Live versus online poker

[Ghandii]

I've been playing for a while now but untill I have a couple of big wins or a healthy bankroll built up I'll have to still class myself as a beginner.

Still playing break even poker. Had a lousy run on Stars recently but a good one on PokerWize to balance it out. I could keep hammering away at the ring tables on PW but tournaments are what I enjoy most so I prefer to play the stars SnG's.

Anywho... I play a live tournament every saturday with an average of 50 players. I would say about 5percent are excellent players, 85 are good to average and about 10 percent are a bit fishy. I have made the final table in all but one tourny. 10 played so far. Mostly I drop out in the low to mid money places. I have yet to win

I imagine these are good stats. Why then, I wonder, am I more inconsistant at the 5.50 SnG's at Stars? I suppose as its a 1 table tourney its to be treated as a final table. Or perhaps because of the timer I make a lot more poor decisions?

Im trying to figure this out. Just ran OOTM in two SnG's whre I thought I played a lot better than I used to when I had s high ITM ratio. Waiting on HH to come in to post them.

Any thoughts on this?
How does your own experience vary from live to online?

Cheers all

[drmcboy]

unless you play in the sharkiest low BI live event ever, the %s are more like:

10% don't stink
70% stink
20% can't read board

which is why you're having so much success.

Being OOTM in two SNGs is nothing to be worried about. You'll have much longer streaks if you play a lot of them. Post a few hands that you have questions on either here or over in the SNG forum.

[taipan168]

I've played a couple of $55 1-table SNGs at Crown Casino in Melbourne. The standard of play was HORRIBLE - I agree with drmcboy's percentages, and without any bragging whatsoever I'm happy to say that I was the 10% in each case (it was a 10-handed table). It was almost like a play money SNG, play was so bad.

[Fortune 500]

LOL @drmcboys percentages.

They're pretty much dead on. I play on occasion in a $30 MTT live, and I'd equate the play roughly to a SLIGHTLY tighter version of a freeroll.

[biondino]

If you take those percentages relatively - i.e. compared to how good the OP believes he personally is - then his stats make sense, albeit being pretty useless (that's a hell of a bell curve he's positing!).

[donkbee]

I love live tournaments! They're so bad. Like they'll fold their big blinds even when they're so short that a third of their stack is in the middle as the blind ...

Being a pushbot in a live tourney is awesome when people at your table don't understand tournament poker. Restealing is amazing too. Sucks when you get the occassional good player who will call you with a wide range because they know what you're doing, but for the most part it's pretty awesome.

[Ghandii]

The Live tourney is a $30 re-buy, so I wouldnt have thought that the stakes were that low. Incorrect it seems? Maybe Ive been giving them too much credit. Many of these guys play the $15k guaranteed monthly's ran by the same crowd.

Even if my evaluation of the players abilities is off, which of course it may well be, they are still a lot better imo than most of the players encountered on the 5.50 tables at stars, judging on hands shown down alone... never mind betting patterns.

drmcboy- Thanks man, but I definately wouldnt worry about being ootm in 2 tourneys. I havent got my stat book with me but its prob more like ootm 14/20, which sucks bad (of course playing heads up matches after a night out on the beer didnt help my case )

[drmcboy]

ootm 14/20

I mean, this isn't bad at all. ITM 10/20 would be a hot streak. You can't win them all.