anyone else run into this?

[speedz99 145]

I guess I should have been more clear. My experiences reading tells all come from lower limit tables, specifically 3-6, 4-8, and 5-10. I fully believe that past these limits you drop most of the fish and run into players who cannot be read so easily.I'll be honest, I do not play online. That isn't because I tried and failed, it is because I never decided to give it a shot. I play for fun and occassional supplemental income. For me it is about making money while getting out of the house and having a good time interacting with very different people than I see in my everyday life. If you spend hours a day making good money playing four .25-.50 tables online at a time, more power to you, it just isn't for me.I do have a question about conflicting stories on the low limit play online. I asked smash a few days ago if his experience with onliine micro-limits would translate to live low limit tables, and he said that it would, because he thinks that the players on the .05-.10 tables are better than live 4-8 tables. Now I'm reading that it is easier online because of all the fish who do well live so they mistakenly think they can win online also.I'm not trying to be a shit, I'm really curious. How is the competition online versus live?

[Awful 0]

It doesn't matter that the NUMBERS are pulled from his ass. Did you read the reasoning? Have you seen the "I can't win when noone lays down a hand" posts, the "I need to move up so I can start winning" posts? There's a strong basis in fact borne out across message boards and the words and actions of players everywhere. Who cares if the numbers are 1 and 99 or 2 and 98 or 33 and 67. There's reasoning and thought there that's very accurate and consistent with the actions of most players.Poker is a game that stimulates egos. It's easy to make excuses for yourself, it's easy to reject criticism or advice or call Smash an ass because he delivers things harsh. But it's better to see what he means and never be too proud to tell yourself the truth or look at things from other perspectives. Apparently Eddie-Money is doing this with his classy responses, but the defenders seem all too wound up about something that doesn't matter and could help them.The only reasons the poster may be up live and down online is 2 things: Knowing his opponents VERY well through seeing them at all the school games, and playing suckers at higher limits than similarly bad players play online.Online or live, it's still poker. If tells were all that mattered live, Caro would have all the bracelets. The 2 have so much in common that someone who can't perform equally at similarly skilled levels of both are most likely lying to themselves.Let's apply occam's razor here:1. He is a player-reader of the highest order, lacking some discipline and fundamentals but so terrific at seeing into the souls of others that it is the differential between winning huge live and getting booted from games for excessive skill and losing money online. His experiences mimic those of a player in the world's largest cash game who is probably overthinking her play in her online dabblings.2. He plays worse players at higher levels live on that campus than equivalent online competition3. He lies to himself about his results because he doesn't have a book to check on live play; the online account view doesn't lie when you make 1 deposit2 and 3 seem a lot simpler than 1, and therefore far more likely.Eddie, start small, play solid, learn the nuts and bolts of the game. Be APPROPRIATELY BANKROLLED. Short buy-ins will hurt your play and make loss very likely due to the variance created by the super-loose nature of low levels. Read Smasharoo's micro-limit blog; that's well reasoned in describing play and tactics, advocates proper bankrolling, and illustrates adjustments needed for low-limits. Read Lee Jones or Ed Miller on small stakes.

[koolromeo 0]

i like you smash, but you're off base on this one. i keep records. i win almost wherever i go. not every time by any means. but rarely am i stuck for more than i bought in for during a game. i win home game tournaments. i won a 500 person tournament too. ( you ever do that?) i win when i go to the casino too, but i cant win online consistently. i've played 50 cent/1.oo to $10-$20 online. no limitcash games, sit and goes,which i think are a waste because of the time u neeed to invest for a very uncertain return, i'm even learning the hi lo split games, but i can't show you an online bankroll that expands, weekly. i have no idea what i'm doing wrong. i only know 1 guy that wins online consistently. iwatched him win $5000 yesterday and $$2500 today playinng $5-$10 nl. he just plays pocket pairs trying to turn sets and the people gave him their money when he did. i will try this style myself after i watch a bit more. since i know you'll ask, i've cleared over $5000 in the last year playing very small stakes home games with the odd trip to the casino thrown in. so i will agree that online is harder for some people, for some reason. i just don't know what it is, but i'm sure you'll tell me so please enlighten me.

[speedz99 145]

awful,I think you make some good points. But I see no reason why everyone should ignore smash being an *******. I accept it from the 15 year olds who have no idea what they are talking about, but not from a good writer and player. He gave no real insight, he just said, "you must be a poor player", with absolutely no frame of reference. He deserves to get ripped on for writing something like that. Let's not start tripping over ourselves trying to suck his dick when not everything he says has some great deep hidden meaning.

