Moving To Vegas To Play Poker

[Snamuh 0]

Without getting too deep into this discussion, I must add that you typically need to show a consistent profit over 500-1000 hours to know if you can definitely beat a live game. This goes for both snamuh (given his claim that he can beat live poker based on a handful of winning hours) and the OP.

As someone who has a substantial amount of poker experience and a thorough understanding of how the game works, I definitely don't need a 500-1000 hour sample to know if I can beat a live game. Just being able to recognize a ridiculous amount of mistakes that even the better live players make and the ability to hand read well proves this.

[TraptSteve 0]

As someone who has a substantial amount of poker experience and a thorough understanding of how the game works, I definitely don't need a 500-1000 hour sample to know if I can beat a live game. Just being able to recognize a ridiculous amount of mistakes that even the better live players make and the ability to hand read well proves this.

When you play online is it at deep stacked tables or just 100bb max? Look, just because you have a lot of experience beating .25-.50 online doesn't mean you have a 'thorough' understanding of NLHE.

Without getting too deep into this discussion, I must add that you typically need to show a consistent profit over 500-1000 hours to know if you can definitely beat a live game. This goes for both snamuh (given his claim that he can beat live poker based on a handful of winning hours) and the OP.

I avg about 12 hrs a week, 30-35 weeks a year since 2004.members from this forum in the southwest Chicago burbs probably heard of Devin's hall of fame, which is where I played until I turned 21. The game is 1-2 NLHE (100 min - 500 max buy in ) twice a week, and on occasion he'd spread a 2-5 game (200 min - 1000max). I won a LOTZ.

[king1305 0]

LOL at saying Snamuh only has experience beating 50nl. You sir, are truly retarded and know not of which -- or whom -- you speak

[Snamuh 0]

When you play online is it at deep stacked tables or just 100bb max? Look, just because you have a lot of experience beating .25-.50 online doesn't mean you have a 'thorough' understanding of NLHE. I avg about 12 hrs a week, 30-35 weeks a year since 2004.members from this forum in the southwest Chicago burbs probably heard of Devin's hall of fame, which is where I played until I turned 21. The game is 1-2 NLHE (100 min - 500 max buy in ) twice a week, and on occasion he'd spread a 2-5 game (200 min - 1000max). I won a LOTZ.

I beat up to 5/10 NL online, with 2/4 NL being my regular game. Technically I've played 10/20 and am a winner there but only 100 hands! If you can beat 2/4 NL online over a substantial saying, I'd say you have a pretty thorough understanding of how the game works.My site doesn't offer deep stacked tables but I play deep stacked everyday, and I would have no problem playing deep stacked with live donks.

[TraptSteve 0]

Rather than posting anything constructive in this topic, you decide to post now to defend your fellow pal?This topic / thread has run its course; all the information I requested has been provided. Of course I had to filter through endless amounts of sarcasm and/or bullshit to get it.I've noticed you in this topic numerous times and this all you can provide? K, I didn't check his blog to check what level he played at. Sorry.Now go **** yourself for being a prick.

[TraptSteve 0]

I beat up to 5/10 NL online, with 2/4 NL being my regular game. Technically I've played 10/20 and am a winner there but only 100 hands! If you can beat 2/4 NL online over a substantial saying, I'd say you have a pretty thorough understanding of how the game works.My site doesn't offer deep stacked tables but I play deep stacked everyday, and I would have no problem playing deep stacked with live donks.

Atleast you provide insight to your responses, which was all I ever asking for in this thread. Checking your blog would have prevented me from putting my figurative foot in my mouth. Meh, it has been a long day.Live games generally play deeper than online. While they( according to the consensus at most online poker forums) are easier, it is something most internet players must adjust to. Not to mention the pace of the game. -steve.ps lets all agree to /topic

[MovingIn 0]

As someone who has a substantial amount of poker experience and a thorough understanding of how the game works, I definitely don't need a 500-1000 hour sample to know if I can beat a live game. Just being able to recognize a ridiculous amount of mistakes that even the better live players make and the ability to hand read well proves this.

