Why do live players suck online?

[dev]

I know a lot of decent poker players that get frustrated with online poker.

Last night before a regular local tournament and had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine. He's had a bit of success in online tournaments and he regularly beats low limit cash games at the casino. He loses in cash games online. These three statements, to him, mean that online cash games are somehow broken. On top of that, he watched an episode of a poker show where Doyle Brunsen is playing a cash game with some other pros and asks, "Does anyone here know ANYONE who wins online?" To which they all replied no.

He tells me about all the bad beats he endures, etc. I ask him about his bankroll and he waves his hands dismissively. (I guess you wouldn't need a bankroll if you never took beats) So he's "not saying it's rigged, but there's something wrong with it." I proceeded to make fun of him every chance I got and every time someone took a bad beat. My intention was to get him to stop rationalizing his losses as something external to him.

The worst part about it is that he played blackjack for a living years ago. Card counting and online poker are twins, separated at birth. You design a system to beat the game you're in. The rules change (or the players in the case of poker) and you adjust your system. You practice so much that you're almost subconscious about all but the most difficult decisions (if you practice counting, it goes from really hard to incredibly easy rather quickly, same for preflop hand selection, which flops are good for cbets, etc.). The most glaring similarity is variance. The best card counters have a 1.5% edge over the house. That means if they play 100 hands at $100, that's a total of $10,000 x .015 = $150 per 100 bets on average. In any given session, they'll be down or up thousands, but over the course of a month, playing 5-6 hours 5 days per week, it should average out to somewhere around $150/100 hands. (to put it in perspective, accepted bankroll for $100 average bet would be around $45,000)

He should be able to understand the variance. He should understand that a poker game, especially online, is a system. He refuses to accept it.

I know a lot of people who should be able to win online but refuse to. Why do live players suck online?

[LawDude]

Assuming your premise is true (there are surely plenty of players who are good at both), I would suspect it is because even though the basic concepts of poker are the same, there are important differences between live and online.

Obviously physical tells is one, although that is somewhat overrated as only occasionally does a big live hand really turn on a physical tell. (And of course, you have tells in online poker too, such as how quick a bet or raise is made.)

A big difference, though, is the ability to gain statistical information about other players. No live player can keep track of every hand. Instead, you get to know a player's tendencies based on what they are doing in the hands. And at 35 hands an hour or so, you don't have a very big sample size. So you fill in those gaps with instinct and mathematics. Maybe if you see a lot of a particular player in live games you get to the point where you know how he or she plays consistently.

Now, let's take that approach to online poker. First, since you have a much bigger sample of hands, plus (potentially) data mining and heads-up displays, the best information is going to be in the hands of people who know how to use statistical tools. You can, of course, still obtain useful information from watching what players do (and indeed you should-- a heads up display is not an excuse to ignore what how the players are actually playing their hands). But that information is going to be incomplete compared with what the computer software can provide to the player.

Further, all you see on the screen is a screen name. You can take notes about the player, though they probably won't be very detailed, but the sort of institutional memory of "I have played this guy many times and know his tendencies" is a lot easier to recall when you see a person's face rather than just an 8 character screen name.

So a live player moving online has to adjust to a world where software is more powerful than instinct and memory, where statistics can tell you more than merely observing the hands. You still need to know how to play poker, but it's a different world online.

One last observation. Online has much lower limits available than live poker. In my world of limit hold 'em, the same people who will be playing $.05/.10 on Stars will be playing $3/$6 live. $.50/$1 on Stars plays as tight-aggressive as $9/$18 or even $20/$40 at a local casino. So a live player who steps out of a casino and logs onto an online site and plays for the same stakes is probably playing better players than he or she faces at the casino.

That's because online players are better

300NL live was as soft as 10NL online

[Airles™]

That's because online players are better
300NL live was as soft as 10NL online

This + it's much easier for the fish to just press buttons. Live players probably get online and think they can bluff everyone out with fancy plays when the fish will really call with anything.

[kb coolman]

That's because online players are better

300NL live was as soft as 10NL online

This was definately the case at Ceasar's and Bally's last time I was in Vegas. Some players were just sooo bad it was unbelievable. And I've gotten a lot better since then.

[Palantine]

Also, I think the sheer volume of hands played online magnifies a player's leaks. If your game has big holes, you're going to lose a lot more playing 100 hands per hour than you would 20 hands per hour.