[Awful 0]

My post was more directed at Meotch, who was as quick in dismissing Smasharoo for his tone as Smash was in providing his opinion on the guy sucking. Notice I also put forth another reason for the disparity in results. Players are worse live than online at comparable levels when switching from home games to online. As for Smash, I'm in no rush to suck his e-****, but he's given me the best advice on this site so far, once I got past his delivery. My main point was don't quibble with numbers or sweat him making up a figure on an unprovable opinion when it's obviously just a device to convey when he did have a point. I don't agree with him putting forth the "you suck" conclusion in a non-positive manner, but giving him crap for later posts with content is where the people go wrong.

[Smasharoo 0]

I think you make some good points. But I see no reason why everyone should ignore smash being an ass. I accept it from the 15 year olds who have no idea what they are talking about, but not from a good writer and player. He gave no real insight, he just said, "you must be a poor player", with absolutely no frame of reference. He deserves to get ripped on for writing something like that. Let's not start tripping over ourselves trying to suck his dick when not everything he says has some great deep hidden meaning.Actually I said most people who feel that they are winning players live but don't dow well online are just poor players overall.They are.Not my fault, I didn't make it that way. It's human nature. No one who likes playing poker is going to think they're a losing player.Most people who play poker are losing players who think they are winners.It's just the way it is. Good thing too, because it'd be a pretty unprofitable game for all of us if everyone who lost realized it and stopped playing.Here's my post. Read it again:Lots of people.Most of them are people who lose live, too, but don't keep records and fool themselves into thinking they're winning players.Where did I say aything directed to this poster? I didn't. I was commenting on what the situation was for most people in his situation.Understand?

[Smasharoo 0]

I do have a question about conflicting stories on the low limit play online. I asked smash a few days ago if his experience with onliine micro-limits would translate to live low limit tables, and he said that it would, because he thinks that the players on the .05-.10 tables are better than live 4-8 tables. Now I'm reading that it is easier online because of all the fish who do well live so they mistakenly think they can win online also. No, you're reading that there are more people who play higher limits live who think they are winners when they aren't.It's not easier online, but it's still easy.Live players being worse than online players dosn't mean the online players are good.I imagine I'd make a pretty horrible NBA center, being 6'2 and 32 years old. That doesn't mean Dany Devito wouldn't be a worse one.

[speedz99 145]

Anyone else have this problem? much more success offline than online?  Lots of people.Most of them are people who lose live, too, but don't keep records and fool themselves into thinking they're winning players.

Give me a break. Obviously this was meant as a dig at the poster. Anyways, that's enough for me on this topic. I would go back and search the threads for the specific posts you made that contradict each other about if the game is harder live or online, but frankly I don't really care that much.Get it?

[speedz99 145]

Or, without being a dick like smash (no offense, you didn't offer much other than what you said), you play people not cards...which is what online poker is (straight cards - for the most part).No, I offered what is almost certainly the correct explination.Let's see, shall we?I'm going to be that Eddie doesn't keep records of his play, could't tell us how much he's won or lost this year, but is "Sure" that he's a winner becuase he knows he has money to sepnd when he leaves a game etc.Let's see if I'm right or not.

What happened to the idea that you were just posting about "most people in his situation", not him in particular.At least own up to the fact that you are a dick. An articulate dick, but a dick nonetheless.OK, sorry, I'm done being a prick myself.

[Smasharoo 0]

What happened to the idea that you were just posting about "most people in his situation", not him in particular.At least own up to the fact that you are a dick. An articulate dick, but a dick nonetheless.OK, sorry, I'm done being a prick myself.I made a guess about the poster based on the vast majority of people on his situation.How did that turn out again?

[speedz99 145]

What happened to the idea that you were just posting about "most people in his situation", not him in particular.At least own up to the fact that you are a dick. An articulate dick, but a dick nonetheless.OK, sorry, I'm done being a prick myself.I made  a guess about the poster based on the vast majority of people on his situation.How did that turn out again?

Now we're getting somewhere. How did it turn out? It turned out to be wrong. Maybe the guy doesn't know how many BB's he made per hour in live games, but he does know that he made enough money to pay the bills. I'm sure he would know it if he was losing money, and therefore unable to pay off his car loans. Ok, I'm done getting all up in arms about the play of some random poster that I don't know. The one good thing I learned from this thread is that the words dick and prick are not censored.

[Smasharoo 0]

Now we're getting somewhere. How did it turn out? It turned out to be wrong. Nope, it turned out I was exactly right.Annoying as hell, isn't it?

[speedz99 145]

Now we're getting somewhere. How did it turn out? It turned out to be wrong.  Nope, it turned out I was exactly right.Annoying as hell, isn't it?

