Pros v internet players

Here in the UK, where poker has really been taking off in the last five to ten years, I hear nothing but complaints about internet players from pro players when I watch them in tournaments.

Why do pros not like internet players? I would have thought they would have welcomed them, especially considering that internet play is generally looser than live play. Is it a case that they haven't developed a strategy to beat internet players or that skilful play may be lost on such opponents?

Any thoughts?

I saw a segment on Fulltilts "Learn from the pros" program , and they were discussing internet players.

Internet players used to be looked down on by professional players before it started to become really popular.

I think as more time goes by, and more internet players start establishing themselves as real contenders in the poker world (the last 3 wsop winners), people are starting to realize that internet players are no joke.

Phil Ivey, Chris Furgeson, and a few others were discussing how much quicker the internet players learn the game than they learned it.. What may have taken them ten years to master can now be learned in 1-2 years, simply because the amount of hands played online is so much larger, and you can play more than one table at a time, giving you tons of hand experience. Also the freeflow of information on the internet has made the players alot tougher in general.

I think most of the pros who still look down on internet players (There aren't many anymore, as people are starting to realize that internet players can be just as good as any of the pros) are just either envious of players for learning so quickly, or ignorant to how quickly online poker can really teach new players the game.

{This post has been removed}

In all honesty, I've learned LHE, 7CS and Omaha all through playing online. I always got the feeling that pros looked down on internet players because a lot of internet players think they're the shit and they haven't proven anything yet.

I think the majority of the pro's have had a relatively elusive/exclusive life and with the popularity of televised poker and the internet they've lost a little of both. Not everone has had the mobility to uproot themselves and move to Vegas and play full time and for those who haven't the internet has opened up the poker realm so they can partake as well.

Obviously there will be a lot of poor players but there will be just as many, if not more elite players being produced as well. Additionally with the wealth of information out there the "pros" no longer have a lock on information which will level the playing field as well.

I think the biggest gripe arising from the pros is that their edge is no longer as great as it was and perhaps the earnings that they've been accustomed to is drying up a bit. They are no longer locked in a hermetically sealed enviorment in which they are familiar with all the players and their styles and they now have to start readapting since they are being challenged by often unorthodox play.

I think the pros reaction to modifying the WSOP main event is evidence of their sour grapes. While I think something should be done to restict the field so that the tournament can run fluidly and be maintainable, many pros are coming out and looking to completely modify the tournament itself. So while they've enjoyed the near Hollywood status of being a top pro, they only relish the popularity when it is thrust upon them but not when it brings in hundreds more into the games that they've dominated for so long.

I seriously doubt their revenue is drying up. Pros don't make money off other pros, they make money off the tourists and semi-serious amateurs. I'll bet there are a lot of people who play micro stakes online but play much bigger on a gambling vacation. These people might have played craps or blackjack 5 years ago but now more of them are playing poker and while they may even be better than the tourist of 5 years ago there is so much more poker being played out of people's league that the pro's overlay is probably just as good if not better.

Why would the pro's have a problem with internet players if they were constantly taking them for money? They wouldn't.

Perhaps the pros are frustrated because they have to change the way they play to beat them... Poor babies. Perhaps they're frustrated for getting donked out of tournies... Poor babies. Perhaps they resent the fact that many internet players are learning what took it took the pros years to master in only a matter of a few months... Poor babies. Perhaps their inflated egos won't allow they to admit that these internet players are becoming just as good or better than them.

A good professional knows to keep the live ones happy, so why would they make such comments?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Werddown

I saw a segment on Fulltilts "Learn from the pros" program , and they were discussing internet players.

Internet players used to be looked down on by professional players before it started to become really popular.

I think as more time goes by, and more internet players start establishing themselves as real contenders in the poker world (the last 3 wsop winners), people are starting to realize that internet players are no joke.

Phil Ivey, Chris Furgeson, and a few others were discussing how much quicker the internet players learn the game than they learned it.. What may have taken them ten years to master can now be learned in 1-2 years, simply because the amount of hands played online is so much larger, and you can play more than one table at a time, giving you tons of hand experience. Also the freeflow of information on the internet has made the players alot tougher in general.