[Chopper]

Why do live players suck online?

because they are too passive....at the lower stakes.

[Sup3rM4N]

On top of that, he watched an episode of a poker show where Doyle Brunsen is playing a cash game with some other pros and asks, "Does anyone here know ANYONE who wins online?" To which they all replied no.

I guess they don't know or never met a guy named Phil Ivey?

http://www.pokertableratings.com/overview/phil+ivey

[kb coolman]

They've never met our very own nutsinho either.

[lilking26]

The honest truth is in a live game it's easier to read people and know there tells which is a good strategy in poker and there are a lot more conservative and read odds on the cards that could be available to them to either win the hand or bluff the other person out of the hand in a live game it's all about strategy. While players onlien u have to rely on the odds instead of the tells and most online players are retards & go all in every hand with no strategy just a hope and makes online poker unpleasant as well as most online players think they are pros cause they can go all in pretty sad and if there are any players on here that play liek that I suggest u get a poker book Doyle Brunson's I recommend and read up on the game stop thinking u are a poker god and learn to play the game right. Online I fair OK on winning my share of the money just with alot more difficulty cause I am having to play with amateurs and they go all in on anything and I am having to choose my pots well as to when I play live and here I am near Louisiana so I go out there I win a lot more and games are longer cause people actually play a lot tighter and I can read them. Well this is my thought on this topic take it for what it's worth or don't take it at all either way I don't care just learn the game before u ever try to play live in a casino know what u are doing or u will loose your shirt and wounder why. Also if any1 is wondering my play level I learned the game at 8yrs old thanks dad & started playing with family at 10 since then I have luved the game not just holdem but the original stud & draw as well as other variations like Pigow, mexican sweat etc........... so that means been playing 4 20years. Every1 gl at teh tables.

[texa8]

The honest truth is in a live game it's easier to read people and know there tells which is a good strategy in poker and there are a lot more conservative and read odds on the cards that could be available to them to either win the hand or bluff the other person out of the hand in a live game it's all about strategy. While players onlien u have to rely on the odds instead of the tells and most online players are retards & go all in every hand with no strategy just a hope and makes online poker unpleasant as well as most online players think they are pros cause they can go all in pretty sad and if there are any players on here that play liek that I suggest u get a poker book Doyle Brunson's I recommend and read up on the game stop thinking u are a poker god and learn to play the game right. Online I fair OK on winning my share of the money just with alot more difficulty cause I am having to play with amateurs and they go all in on anything and I am having to choose my pots well as to when I play live and here I am near Louisiana so I go out there I win a lot more and games are longer cause people actually play a lot tighter and I can read them. Well this is my thought on this topic take it for what it's worth or don't take it at all either way I don't care just learn the game before u ever try to play live in a casino know what u are doing or u will loose your shirt and wounder why. Also if any1 is wondering my play level I learned the game at 8yrs old thanks dad & started playing with family at 10 since then I have luved the game not just holdem but the original stud & draw as well as other variations like Pigow, mexican sweat etc........... so that means been playing 4 20years. Every1 gl at teh tables.

minimal grammar would make reading that a lot more enjoyable. sorry if thats petty.

I agree with the different levels in the stakes for sure. i play NL10 and sometimes NL25 online and play ok, last 6,600 hands (since i got HUD) are at 25BB/100 for about $150 profit... last time at the casino i was there from 11pm till 8am, bought in with 80 left with 500 on $1/$2.. (AUD.. so maybe US$50 and US$300)..

I think online is harder, and really forces you to learn the game in a more mathematical, theoretical way than live where u can base a move entirely on the way someone just moved on their chair (for example)..

my approach is play online for lower rake, build a solid game based on things like bet sizing, board texture, stack sizes, drawing, odds, position etc... then play occasionly at the casino on something like $1/$2 or $2/$3 and add to that live reads and you should see good results over time.

[dev]

This hasn't really started the conversation I was hoping for....

If you were trying to help someone understand the systemic flaws in their game as it relates to playing cash games online, and they refuse to accept that they might actually be playing a losing game, how would you approach it?

Poker makes people insane, how do we bring the sanity back? And how do you present the concept that what wins in a fishy 1/2 game in a casino might not even break even at 50nl online?

[amagic]

Real poker and online poker are big differenc!
You see Tom Durrr he plays online great, but i think he never will win WSOP or WPT.