If you assume that he has no idea if he won or lost money over the long run, then yes, you were right. If you take him at his word that he made money over the long run, then you were wrong. It may shock you, but I have seen you be wrong before, you may be wrong this time, and I doubt more than a few days will pass before you are wrong again. Even if you were right, that's ok. I guess if I spent 20 hours a day playing poker and posting on forums than I would be right all the time too. More power to you, oh masterful poker mind.

[Smasharoo 0]

Even if you were right, that's ok. I guess if I spent 20 hours a day playing poker and posting on forums than I would be right all the time too. More power to you, oh masterful poker mind.Nah, I don't think you could ever possibly in your life be right as often as me.Tough words to hear, I'm sure, but true. I don't think I'll ever be as good a player as DN in my life. Doesn't bother me though.I wonder why you're so insecure?Locked in a closet at a young age or something?Oh, by the way, I was clearly right. I was completely, absolutely, dead on correct. No question.Hahaha.

[expectation 0]

It seems as though everyone needs to say somethign about this one, so I may as well too. I have quite a bit of experience online and a fair amount live, in home games, casinos, and private clubs. I don't really want to go over what other people have said so let me try to raise a new point. I think that to say online players or live players are better is problematic. I think that both have strengths and weaknesses but that they are different. The chief difference between live and online poker (other than seeing your opponents) is the number of hands played per hour. It is at least double online if you play only one table, and of course more than that the more you play. What are the psychological implications of this? How does it relate to say, patience? I find that many, even low limit players online play fairly to very well preflop. In 3/6 games online (at Party) the average flops seen percentage is ~30%, it is often even a bit lower. In low to mid limit games live I would argue that the number is at least 5% and often up to 15% higher. This is a significant difference. For instance, there are a lot more, even "good" (by which I simply mean overall winning) players that will play any ace in late position if no one has rasied. Another huge difference is that there is an average of 2 players at low limit tables online that are total rocks preflop, averaging less than 20% flops seen (again at Party 3/6). It is rare to find more than one of these players at a live game, and even more rare to find them still playing this way at the end of the night. On the other hand, in live games, where there are a large number of poor plays preflop, the play is generally MUCH better on the turn and river. (The flop play is debatable, I find players more aggressive online, but perhaps too aggressive). This is how players can make up for the loose play preflop and still come out ahead. For instance, I have had players show me the low full house on a board with two pairs many times and fold to me. Invariably (well, almost) I have had the higher full house. These are terrific plays that show discipline and experience and attentiveness. I do not find these plays happening very much at all online. There are a number of possible explanations and even counter-arguments to this, but I'm pretty sure that it's true.What does it all mean? Well, it means I disagree with Smash on this one. For an NOVICE player, the internet game is MUCH harder to beat than the live one. Live you can simply play well preflop and at the very least break even. Online this is not the case. You must make good laydowns and value bets and raises. This is a much more difficult skill, and takes longer to develop. Having said that, for experienced and highly skilled players like Smash, the internet game is much better (or at least as good) because the mistakes players make are bigger in terms of negative EV. I would be willing to bet that the originator of this thread has had the results he had precisely because of this difference in mistakes. He is good at taking advantage of weak preflop play by playing tightly, but is poor (probably too loose or passive, but not necessarily) on the turn and river.I have said too much, probably, but whatever.

[Smasharoo 0]

Well, it means I disagree with Smash on this one. For an NOVICE player, the internet game is MUCH harder to beat than the live one. Live you can simply play well preflop and at the very least break even. Online this is not the case.I'm fuzzy on where we disagree.That players who lose online might be winners live I guess?I think it's more often the case, that they just lose and don't notice it live because of a multitude of reasons.

[StackOSociety 0]

I think you guys are fretting over the sure in quotes in Smash's post, the quote could imply that he is actually a loser, but the other dude is saying since he's paying a lot of bills and what not, he is sure, not "sure". Oh, and I believe Jennifer Harmon is not a good online player because she admits that the mathematical aspects of poker are not her strong suit, her real strength lies in picking off bluffs, probably with mediocre hands in live play because she will know "he doesn't have it". Check out her player profile in the forums for more in depth coverage on this topic. IMHO, it also helps to be a good looking female at the table...

No, I offered what is almost certainly the correct explination. Let's see, shall we? I'm going to be that Eddie doesn't keep records of his play, could't tell us how much he's won or lost this year, but is "Sure" that he's a winner becuase he knows he has money to sepnd when he leaves a game etc. Let's see if I'm right or not.

[expectation 0]

By the way, this is predominantly what I am disagreeing with.Smasharoo: About 1% of people play better live than they do online.The other 99% tell themselves they do rather than fix the massive holes in their games. They play live, don't keep records and are convinced they play well, when really thy don't.

[Smasharoo 0]

I don't think you disagree.I think you think they DO better live, but don't PLAY better.If you see what I mean.