analyse this!

[LuckyLloyd]

FWIW, I am a live tournament player. While I am a big winner live, I am often a losing proposition online. Some of that can be explained away by the fact that I rarely bring my "A" game to online play for a variety of reasons. But most of it is down to the fact that online poker is just far, far tougher than the live equivalent. As far as tournaments are concerned, I would contend that $109 freezeouts on Stars are tougher than your average GUKPT event. Yes, some extremely competent people are regulars on the UK and Irish live tournament circuit. But in terms of depth, everything I have played from the €23 FO in the Jackpot to the Irish Open is of a laughable standard when compared to online.

Your average online field is going to have a much greater depth of players with a solid understanding of the mathematical fundamentals that underpin the game. There will be value of course, as even in events like the WCOOP ME there will be recreational players one tabling for a bit of entertainment. There will be players who spew too much, or players who are too TAG for their own good. But there will be far fewer situations like the one being discussed in this thread - i.e. players consistently making terrible decisions with a firm conviction that they know what they are doing.

I can look back on any lengthy debate I have had on this board and identify within them the line of thought and type of decisions that make traveling to poker festivals worth my while. From a few comments in this thread I can only assume that Simon Galloway has been playing live tournaments for a couple of years or more and has a reputation as being a winner in them. Well, if I'm playing a $100+ buyin tournament online that doesn't have an extensive sat schedule into it I won't be able to find a long term winning reg at that level who will regularly call my raise from the CO with J10 to play multiway oop when the effective stacks are 40BBs deep.

In live tournaments I can know that such a hand is in their calling range (even when the effective stack is half that or less) and it is from such realities that I derive my edge. That Pocketlady describes such a call as "standard play" says it all really. Whether it be in cash or tournaments, it seems to me that winning consistently at mid to high stakes online depends on being able to manipulate certain shifts in gameflow or being able to exploit an opponents tendencies and methods of attacking you to their detriment. Whereas live, often all that is required is for you to play tight and mistake free, and profit from the deluge of basic errors your opponents are making. That doesn't cut it online.

Some of ye should take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

I am going to play a tournament on Friday that will likely have in it a few people who played in the first live casino tournament I played three years ago. Most of the time in live games I play, the regs are doing the same things and talking the same way at a poker table today as they were when I first encountered them months and years in the past. And long may it continue.

[the sicilian]

FWIW, I am a live tournament player. While I am a big winner live, I am often a losing proposition online. Some of that can be explained away by the fact that I rarely bring my "A" game to online play for a variety of reasons. But most of it is down to the fact that online poker is just far, far tougher than the live equivalent. As far as tournaments are concerned, I would contend that $109 freezeouts on Stars are tougher than your average GUKPT event. Yes, some extremely competent people are regulars on the UK and Irish live tournament circuit. But in terms of depth, everything I have played from the €23 FO in the Jackpot to the Irish Open is of a laughable standard when compared to online.

Your average online field is going to have a much greater depth of players with a solid understanding of the mathematical fundamentals that underpin the game. There will be value of course, as even in events like the WCOOP ME there will be recreational players one tabling for a bit of entertainment. There will be players who spew too much, or players who are too TAG for their own good. But there will be far fewer situations like the one being discussed in this thread - i.e. players consistently making terrible decisions with a firm conviction that they know what they are doing.

I can look back on any lengthy debate I have had on this board and identify within them the line of thought and type of decisions that make traveling to poker festivals worth my while. From a few comments in this thread I can only assume that Simon Galloway has been playing live tournaments for a couple of years or more and has a reputation as being a winner in them. Well, if I'm playing a $100+ buyin tournament online that doesn't have an extensive sat schedule into it I won't be able to find a long term winning reg at that level who will regularly call my raise from the CO with J10 to play multiway oop when the effective stacks are 40BBs deep.

In live tournaments I can know that such a hand is in their calling range (even when the effective stack is half that or less) and it is from such realities that I derive my edge. That Pocketlady describes such a call as "standard play" says it all really. Whether it be in cash or tournaments, it seems to me that winning consistently at mid to high stakes online depends on being able to manipulate certain shifts in gameflow or being able to exploit an opponents tendencies and methods of attacking you to their detriment. Whereas live, often all that is required is for you to play tight and mistake free, and profit from the deluge of basic errors your opponents are making. That doesn't cut it online.

Some of ye should take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

I am going to play a tournament on Friday that will likely have in it a few people who played in the first live casino tournament I played three years ago. Most of the time in live games I play, the regs are doing the same things and talking the same way at a poker table today as they were when I first encountered them months and years in the past. And long may it continue.

A well thought out and resonable answer  ..

U r right and i said much the same as i was referring to live players..usually old skool..they have always played bad and never improve which is great .. but my main point is i think some young online players overestimate themselves or underestimate their opponents due to them being mainly live players..

[tikay]

Well, if I'm playing a $100+ buyin tournament online that doesn't have an extensive sat schedule into it I won't be able to find a long term winning reg at that level who will regularly call my raise from the CO with J10 to play multiway oop when the effective stacks are 40BBs deep.