[dranger7070]

I cant think of a good answer to how to bring the sanity back into poker.

As to how to make them realize that 1/2 live < 50nl online is easy imo. Just present the person with the info that there is only a small pool of people around a casino to play and 1/2 is usually the lowest stakes offered. Online however, there are stakes ranging from 2nl-1knl+, and there is a MUCH larger pool of players to be found.

So, on average your live 1/2 games are going to loaded with the fish that would normally play the micro/low stakes online.

[lilking26]

Just seems that most online players feel that live play is the same as online which is a grave misunderstanding there are live players that don't interact with online players do to the inexperience of live playing live playing is more instinct than the cards u play the person not the cards but when u catch the cards it makes it that much better. You have to understand that 1 of the basic rules in poker is raising 3 times the BB when starting the bet I do 5 times the BB. Online u still see players calling with anything so a real strategy online is pretty much worthless it always a dangerous combo to have poker and a rookie player that will call anything like most amateurs they call no matter what so hard to defend against that even the poker pro's will tell u the same like now I am playing on fulltilt & am doing well in my stack but I have learned that u have to just call a hand with e1 going all in not that I want to but when anyone tries to play real poker online and I murder them it's about the presence of a hand not the hand itself. Just now I had ace king suited the guy that I took half his stack with him going all in just went all in again with ace queen off suit I really had no choice no 1 wants to see a flop they want all in luck the flop favored him with ace queen not saying I wouldn't have called bets by him if he played real poker not lotto but that is why live players hate online players they have spoiled the game of poker than cry when they loose live as when they won online so as for strategy there really is none but the one you create yourself by learning & seeing what makes u comfortable. As for stakes it's teh same on all stakes of poker no difference.

[Jason]

I think the easiest answer is that most people are resistant to change. Doyle Brunson has spent 40 plus years playing poker live in a poker room and most of his constituents have as well. It sounds as though your friend's experiences have exclusively been live. Even now, online poker is still relatively new and evolving. To be successful @ online play, you have to embrace it and embrace the advantages it has over live play - multi-tabling, HUDS, table selection, access to calculators, logging hands faster to learn faster to get better faster, and the like.

The Internet poker player is a new breed and they are starting to make their presence known and they will surpass in success what their live predecessor have already accomplished. When I first started playing online, there seemed to be a big delineation between online and live. I felt like I never knew where online players stood. I felt like I couldn't bluff live players like I could on the Internet. However, I have worked hard to close the gap between the differences and while one can never close it completely, I feel like my online play versus my live play is much more similar than that of the average player. I strive everyday to get my game to the point where I can play equally well at a high level on both mediums.

Another interesting point is that I often hear professional live players talk about Internet players lack of reading skills. From my experiences, my ability to read players in a live setting has gone up as a benefit of Internet play. The reason for that I think is that I am always looking for online tells through betting patterns, clicks, and general psychology. I do that constantly over thousands of hands covering hours upon days. So when I sit down live at one table versus the 2 or 3 I play online, my focus goes up tremendously and I pick up on so many details that I wasn't privy to online. It's like I've been in a cave and now I can see. In fact, it often feels like information overload.

But the short answer is that I think it's much easier to go from online to live than live to online. Once you've mastered or you're at least in a comfort zone online, you have less to adapt to live.

As far as convincing your friend that the two play the same, if he has his mind made up there's a difference, there's not much you can do. With live cards, you can see the cards, so you know everything is fair so far as you can see. When you turn on the computer, it's electronics and complex algorithms and networks that operate like "magic" to the average Joe. And again, if you're coming from a live background, you likely WILL play worse online for all the reasons I've stated, so it's not as much false perception at that point as it might be harsh reality.

[kettleofish]

This hasn't really started the conversation I was hoping for....

If you were trying to help someone understand the systemic flaws in their game as it relates to playing cash games online, and they refuse to accept that they might actually be playing a losing game, how would you approach it?

Poker makes people insane, how do we bring the sanity back? And how do you present the concept that what wins in a fishy 1/2 game in a casino might not even break even at 50nl online?

I would imagine being as blunt as possible probably won't work if the person in question is a long-time gambler. Maybe throw in a few humorous sporting analogies, best sunday league team would get thrashed by an even halfway competent pro team, that sort of thing? It would be hard to phrase that without it appearing that you're belittling the live players tho, so it might be counterproductive.