Live poker requires a lot more patience and discipline than 4 tabling online, since you're facing far less action per hour, a room typically has more distractions, and it's easier for your focus to waver. Plus it's a matter of how you deal with other variables, such as live tells, angle shooting and higher rakes.It's not just a matter of whether you believe you have the skill and knowledge to make better decisions than the rest of a live table. I'm sure most players here have that knowledge and ability. But WILL you? You can't tell if you definitively have the patience to stay on your game when 1-tabling at 30 hands an hour with a $3-4 rake and $1-2 jackpot based on the mistakes you witnessed a few players making over one or two good 4 hour sessions, or if your can adapt your game to sustainably profit in this environment over the long run. You can certainly believe you can, but the legitimacy of your belief is directly proportional to the volume of your experience in that environment. There are a lot of minor league baseball players who think they can crush major league pitching. How many actually do?

[BaseJester 1]

Look, just because you have a lot of experience beating .25-.50 online doesn't mean you have a 'thorough' understanding of NLHE.

Challenging Snamuh because of the stakes he plays is like telling Palin she wouldn't be good at foreign policy because her state is too far from Russia.

[blackmont 0]

jesus, i tried sending you a very long winded PM which i think would have served as some great advice, but i dont think it went through.i tried like 3 times but its not showing up in my sent box.

[Snamuh 0]

Live poker requires a lot more patience and discipline than 4 tabling online, since you're facing far less action per hour, a room typically has more distractions, and it's easier for your focus to waver. Plus it's a matter of how you deal with other variables, such as live tells, angle shooting and higher rakes.It's not just a matter of whether you believe you have the skill and knowledge to make better decisions than the rest of a live table. I'm sure most players here have that knowledge and ability. But WILL you? You can't tell if you definitively have the patience to stay on your game when 1-tabling at 30 hands an hour with a $3-4 rake and $1-2 jackpot based on the mistakes you witnessed a few players making over one or two good 4 hour sessions, or if your can adapt your game to sustainably profit in this environment over the long run. You can certainly believe you can, but the legitimacy of your belief is directly proportional to the volume of your experience in that environment. There are a lot of minor league baseball players who think they can crush major league pitching. How many actually do?

The baseball analogy is terrible. I'm really not sure why you included it. And how true is that statement to begin with? It's pretty clear that major league players would be more skilled than minor leaguers (for the most part), and I think it's pretty clear that online 2/4 players would be more skilled than live 1/2 and 2/5 players.I played about 12 sessions in Vegas, probably an average of 4 hours a session. I probably needed less than 12 hours to adjust.Edit: I also think the bolded statement is horribly untrue. I know my level of patience. It's one of my strengths. And I think any competent online midstakes winner could easily adapt their game to beat live 1/2 and 2/5.

[BaseJester 1]

i tried like 3 times but its not showing up in my sent box.

Did you check "Add a copy of this message to my sent items folder" at the bottom?

[blackmont 0]

The baseball analogy is terrible. I'm really not sure why you included it. And how true is that statement to begin with? It's pretty clear that major league players would be more skilled than minor leaguers (for the most part), and I think it's pretty clear that online 2/4 players would be more skilled than live 1/2 and 2/5 players.I played about 12 sessions in Vegas, probably an average of 4 hours a session. I probably needed less than 12 hours to adjust.Edit: I also think the bolded statement is horribly untrue. I know my level of patience. It's one of my strengths. And I think any competent online midstakes winner could easily adapt their game to beat live 1/2 and 2/5.

Here is where your problem lies. You dont give us an understanding as to what players you`re talking about. do you mean just the average. I`m a strong believer that the level of skill at 1-2 online is far superior than the average skill of players at 1-2 live. but thats because of the following......Because common sense should tell you that the majority of people playing 1-2 NL live arent poker players at all, infact some of them have never played holdem to begin with.The reason they are there is for fun, entertainment, and most importantly... because its the cheapest game to play.I have played online since 2004, and in 2004. depositing and playing was 3 mouse clicks away. And the games were fuuuuulll of horrible players. Infact, my weekly home game was miles ahead in skill level than what i found online.i went from .10-.20 to 3-6 in a couple months. And let me tell you, the skill level at 3-6nl online was no better than that of 1-2NL live.It would be interesting to see what would happen if live poker started offering lower stakes at every casino, and made it more difficult to get in the action.instead of just showing up and putting your name on the list, you had to use a passport and wait 5 business days after signing up before you could play.I`ll guarantee that the games would become much more difficult to beat. Because the only people willing to go through that to play poker are true enthusiasts.So in conclusion here, if you want to say that live 1-2NLplayers are the worst of the worst, you need to specifically refer to people who have never played online, and only played live (because if they have played online, well they add as a bad player to the online community which in turn brings the average of skill down), also you need to exclude players who have a large enough sample size to prove them as winning players live. Regardless of their skill vs a random person, they are proven winning so in theory, they have to be skilled.And since that would be the case, you`re basically left with complete beginners.So ya, i agree. complete beginners are easy to adapt to and beat compared to a online ring game.