I don't think you'll find a long-tem winning player, Online or Live, who fits that bill.

To be fair, Simon Galloway said - numerous times - that this was a once in a blue moon call, for specific reasons, unlikely to be repeated in the foreseeable future - & explained why.

The thread belongs in best of blonde. (though perhaps not for the reasons some may think!).

[Longy]

FWIW, I am a live tournament player. While I am a big winner live, I am often a losing proposition online. Some of that can be explained away by the fact that I rarely bring my "A" game to online play for a variety of reasons. But most of it is down to the fact that online poker is just far, far tougher than the live equivalent. As far as tournaments are concerned, I would contend that $109 freezeouts on Stars are tougher than your average GUKPT event. Yes, some extremely competent people are regulars on the UK and Irish live tournament circuit. But in terms of depth, everything I have played from the €23 FO in the Jackpot to the Irish Open is of a laughable standard when compared to online.

Your average online field is going to have a much greater depth of players with a solid understanding of the mathematical fundamentals that underpin the game. There will be value of course, as even in events like the WCOOP ME there will be recreational players one tabling for a bit of entertainment. There will be players who spew too much, or players who are too TAG for their own good. But there will be far fewer situations like the one being discussed in this thread - i.e. players consistently making terrible decisions with a firm conviction that they know what they are doing.

I can look back on any lengthy debate I have had on this board and identify within them the line of thought and type of decisions that make traveling to poker festivals worth my while. From a few comments in this thread I can only assume that Simon Galloway has been playing live tournaments for a couple of years or more and has a reputation as being a winner in them. Well, if I'm playing a $100+ buyin tournament online that doesn't have an extensive sat schedule into it I won't be able to find a long term winning reg at that level who will regularly call my raise from the CO with J10 to play multiway oop when the effective stacks are 40BBs deep.

In live tournaments I can know that such a hand is in their calling range (even when the effective stack is half that or less) and it is from such realities that I derive my edge. That Pocketlady describes such a call as "standard play" says it all really. Whether it be in cash or tournaments, it seems to me that winning consistently at mid to high stakes online depends on being able to manipulate certain shifts in gameflow or being able to exploit an opponents tendencies and methods of attacking you to their detriment. Whereas live, often all that is required is for you to play tight and mistake free, and profit from the deluge of basic errors your opponents are making. That doesn't cut it online.

Some of ye should take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

I am going to play a tournament on Friday that will likely have in it a few people who played in the first live casino tournament I played three years ago. Most of the time in live games I play, the regs are doing the same things and talking the same way at a poker table today as they were when I first encountered them months and years in the past. And long may it continue.

Nice post Lloyd, I have seen that Dunning- Kruger effect page before and it is extremely relevant to poker imo.

[ShatnerPants]

Love this thread.

Something I've never quite worked out tho'

In the Internet player is better than live player debate :

Where are they playing ? 

If you had a player who was brilliant online, but had NEVER played live, and one with great results live who has never played online, surely it would matter where the HU4ROLZ took place.  Taking someone out of their comfort zone is bound to put them at a disadvantage.

It's like saying NLHE players are better than limit 7 card stud players.  At fishing.  Irrelevance to the extreme. 

If someone is a talented, winning player they have my respect, no matter where they earn their profit.  Until a few years ago Greenstein was considered not to be as good a player as, say Ivey, because Ivey played at the biggest game available.  Whereas Greenstein earned his money from very rich fish at a much lower standard of game.  But one loves a gamble, with huge varience, and is undoubtedly a brilliant player.  The other wins a lot of money.  Who's the better player again ?

And another small bugbear of mine.  Why the blinkin heck do we have to call this the Dunning Kruger effect.  Does that mean that none of us noticed before 1999 that the less people know, the more they think they know. It's something I noticed when I was still at school ffs.  The gobbier someone is, the less likely they are to be good.  It's the quiet, self deprecating guys and gals you have to be careful with.

BTW where does that leave Hellmuth ?

However, when I say I'm rubbish at poker, that's not because I'm so good I can afford to be humble, it's because I'm genuinely rubbish.

[Simon Galloway]

[
To be fair, Simon Galloway said - numerous times - that this was a once in a blue moon call, for specific reasons, unlikely to be repeated in the foreseeable future - & explained why.

Awwww, come on Tony, you are in danger of ruining this thread by reading a reply and absorbing the information within it to advance the discussion.

[AndrewT]

And another small bugbear of mine.  Why the blinkin heck do we have to call this the Dunning Kruger effect.  Does that mean that none of us noticed before 1999 that the less people know, the more they think they know. It's something I noticed when I was still at school ffs.  The gobbier someone is, the less likely they are to be good.  It's the quiet, self deprecating guys and gals you have to be careful with.

