Onlive v Live

[kinboshi]

I started out learning the game online.  Lots of others start out playing live.  Some continue to play only one or the other, but most seem to combine the two to some degree.

Leaving aside the differences of the standard of play (I"ll come back to that in a bit), playing online is obviously a simpler proposition in terms of being able to fire up the PC and play - without having to worry about travelling to a card room, organise yourself around the timings of tournaments or when the cash games will be running, or even having to bother getting dressed to play.

Online"s also ideal in terms of getting the hours under your belt.  4-tabling on the low-level cash games is where I learnt the general ins and outs of the game and I got to see hundreds more hands per hour than I could in a live game. 

From this background, I then ventured into the world of live play - via APAT of course.  The transition was fairly easy, although I was worried about the intricacies of live play I really shouldn"t have been.  In fact, the move to tournament play as opposed to cash play was a far bigger adjustment to make.

I now really enjoy the live game.  I enjoy the banter and chat at the table (even though I"m the shy and retiring type), and the APAT events and now the cash games at DTD are something I look forward to - more so than playing online.  Of course, I still play online, as it"s far more cost-effective (no travel or hotel costs, no expensive food or drinks to pay for, etc.), and I can play when I want at the level I want.  I can also play 4-tables at once to try and maximise my hourly return.

So, live is more fun for me, and online is potentially more profitable.  I"ve heard people say that tournaments are for show, and cash games are for dough.  For me it"s a similar thing with the live games being great fun, but online is where I"m going to make bulk of the money.

But here"s the thing.  I"ve noticed that live cash games are MUCH softer than online.  Many players who only play live are of the opinion that the standard of online play is poor.  In my experience it"s exactly the opposite. 

Of course, there are good and bad players at the tables of both - but is it just me, or are live games easier on the whole?  

[AMRN]

But here"s the thing.  I"ve noticed that live cash games are MUCH softer than online.  Many players who only play live are of the opinion that the standard of online play is poor.  In my experience it"s exactly the opposite. 

An interesting comment, and one that I agree with, although you are the first person I"ve ever met who has claimed this!!  I"ve played hundreds of thousands of cash hands online, starting at 0.5/0.10 a couple of years ago, and now playing consistently well at .50/1 and 1/2..... and I"m finding that it is getting hard to win consistently at the higher level and tend not to multi table too much any more - it needs full focus to win at $1/$2............

I"ve not played much cash live, but when I"ve played £1/£2 at DTD, or £2/£4 at Broadway, I was gobsmacked by how loose the play was, and how poor the players were....... it was just pure bingo.  My only problem here was that by playing only 15 to 20 hands per hour gave me such a limited return potential that I tended to follow the sheep and play stupidly loose poker just to stay interested.  That said though, I"m primarily a tournament player who tends to play cash on the side.

My conclusion is that the play at $1/$2 online is much much harder than £1/£2 live and on the whole the online players are much much better.

[WarBwastardo]

I don"t play a lot of cash games live but I think sometimes playing live you feel pressured to gamble a bit more so you come across as a bit of a coward.  Online is impersonal, the opinion your opponents have of you is totally irrelevant as they don"t know you and can"t see you.

[kinboshi]

I don"t play a lot of cash games live but I think sometimes playing live you feel pressured to gamble a bit more so you come across as a bit of a coward.  Online is impersonal, the opinion your opponents have of you is totally irrelevant as they don"t know you and can"t see you.

I think that"s a valid point.  I"m as thick-skinned as a rhino, and don"t really care what people say when I fold hand after hand, and then laugh when I make a bet and everyone says "here we go, he"s got aces".  I use it to my advantage, but yes, it does mean my game is one of patience and lots of folding...

[AMRN]

I use it to my advantage, but yes, it does mean my game is one of patience and lots of folding...

Perhaps you should replace the O Rly baby pic with this.......

[kinboshi]

I"m a bigger rock than that.  Maybe this is more appropriate:



But going back to your point, is the right way to beat the poor players at these live games to beat them at their own game, play as a rock, or mix it up?

[AMRN]

the only right way to play poker is to mix it up, regardless of who you"re playing against!  Even a poor player can pick trends....  (even me!)

[RioRodent]

What you have to remember is that wherever you play the lowest limit game offered will be the softest.