[Snamuh 0]

Here is where your problem lies. You dont give us an understanding as to what players you`re talking about. do you mean just the average. I`m a strong believer that the level of skill at 1-2 online is far superior than the average skill of players at 1-2 live. but thats because of the following......Because common sense should tell you that the majority of people playing 1-2 NL live arent poker players at all, infact some of them have never played holdem to begin with.The reason they are there is for fun, entertainment, and most importantly... because its the cheapest game to play.I have played online since 2004, and in 2004. depositing and playing was 3 mouse clicks away. And the games were fuuuuulll of horrible players. Infact, my weekly home game was miles ahead in skill level than what i found online.i went from .10-.20 to 3-6 in a couple months. And let me tell you, the skill level at 3-6nl online was no better than that of 1-2NL live.It would be interesting to see what would happen if live poker started offering lower stakes at every casino, and made it more difficult to get in the action.instead of just showing up and putting your name on the list, you had to use a passport and wait 5 business days after signing up before you could play.I`ll guarantee that the games would become much more difficult to beat. Because the only people willing to go through that to play poker are true enthusiasts.So in conclusion here, if you want to say that live 1-2NLplayers are the worst of the worst, you need to specifically refer to people who have never played online, and only played live (because if they have played online, well they add as a bad player to the online community which in turn brings the average of skill down), also you need to exclude players who have a large enough sample size to prove them as winning players live. Regardless of their skill vs a random person, they are proven winning so in theory, they have to be skilled.And since that would be the case, you`re basically left with complete beginners.So ya, i agree. complete beginners are easy to adapt to and beat compared to a online ring game.

I don't see how any of what you said is anyhow relevant to the discussion here. And it's more than just complete beginners. The 1/2 and 2/5 "grinders/pros" are easy to adapt to as well.

[Merby 3]

k srsly a mod needs to kill this thread off

Why close a thread that is full of so much joy?You're like the next big thing to hit Vegas...

[antistuff 0]

Without getting too deep into this discussion, I must add that you typically need to show a consistent profit over 500-1000 hours to know if you can definitely beat a live game. This goes for both snamuh (given his claim that he can beat live poker based on a handful of winning hours) and the OP.

a good poker player should need about 3 orbits to be able to tell if he can beat a game or not.

[blackmont 0]

I don't see how any of what you said is anyhow relevant to the discussion

LOL, you're either the most ignorant person in this thread, or have taken someone else's beliefs and are using them as your own. Because YOU have not added any insight as to why you or any online player can simply adapt to 1/2 and 2/5 "pro's." I mean, i really dont think anyone has even mentioned 1/2 or 2/5 pro's. People who log lots of hours and lots of hands playing live low limits arent pro's. You're getting defensive over issues that have no relevance in this discussion.What I would really love for you to explain is how you can group and judge something so widely spread in various forms around the world as one whole with a 2 week sample size within a 2 mile radius.Tell you what. Daniel Negreanu is far better than Durrr. All live players who go from live to online can adapt quickly and are superior online. Its just a shame that not many do it. because its so boring playing on a computer imo.see what i did there? I did what you're doing. making claims.

[blackmont 0]

a good poker player should need about 3 orbits to be able to tell if he can beat a game or not.

beating a game is light years away from claiming online players can adapt to "live nl holdem as a whole". which is what the poster in here is claiminga monkey could beat a particular game.. But doesnt mean said monkey is going to crush all live games regardless of limit

[antistuff 0]

beating a game is light years away from claiming online players can adapt to "live nl holdem as a whole". which is what the poster in here is claiminga monkey could beat a particular game.. But doesnt mean said monkey is going to crush all live games regardless of limit

i agree with snamuh. i would wager money that i could beat 1/2 nl live over a meaningful sample. i dont even play nlhe. adapt'in is what good poker players do. i also don't think you responded to my post. i'm saying that if snamuh is good at poker his judgments on his ability to adapt based on his limited sample size are valid.

[whatgreatis 0]

lol @ anyone who says Snamuh can't adjust/beat/destory/whatever live games up to 10/20nl (at least )

[TraptSteve 0]

Why close a thread that is full of so much joy?You're like the next big thing to hit Vegas...