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

[MANTIS01]

Well, if I'm playing a $100+ buyin tournament online that doesn't have an extensive sat schedule into it I won't be able to find a long term winning reg at that level who will regularly call my raise from the CO with J10 to play multiway oop when the effective stacks are 40BBs deep.

I don't think you'll find a long-tem winning player, Online or Live, who fits that bill.

To be fair, Simon Galloway said - numerous times - that this was a once in a blue moon call, for specific reasons, unlikely to be repeated in the foreseeable future - & explained why.

The thread belongs in best of blonde. (though perhaps not for the reasons some may think!).

The sentence in bold is essentially the difference between live and on-line play. When you play live it is much easier to appreciate the depth of situations, because you are actually there of course. In this hand the situation is made up of a number of factors as always. The c/o raises heavy and is called by a weak player. With the stacks the way they are and a solid image to exploit is it a good time to get involved? Well if the flop does come something like 2-3-3 it means you can lead out for a smallish bet knowing that your 2 oppos are too shallow to float. The original raiser is squeezed and the weak player will fold if he doesn't have a pair. So that is the situation.

The fact that your hand is playable makes things more appealing because you could hit the flop quite hard. But that is the secondary consideration here imo. It is the reason why a lot of live players don't look at their cards before the action gets to them. You want to see how the situation develops first before you look at your hand and see how it's all going to fit together.

Internet players are having these skills dulled because they are just playing cards and statistics in the absence of people. To say the 10-J call is a bad call because it is 10-J and has x% to win against x range is typical of this mentality. On-line your cards are the very first thing you see, and you are already deciding how to play them before the situation has actually developed. Now when some of these guys multi-table they are just popping from table to table playing their hole cards and this detaches them from how their oppos are feeling and how they can be pressured.

Poker is about situations and stories but internet places all the emphasis on cards.

Posted by: LuckyLloyd

So basically Simon can call any two cards from this position because - despite being oop and dealing with relatively shallow stacks - he'll just KNOW when a bet is taking down the pot or when he needs to fold a flopped pair. Ok, got it.

Women are bad at poker after all right?

Sometimes Lloyd you post good. Sometimes you post utter nonsense and look ridiculous.

[Royal Flush]

Internet players are having these skills dulled because they are just playing cards and statistics in the absence of people. To say the 10-J call is a bad call because it is 10-J and has x% to win against x range is typical of this mentality. On-line your cards are the very first thing you see, and you are already deciding how to play them before the situation has actually developed. Now when some of these guys multi-table they are just popping from table to table playing their hole cards and this detaches them from how their oppos are feeling and how they can be pressured.

Poker is about situations and stories but internet places all the emphasis on cards.

This might explain why you lose online, i am making far more mental decisions online that i am live, i am playing the player shit loads more than i do live. For me playing live is far more about the cards than online is.

Maybe you just don't realise that?

[LuckyLloyd]

[
To be fair, Simon Galloway said - numerous times - that this was a once in a blue moon call, for specific reasons, unlikely to be repeated in the foreseeable future - & explained why.

Awwww, come on Tony, you are in danger of ruining this thread by reading a reply and absorbing the information within it to advance the discussion.

I'd say the exact same about these two posts tbh.

[MANTIS01]

Posted by: Royal Flush

This might explain why you lose online, i am making far more mental decisions online that i am live, i am playing the player shit loads more than i do live. For me playing live is far more about the cards than online is.

Maybe you just don't realise that?

Yes James. You have completely disproved my general theory about internet play by telling me what you do.

I think you should be a barrister.

[Royal Flush]

Posted by: Royal Flush

This might explain why you lose online, i am making far more mental decisions online that i am live, i am playing the player shit loads more than i do live. For me playing live is far more about the cards than online is.

Maybe you just don't realise that?

Yes James. You have completely disproved my general theory about internet play by telling me what you do.

I think you should be a barrister.

Eh?

I win in both realms, i have a higher ROI live than i do online i put that firmly down to the standard of my competition, not because i can't play online properly.

[tikay]

Simon[/url] Galloway link=topic=36807.msg813549#msg813549 date=1222245309]

[
To be fair, Simon Galloway said - numerous times - that this was a once in a blue moon call, for specific reasons, unlikely to be repeated in the foreseeable future - & explained why.

Awwww, come on Tony, you are in danger of ruining this thread by reading a reply and absorbing the information within it to advance the discussion.

I'd say the exact same about these two posts tbh.

You've completely lost me there Mr LL Sir - can you elaborate on what you mean by "exact same" - exact same as what?

[tikay]

...but for those that enjoy irony, the reference to the Dunning-Kruger effect gets the nomination for "Most Ironic Post on blonde, 2008". On every level.

Read it (D-K) & weep. And laugh.

Great stuff, & I hope this thread runs & runs.

[tikay]

This line, by LuckyLoyd, I like.

Whereas live, often all that is required is for you to play tight and mistake free, and profit from the deluge of basic errors your opponents are making.

Mix that with a little dancing, (those J-T "spots" are necessary once in a while) find the right buy-in level, & that'll pay the bills.