You can"t compare the standard of player, online vs live, at the same stakes. Because of the ability to multitable online it is possible to make decent money at relatively low stakes... depending your overheads (single, living at home) you can probably make a living at 25c/50c, there are definitely plenty of full time players playing at $0.50/$1 and $1/$2 - Hence the standard is quite good.

You couldn"t possibly make a living playing live at those levels. Only playing one table, travel costs, rake / session fees, dealers tips, food & drink etc. You won"t encounter (m)any full time players at the 50p/£1 or £1/£2 tables at DTD (or anywhere else).

[tumblet]

I think that"s a valid point.  I"m as thick-skinned as a rhino, and don"t really care what people say when I fold hand after hand, and then laugh when I make a bet and everyone says "here we go, he"s got aces".  I use it to my advantage, but yes, it does mean my game is one of patience and lots of folding...

     no way, does that happen  

[kinboshi]

What you have to remember is that wherever you play the lowest limit game offered will be the softest.

You can"t compare the standard of player, online vs live, at the same stakes. Because of the ability to multitable online it is possible to make decent money at relatively low stakes... depending your overheads (single, living at home) you can probably make a living at 25c/50c, there are definitely plenty of full time players playing at $0.50/$1 and $1/$2 - Hence the standard is quite good.

You couldn"t possibly make a living playing live at those levels. Only playing one table, travel costs, rake / session fees, dealers tips, food & drink etc. You won"t encounter (m)any full time players at the 50p/£1 or £1/£2 tables at DTD (or anywhere else).

Nice post. Although there was a very decent player on my cash table last Friday, Junior from blonde.  As long as there are several very poor players, I"m happy though.

Here"s another question.  Does your bankroll need to be as large to play £1/£2 live cash as it does to say, play $1/$2 online?

[George2Loose]

Personally I think u find good and bad at both- online players are a LOT more aggressive and I agree with Daniel- live cash games are a lot softer.

Personally I believe live players UNDERESTIMATE online players. People used to ask me when I first started played live whether I was an online player and mocked me when I said yes.

[RioRodent]

... and I agree with Daniel- live cash games are a lot softer.

If you compare the standard at the lowest levels available i.e. 50p/£1 live in the UK... $1/$2 live in Vegas... 1c/2c on PokerStars (NLHE in each case), I suspect you won"t find a lot of difference.

[AMRN]

Here"s another question.  Does your bankroll need to be as large to play £1/£2 live cash as it does to say, play $1/$2 online?

Depends what you want to achieve, and how long term your bankroll plan is.  eg when I play live, it tends to be a one-off night out and I take enough cash to support an MTT, with funds for the cash tables if I bust early. I don"t have a separate live bankroll, hence this comes from "pocket money", and I have no problem going home broke if the night goes wrong.

On the flipside, my online bankroll is extremely important to me, and I never release more than certain percentage amounts to a table, based on game type.  I"m extremely cautious with the management of my online bankroll and have a long term view of it"s purpose.

All of that said though, I guess you"re view of the live game is different to mine - you play it for serious return where I play it for fun.... so, your approach to bankroll management for live play will probably be completely different to mine. 

To me, live is for fun, whilst online is for paying off my mortgage early.

[kinboshi]

Here"s another question.  Does your bankroll need to be as large to play £1/£2 live cash as it does to say, play $1/$2 online?

Depends what you want to achieve, and how long term your bankroll plan is.  eg when I play live, it tends to be a one-off night out and I take enough cash to support an MTT, with funds for the cash tables if I bust early. I don"t have a separate live bankroll, hence this comes from "pocket money", and I have no problem going home broke if the night goes wrong.

On the flipside, my online bankroll is extremely important to me, and I never release more than certain percentage amounts to a table, based on game type.  I"m extremely cautious with the management of my online bankroll and have a long term view of it"s purpose.

All of that said though, I guess you"re view of the live game is different to mine - you play it for serious return where I play it for fun.... so, your approach to bankroll management for live play will probably be completely different to mine.  

To me, live is for fun, whilst online is for paying off my mortgage early.

Well, yes I guess it is.  I have a live bankroll!

But it"s interesting.  I keep my live and my online rolls separate.  You obviously take it a step further.  At the end of the day, the money from both can buy the same things.  But even though I have a bankroll for live poker, it does seem to be more "recreational" than my online poker.