Close it because of sarcastic bullshit like that. If you read any of it, I've decided not to go yet. You looked at as another donk moving to Vegas , lets bash him a little bit.**** off please.

[blackmont 0]

i agree with snamuh. i would wager money that i could beat 1/2 nl live over a meaningful sample. i dont even play nlhe. adapt'in is what good poker players do. i also don't think you responded to my post. i'm saying that if snamuh is good at poker his judgments on his ability to adapt based on his limited sample size are valid.

I'm not sure who said he couldnt beat a game?? maybe the OP said that? i dont know. I personally think he could beat a standard 1/2NL game.what i disagree with, is the claim that live games contain donkeys and donkeys alone. It was even stated that a 1/2 or 2/5 grinder who plays live is no match for a online grinder of similar limits.Thats an unfair judgement based on the fact of a small sample session in a remote area. Its like me visiting cake poker, playing absolute donkeys and assuming all online poker players are god awful

lol @ anyone who says Snamuh can't adjust/beat/destory/whatever live games up to 10/20nl (at least )

see above

[blackmont 0]

I'll post 1 more thing to hopefully help some people understand the schematics behind trying to compare online to live.Lets use examples and plain english.- online attracts players from all over the world. any player can play any site.- online you can multi table.- live attracts players in the area, or who visit the area- live you play 1 table at a time.now.. lets imagine if you will, that in online, you can only play on a site that your region is listed in. so if you can play pokerstars, you cant play tilt or absolute etc.. and vice versa.so already some of the good players freom other regions are cut off.Now lets imagine that in live poker, you can multi table.. and since thats not an easy task. majority of players who do it, are good players. now all the sudden instead of only 4 good players in a casino playing 1/2 throughout 6 tablesyou have 4x6 good players. which is basically like having 24 good players in a casino at 1/2 tables.i hope some of you see where i'm going here... Its impossible to compare online to live. they are two separate animals. There isnt a higher level of skill online, its simply more difficult to beat because of the amount of players with skill (multi tabling or not) who can be at your table on any given day.

[dapokerbum 0]

Close it because of sarcastic bullshit like that. If you read any of it, I've decided not to go yet. You looked at as another donk moving to Vegas , lets bash him a little bit.**** off please.

Geez, you are overly sensitive to people on a forum board?Paging the Feelings Jar!Feelings Jar you are needed in this thread!

[Snamuh 0]

I'm not sure who said he couldnt beat a game?? maybe the OP said that? i dont know. I personally think he could beat a standard 1/2NL game.what i disagree with, is the claim that live games contain donkeys and donkeys alone. It was even stated that a 1/2 or 2/5 grinder who plays live is no match for a online grinder of similar limits.Thats an unfair judgement based on the fact of a small sample session in a remote area. Its like me visiting cake poker, playing absolute donkeys and assuming all online poker players are god awfulsee above

Dude this statement isn't really even debatable. The best 2/5 NL live grinders are thinking on a much lower level than winning 2/4 NL online grinders. It's not even comparable. I'm going based on my experience and the experience of countless others who have played online, and then sat in live games of similar stakes.

[Snamuh 0]

I'll post 1 more thing to hopefully help some people understand the schematics behind trying to compare online to live.Lets use examples and plain english.- online attracts players from all over the world. any player can play any site.- online you can multi table.- live attracts players in the area, or who visit the area- live you play 1 table at a time.now.. lets imagine if you will, that in online, you can only play on a site that your region is listed in. so if you can play pokerstars, you cant play tilt or absolute etc.. and vice versa.so already some of the good players freom other regions are cut off.Now lets imagine that in live poker, you can multi table.. and since thats not an easy task. majority of players who do it, are good players. now all the sudden instead of only 4 good players in a casino playing 1/2 throughout 6 tablesyou have 4x6 good players. which is basically like having 24 good players in a casino at 1/2 tables.i hope some of you see where i'm going here... Its impossible to compare online to live. they are two separate animals. There isnt a higher level of skill online, its simply more difficult to beat because of the amount of players with skill (multi tabling or not) who can be at your table on any given day.

WHICH MAKES THE PLAYERS WHO ARE ABLE TO BEAT IT MORE SKILLED.Seriously, how hard is this concept to grasp? It's not impossible to compare online to live. What stakes do you play? Are you some live 1/2 or 2/5 grinder that is just offended that online players claim to be better?