I think most of the pros who still look down on internet players (There aren't many anymore, as people are starting to realize that internet players can be just as good as any of the pros) are just either envious of players for learning so quickly, or ignorant to how quickly online poker can really teach new players the game.

---

I was watching this too, and was gonna write about it, but you beat me to it :)

The pro's in the UK dont like having their asses kicked because they dont know who they are playing.
Watch challenge TV most nights and you'll see a bunch of pros getting their asses pasted by internet qualifiers at short handed tables.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

Bunthorne

still think internet poker is 'R1GGED' ??

---

On recent evidence, I can't say that I do. I've been winning consistently!

I was wrong!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ripptyde

Bunthorne

still think internet poker is 'R1GGED' ??

---

I will make two observations though, Ripptyde. One is that I seem to build my bankroll to a certain level and then always slip back, but then always recover. I know someone who swears that this also happens to him and that it means the site will not let him win more than a specific amount. I reject this argument of course.

I play in cash games and I will be stopping to play at weekends as I seem to win during the week but lose on Saturdays and Sundays. Now I believe the best players are online all the time but couldn't explain why I lose at weekends. However I have looked at my hand histories and discover that when I lose big at weekends I have had my money in when I have been big favourite but have been outdrawn - usually my higher pair loses when the lower pair becomes a set or a dubious caller with two suited cards rivers a flush. I really drop the hammer with the big pairs to discourage drawing hands and this works weekdays but not weekends. Maybe there are more fish at weekends who call and get lucky whereas the better players during the week no when to fold. Certainly, if I have a small pair such as 55 or 66 I will not call two preflop reraises and will think carefully before calling one! But at weekends palyers tend not to dump these hands.

So weekdays for me seems to be the order of the day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaNutsInYoEye

Why would the pro's have a problem with internet players if they were constantly taking them for money? They wouldn't.

Perhaps the pros are frustrated because they have to change the way they play to beat them... Poor babies. Perhaps they're frustrated for getting donked out of tournies... Poor babies. Perhaps they resent the fact that many internet players are learning what took it took the pros years to master in only a matter of a few months... Poor babies. Perhaps their inflated egos won't allow they to admit that these internet players are becoming just as good or better than them.

A good professional knows to keep the live ones happy, so why would they make such comments?

---

I agree with this. Almost all of the insanely CRAZY moves I've seen in WSOP or WPT coverage have come from internet players. They are nutso. There's one guy (and he's really pretty good) plays his sets and his GUTSHOT straight draws the same way. ALL-IN on the flop. Are you f'n serious? He constantly pushes with his gutshots? Maybe they're gutshots with overcards, but still that's nuts. And yes, this guy makes serious money.

So a pro would be pissed to play a guy like this. Because it's against convention, difficult to play against, and considered stupid. But they win.

I know many live players complain about internet-players lacking social skills. Since many aren't that familiar with cardroom settings, they sometimes step over (invisible) lines.

Funny, I was watching ESPN 2005 WSOP a little last night ... and either Howard Lederer is a great actor for the cameras or he was seriously annoyed by nobodies playing back at him.

What internet poker teaches you is that a bluff is not a lie, it's just a play. There's no reason to be nervous about it. So I think that Pros don't expect big moves with crap from unknowns - EVEN THOUGH THEY KNOW THAT MUCH OF THE TIME they are being bluffed. Since they are typically agressive, making moves with not much - they often don't have the cards to call down.

The other thing to consider is this. Since the number of players has exploded (particularly in NL) - there is what biologists might call a "purifying selection". You have 100,000 random joes (and janes!) trying their hand at poker. Some of them are going to turn out to be naturally talented at it - even if 99.99% of them are donks - it's that last .01% who end up in the WSOP.

As a (flawed) analogy - major league baseball in 1955. Jackie Robinson breaks the color barrier in 1947. Now an additional 1/5th of the population is added to the talent pool. Poker is much worse. The talent pool is probably 100 or 1000 times larger than it was in 1995.

As an aside - playing your gutshots and sets the same way is probably +EV. However, I would like to get called down playing a set this way first...

I'm sure it's a combination of:
1. Some pro spent 15 years figuring out how to win at poker at a high level and some interNUT did the same in less than 2 years. (Then again that same pro wrote a book on how to do it)

2. Every pro has a bullseye on their head in WSOP. So, newbs are willing to chase a hand in hopes to take out a pro. Imagine how many bullets these guys have to dodge in order to make it to the final table.