[2ndline.4thstreet]

That's because online players are better

Not true AT ALL. Online is just a completely different animal. I think that its just as hard for someone who only plays online to start playing live, as it is for a live player to jump online.

Seems to me (I have been a live player for 5 years and online for the past 2-3) that online you have to rely on a system, but live sometimes gut instinct and reads have more play.

[lilking26]

2ndline.4thstreet I like what u said which is true online is totally different than live and the 2 are separate in every way u can try to bring the live to online & vise versa but the 2 never mix what the online deals with algorithms & such live is more instinct and playing the player not the cards. Live there is no way of making calculations and relying on calculators and odd statistics it more of a feel & instinct not that I hate either 1 but I prefer live play a better class of player online is a range of learners and computer calculations totally diff beast either way but when u perfect them both or as much as any player can it improves your chances with the steady stream of online players now playing live it's a must in poker strategy.

[lilking26]

As to L_Clan_Sup3rMaN comment Ivey started playing live & here is a good comment by him & should be a lesson to anybody that plays poker live or online.( I believe the main reason for Phil's success is what he muttered under his breath at a table a few years later as someone told him how great a player he was. He said: "I don't think I'm that good." In a world running over with ego players who think they play ten times better than they do, Phil Ivey is one who thinks he can always improve.)

[2ndline.4thstreet]

I would say that there are a lot of calculations in live poker as well, but, I agree, not in the same way as online poker.

[lilking26]

Oh ya there are calculations in live poker the odds how many cards could be left out there 2 beat u how many players are involved in the hand & the experience of the other players a virtually unknown factors in to how to play as well also a lot is instinct & tells so both are different and should be treated as such then be merged together while playing both it's a greater advantage since there are more online players going live for a chance at the big money.

[LawDude]

Another interesting point is that I often hear professional live players talk about Internet players lack of reading skills. From my experiences, my ability to read players in a live setting has gone up as a benefit of Internet play. The reason for that I think is that I am always looking for online tells through betting patterns, clicks, and general psychology. I do that constantly over thousands of hands covering hours upon days. So when I sit down live at one table versus the 2 or 3 I play online, my focus goes up tremendously and I pick up on so many details that I wasn't privy to online.

I would put this point a bit differently. As I mention above, in fact, physical tells are a somewhat overplayed (especially on television and in the movies!) aspect of live poker. Yes, they happen (last Sunday I made a big and correct fold on the basis of the physical tell that a beginning player excitedly started to count out his reraise as soon as I went down to ostensibly prepare a bet; the guy showed his full house after I folded). But in fact, most of the important information in a live game is similar to the information that you guys collect online-- betting patterns and tendencies, quickness to act, willingness to fold / propensity to continue on when the player is beat, etc. I win or correctly fold several hands a session on that information, and I only occasionally make a positive EV decision based on a physical tell.

And even though you don't have the statistical tools, the same math you guys obsess over in the online game is deadly useful in a live game. Indeed, it may be even more useful, because such a small number of live players think mathematically. Yes, they know that they are a coinflip with Ace-King against a pocket pair other than kings or aces, but math on an issue like the thread about the overpair of pocket Queens against the board with the flush draw and the villain heavily betting is one that would stump your average live player. If you are able to do the calculations (or even approximate calculations) and know that you are likely behind in that hand and are likely to stay behind on the river, you are at a huge advantage on a live table.

[dev]

That's because online players are better

Not true AT ALL. Online is just a completely different animal. I think that its just as hard for someone who only plays online to start playing live, as it is for a live player to jump online.

^^^ This ^^^

I play seriously both live and online. Since I started having success live, then moved online a year or so later, you'd think I could explain how i transitioned, but for whatever reason I'm at a loss here.

The sports analogy seems like a good idea, but since it isn't really true that live poker is the sunday league and online is the pros (not even close in fact) I don't think it will work. Maybe we can adjust it a bit...

Online poker is rugby and live is football (americano, bitches.)

A pro rugby team can't play football with the colts, and the colts can't play rugby with a pro rugby team. It would be interesting to see manning get pounded on some, tho.

[Micro2Macro]

With online the speed and the 'texture' (live game is alive and you can see the action, online is just a picture/avatars and cheap sound clips) being so different than live, it bores people easily because its so basic. And when you're bored you'll start doing alot of things that make you play worse: play too many hands, tables, tilt, not pay attention/browse internet. Alot of live players who switch to online get bored because of the speed believe it or not. Because its so basic and so fast, it gives us the desire for it all to go faster. More hands per hour, more tables, more poker action. The concepts of poker don't change from live to online, and TBH searching for tells alone in a live game won't make you own it - you still need to have a good understanding of poker.

