

Joe, first, serious question, have you ever grinded poker at all for income? Doesn't seem so from your posts.

I will "unconfuse" you. First off, you misunderstood my post completely. The skills online absolutely cross over, in a much bigger way than live skills cross over to online. A winning online player will have the fundamentals to win live, period.

Now, online players who are still winning online don't go beat up on live games because it's often times still more profitable to grind online with a higher hourly. Other reasons would be they might not like being in a casino, they prefer more freedom and working at home, or they prefer being able to put in higher volume to sift through the variance faster. It's a big change in lifestyle and as long as people are comfortable and still making money, they may even elect to trade a small amount in hourly for convenience.

But you are still operating under a false premise to a large extent. Plenty of online players do precisely what you're saying once it becomes clear they can make a lot more playing live.
What makes you think they don't? How do you know the current group of marginally losing online players aren't simply the new batch of break eveners that were previously winning until the previous batch of online break even players left to go play live? It's not like there's a huge amount of dedicated regs grinding a loss rate over a large sample. But the ones that are probably are well aware they can go play live but may be persistently trying to get better to win online and can have live as a back up option. You're asking for some generic answer to a very person specific question.

Liking casinos is a live "skill". If you don't like the environment, you learn to like it.
Playing with less freedom, ditto. You learn .. You adjust. Wait it out or go hunting for a good game..
Can't play higher volume.. Well, that's too bad. Live play doesn't give you that option. Learn to deal with it. Any hand can have huge consequences. Be careful. Pick spots carefully.
Big change in lifestyle.. Goddamn right it is. If you won't make the necessary sacrifices then Live play is not for you.

Weeks.. or months.. of losses compared to hours or a day.. Deal with that by way of proper br management.
We need not get into the necessary verbal and physical self control when things get bad. That's what live play is about. Calm collected performance under pressure.

That above list is just a few of the live "skills" people need. Some are general survival skills but those are as much a part of the game as anything else. They may not seem to be related to the game of poker, and might extend to any real world gambling environment, but I'm sorry... you still need to have them.
Online is almost all technical. They are not the same game.

Alright I'd say this discussion has run its course.

no need for that. I'll drop out.

Others are welcomed to continue on whatever aspects of the topic they like.

It's just kind of absurd for someone who has had little to no live success to say live is easier. Live is fundamentally more complicated, but the competition online is probably harder, especially at cash tables. There are too many antisocial math wizards who sit on their computers 15 hours a day.

If you don't have joeschmoe on your ignore list, you're doing it wrong.

joeschmoe - leveling nvg since May 2012

Online poker is like cybersexing your girlfriend from across campus while she is in her room and you are in your room.

Live poker is ripping off her lingerie the minute you get her in your bedroom......

Oh wait, none of you online guys have girlfriends...........