I think the pro's that make it to the money often today are truly amazing. It shows that they are a cut above the other pros that "were good in the day".

[quote="zenbitz"]Funny, I was watching ESPN 2005 WSOP a little last night ... and either Howard Lederer is a great actor for the cameras or he was seriously annoyed by nobodies playing back at him.
quote]

I remember michael 1123 saying that he was constantly stealing poor Howard's BB from SB :) should check this but I am too lazy.. :|

Its been said that many of the pros have huge egos and for a guy who we all know by name to get played back at by an internet qualifier in the WSOP is a disrespect (in the pros eyes). "I'm Howard Lederer for Christ's sake. When I bluff you, you better fold, Internet bitch."

Internet players are assholes.

[quote="Pingviini"]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zenbitz

Funny, I was watching ESPN 2005 WSOP a little last night ... and either Howard Lederer is a great actor for the cameras or he was seriously annoyed by nobodies playing back at him.
quote]

I remember michael 1123 saying that he was constantly stealing poor Howard's BB from SB :) should check this but I am too lazy.. :|

---

I love the hand when he just completed the SB with AA knowing that Lederer wouldn't let him limp in on his BB. Of course Howard raises and Michael comes over the top. Michael may be a nobody to Lederer, but he wasn't firing at him indisriminantly. Howard may have perceived it as such, but in actuality it was a nice play by an aware opponent.

Can't speak for the pros but i know why i hate most internet players. There rude arrogant jerks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littleogre

Can't speak for the pros but i know why i hate most internet players. There rude arrogant jerks.

---

Exactly !

They're jealous

Internet players suck...they play/raise with the most outrageous crap ever. My two cents/rant.

I chat to my mates in the pub. Been doing it for years - I'm a happy, confident person, who always knows when to get a round in, tells great jokes and pulls the hottest chicks.

But I'm sick to the back teeth with these so-called "internet forums", where retards and stoners chat to each other like they have some kind of skill at social intercourse.

Wtf? Put any of these dudes in a live environment, surrounded by me and my buds, and we'd eat them for breakfats - except... they keep making these donk moves, like interrupting my sentences, refusing to buy drinks and talking about their collection of die-cast model soldiers, and I'm like flustered - how the hell do I know how to react to these idiots!? So I end up staring blackly at these pricks and leaving early, while they monopolise conversation with their Star Wars impressions and shit. Who the hell do they think they are???

lol!

Thank you :) The most worrying thing about my post above is that I'm British but my posting style has developed worrying mid-Atlantic tendencies (number of Ukers who use the word "buds" = zero). That's what I get for living with an American girl...

Interesting thoughts on this.

My own view is not that pros dislike internet players because they learn the game more quickly these days, but because generally speaking the only respect their own cards and moves by pros are lost on internet players. For example, a pro goes all-in on the river and an internet player calls and wins with top pair weak kicker. A pro would never make such a call unless he has read his opponent perfectly. It is possible that the internet player has read the pro as well, but less likely. What he has done is called when he shouldn't have and won the pot. You can argue all you like that he was right to call but you don't call a big bet with TPWK in such a situation UNLESS you have a pefect read.

Similar issues arise at a lesser level. At my local casino last week the action was folded round to the button, a good player, who made a button raise. The sb folded and I, in the bb, came right over the top with a big reraise when holding 96s. Sure enough the button folded his K9o, the right move of course -yet if he'd called he'd have been a huge favourite. I would not have put such a move on an internet player as he would certainly have called, incorrectly, but probably would have won the hand.

In short I think the real reason pros do not like internet players is because skilful play is sometimes lost on them which decreases the skill value in the game.

so the topic is really:

why do pros not like weak players?

and the answer is:

they don't know where the money comes from.


If a pro can't separate -people who can lay down- from -people who can't-, then this is just another whine from a "Pro" who can't figure out why he never makes any money. Instead of being "faceless fish who always sucks out" it's know "Internet player".

Your 'example' is ridiculous on... many levels. If you really think all (even the majority) of internet players are loose, you haven't stepped out of micro limits yet.

Ego

Many top pros feel they earned their spot on the top and that someone who sits at a computer playing poker for 10 hours is somehow not the same as someone sitting in a casino grinding for 10 hours a day.