People are just as bad live as online, but given the different environments people tend to actually develop different habits and play slightly different. For example, it's way easier to call a big bet online because you don't physically reach for your stack and push it into the middle. So if you call down too lighly in an online game, you may not do it as extreme in a live game. Small little factors like these can actually make a successful live player fly off the boat online, this is why I believe alot of players who claim themselves as winners in the B&M environment can't play online poker because they don't adjust properly to the small seemingly insignificant but important differences.

2nd line makes a great point. Whichever environment we start in, we will grow accustomed to, and that's what will be our game. Whenever we switch to the other, we will struggle if we fail to recognize the differences and ingore necessary adjustments. Learning why online and live poker differ will help one be successful at both.

That's because online players are better

Not true AT ALL. Online is just a completely different animal. I think that its just as hard for someone who only plays online to start playing live, as it is for a live player to jump online.

Seems to me (I have been a live player for 5 years and online for the past 2-3) that online you have to rely on a system, but live sometimes gut instinct and reads have more play.

Have you played both online and live? If so, have you compared 3/6 or NL200? Online games are more aggressive, have a lot of regs and even some winning players.

[luckbox1669]

Online poker is impersonal and live poker players can not bluff with a high degree of success online

[Fnord]

I play mostly 200NL 6 max, 400NL 6max online
Most of my live action is at $5/$10 NL and $5/$5 (both $1k max, about 20%ish of pots are straddled), occasionaly dropping down a level when the game is bad or waitlisted.
I soundly crush the games I play in.

It's far easier to go online -> live than live -> online for comperable stakes.

Online players have more technically solid games and just need to learn to cope with bordem and tell warfare. Neither is as nearly as hard as learning how to read and represent hands.

Live players tend to play way too loose, call too much and under-bet the pot. Strong live players pick up bad habbits while getting heavily rewarded for attacking weaker players in more pots than their tighter counterparts. In a tighter, more aggressive online game their basic style is a slow drain of chips they can only over-come at the softest tables.

Even in the $1k live games with a tighish, lineup plays like blind stealing and isolating weak players must be done with more care because there is no shortage of bored players willing to play a neutral to slightly -EV spot for a moment's entertainment. Also, as you move up the live ladder c-bets will similarly get attacked. It can be tricky to find the right bluff vs value balance.

[dev]

Mid-post bump (don't try this at home.)

This hasn't really started the conversation I was hoping for....

If you were trying to help someone understand the systemic flaws in their game as it relates to playing cash games online, and they refuse to accept that they might actually be playing a losing game, how would you approach it?

Poker makes people insane, how do we bring the sanity back? And how do you present the concept that what wins in a fishy 1/2 game in a casino might not even break even at 50nl online?

[LawDude]

Mid-post bump (don't try this at home.)

This hasn't really started the conversation I was hoping for....

If you were trying to help someone understand the systemic flaws in their game as it relates to playing cash games online, and they refuse to accept that they might actually be playing a losing game, how would you approach it?

Poker makes people insane, how do we bring the sanity back? And how do you present the concept that what wins in a fishy 1/2 game in a casino might not even break even at 50nl online?

My first game (and first love) was horse racing. My parents started taking me to the track when I was an infant; I picked my first winner when I was 5 years old. I used to sit and read the Racing Form in class in high school.

I learned, after plenty of variance, to keep records of what I was doing at the track. I never really became a consistently winning horseplayer, but I can't imagine anyone becoming one without serious record keeping. Every bet, result, odds, distance, surface, class of race, type of bet. And you don't just run a statistical analysis when you have a big sample, but you also do qualitative analysis-- why was I right or wrong about this, how can I make more money / lose less money next time?

Online, record keeping is the province of poker tracking software as well as the notes function on the software. Live, you need to keep the records yourself. I have a notebook (the same type I used to use for my horse racing record keeping). Every day when I come home from a trip to the casino, I write down everything I remember about every interesting or notable hand or player. I also record my winnings or losses for the day.

The answer to your question is the way to convince someone that they have leaks in their game is for the person to keep records so the leaks become apparent.