Many internet pros simply feel they are the best or have created a system where they can't lose and that they are the "new wave" of poker players... same thinking as the dot coms when they were the "new economy"... both had good runs, but when all the smoke cleared, many with the shaky principles failed but many also stayed in after the bust

And some pros simply feel the internet guys are on a good run lasting a year or two while these pros have been on a good run for a while... both are watching to see which run ends first... and use that as proof to whatever their belief is

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drmcboy

so the topic is really:

why do pros not like weak players?

and the answer is:

they don't know where the money comes from.


If a pro can't separate -people who can lay down- from -people who can't-, then this is just another whine from a "Pro" who can't figure out why he never makes any money. Instead of being "faceless fish who always sucks out" it's know "Internet player".

Your 'example' is ridiculous on... many levels. If you really think all (even the majority) of internet players are loose, you haven't stepped out of micro limits yet.

---

1 - I made the point that I can separate a player who can lay down a hand from a player who can't - the play in the hand I outlined illustrates this perfectly (and I'm not a pro but an internet player, in case you are wondering). Never bluff a weak player - most of the others on the table would not have passed and so I picked my opponent carefully.

2. I usually play in the cash games at 1/2 or 2/5 and am a fairly consistent winner overall, although like all players I experience variance with fairly large swings. Overall, though, I have increased my starting bankrool 17fold in the last two months. I play on a British site which has a lot of European players especially Scandinavians and they are loose and crazy. I think they all take after Gus Hansen. I like to find a six player table with two such players on it - any more and I could be in trouble.

3. I recently saw internet players make a number of highly questionnable calls live (eg calling Chris "Jesus" Ferguson who was all-in and holding AA with K9o). I still think that the reason pros don't like it is that the finer points of the game might be lost on such players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bunthorne

\3. I recently saw internet players make a number of highly questionnable calls live (eg calling Chris "Jesus" Ferguson who was all-in and holding AA with K9o). I still think that the reason pros don't like it is that the finer points of the game might be lost on such players.

---

Wasn't that fool a bowler with some extra time after his tournament ended so he decided to stick around for the WSOP?

playing against a fish HU is different than playing a school of fishy piranahs! Imagine youre in early stages of WSOP OR WPT, youre the only GOOD/PRO player on the table and you become PIRANAH food. They will call your raise with k4 suited just because they want to bust you. Now imagine trying to get to the final table against thousands of FISH?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mpc2323

playing against a fish HU is different than playing a school of fishy piranahs! Imagine youre in early stages of WSOP OR WPT, youre the only GOOD/PRO player on the table and you become PIRANAH food. They will call your raise with k4 suited just because they want to bust you. Now imagine trying to get to the final table against thousands of FISH?

---

Thats why tournies have become a freaking luck fest. Sure the pros will be the ones to win the most money long term but you try wading through a field off thousands of donk bombs in any one tourney. Win and build up a nice stack then bam some prick calls off all there chips with king queen and takes 2 3rds of your chips. Another prime example off why pros hate internet players is this guy called Dream clown. Some rich arrogant punk who thinks he is the greatest heads up player of all time. He still thinks he is the greatest even though Dn has been fleecing him. I respect some internet players heck i play on the net.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littleogre

Thats why tournies have become a freaking luck fest. Sure the pros will be the ones to win the most money long term but you try wading through a field off thousands of donk bombs in any one tourney. Win and build up a nice stack then bam some prick calls off all there chips with king queen and takes 2 3rds of your chips. Another prime example off why pros hate internet players is this guy called Dream clown. Some rich arrogant punk who thinks he is the greatest heads up player of all time. He still thinks he is the greatest even though Dn has been fleecing him. I respect some internet players heck i play on the net.

---

Let's not forget that what we see has been sliced, diced, cut and pasted to make for good television. If tournies are a luck fest then why do Ivey, Juanda, Nguyen, the Brenes brothers and Negraneu consistently make final tables on the WPT? How many non televised tournaments do people pay attention to make the statement that tournies are simply luck fest? Go through the entire WSOP and see who the bracelet winners are and you'll be hard pressed to find some noname.

From watching television one might get the impression many pros are fishy when you watch them consistently play trash hands, especially early in a tournament and yet they command the table. I've seen Arieh and Flack and Leonides play some off beat hands.

I think the WSOP main event has become an anomoly. It's not the internet players that are turning it into a crap shoot as much as it is the fly by nighters looking for their instant celebrity in taking down a pro or showing up on ESPN. An internet player often parlays a cheap entry into a seat which often means first in multiple on-line tournaments and that isn't exactly easy to do. Additionally it's not as if there weren't professionals well represented at the final table, perhaps not the ones we are accustomed to but there was Matusow, Barch and Black along with a mix of an amature and internet qualifiers.

As for DreamClown: From everything I've heard about DC he is quite strong at what he does -LHE HU Online- afterall he is said to have won 350K from another top interenet pro in one session. Additionally he did best Daniel in two sessions as well, although Daniel is up over all.

Daniel's primary issue with him was etiquette and he took offence to DC's insistance he rebuy when he still had 8k left after the first session. For a top pro I could understand the frustration the pseudo-annonymity of the internet allows some of these players to act less than professionally, but then again, it's not like professionals haven't been know to hit and run the felt at a casino in Vegas or act arrogantly and disrespectfully to their opponents either.

It appears Daniel has made it a point to try to bust the kids bank roll. However, along the way Daniel seems to have lost a bit of his own character from what I've seen. His chat and blog entries seem to have dumbed down to the level of DC and that's a shame.

strawman i don't questiuon Dream clowns skill. It is his attitude that sucks. The guy is very rude and arrogant and talks a big game wether he is wining or not. He even runs around to diffrent forums telling everbody how great he is. Also i never meant to imply that the pros would not win over all. Just that in any one tourney with thousands of entries luck does become a huge factor and all the time you see players that had no bussiness even geting past day 1 making it deep or even making the finnal table. Due to plain old luck. When ever you have such a large field It is just a fact that some players will get lucky several times in a row.

Also imo matt is clearly the best of the 4 dcs. He also has a better attitude then sansone. For those that don't know dc is actually 4 guys. Of the 4 sansone is clearly the biggest jerk. He claims to be the greatest heads up player on the net but i don't even think he is the best in his own group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littleogre

strawman i don't questiuon Dream clowns skill. It is his attitude that sucks. The guy is very rude and arrogant and talks a big game wether he is wining or not. He even runs around to diffrent forums telling everbody how great he is. Also i never meant to imply that the pros would not win over all. Just that in any one tourney with thousands of entries luck does become a huge factor and all the time you see players that had no bussiness even geting past day 1 making it deep or even making the finnal table. Due to plain old luck. When ever you have such a large field It is just a fact that some players will get lucky several times in a row.

---

I don't believe we disagree on DC by any means. In watching the match and checking out the internet forums I really don't know if DC is a conglormerate of players or not, paticularly in the heads up with DN. However, DN's rhetoric has been less then professional and IMO has made him look like a dumb ass. When you take over 70k from someone do you really need to say anything at all?

In terms of tournaments with thousands I disagree that luck becomes a huge factor. The game of poker itself is a game of limited information, skill and chance and regardless of how many players enter the luck factor is consistent. The math has been well established so regardless of heads up or ten thousand entrants it's not going to change. We see a finite number of hands and perhaps we miss the mundane hands where the top pros suck out. IT's television after all and what makes better television, a top pro sucking out on an amature or an amature sucking out on a pro? There won't be one top pro who wouldn't admit that they were lucky on a couple of hands that propelled them to the final table but there will be plenty of amatures who think their skilled propelled them.

Again, with the exception of the main even there really aren't that many tournaments with over 1k players. The WPT has been going on for three years strong and I can't recall a tournament in which they had over 1k. But I do recall seeing many of the same pros over again at the final table.

But the thread is starting to digress since it's about pro vs. internet players. Coming from a chess playing background I can make an analogy. Consider how long it too from Fischer's record of being the youngest GM to it being broken. Then look at the correlation between the advent of the internet and how many times that record has been broken in the past ten years. The internet is accelerating the tranferance of knowledge and breaking down the shrouds of secrecy. The learning curve is accelerating and when you are dealing with youth who are focused and have access to a wealth of information you are going to see exceptionally formidable opponents arrising in mass numbers. Not only here, but across the globe.