can’t win on the net, but win in brick & mortar?

[DrawingDeadInDM 0]

actualy if you ask most FTP pros who play on full tilt poker most of them have losses there. go tell john juanda he has holes in his game.

Source? Not that i care (or dont believe it to be possible), but it doesnt sound like the kind of thing that anyone would ever know even if it was true. Which is why it's strange that you're claiming to know. And if he is a losing player online, then he definitely does have holes in his game. That's the very nature of what a hole is.

I'm absolutely horrible at Limit Hold 'Em and the fact that the players at my B&M are WORSE and play higher limits, doesn't make me good. Kurt was saying last night that a good 5/10 table online is the equivalent of a good 40/80 game B&M, that's probably pretty accurate.

I think that might be a bit of an exaggeration, though ive never watched a 40/80 for an extended period of time live.Typical 5/10 tables seem to be on par with 20/40's at casinos around where i live.

I was also very drunk when I was talking to Kurt about this. He could very well have said 5/10 OL = 20/40 B&M

[usctrunks 0]

about the source on FTP pros go ask when they are on mike mattosou, layne flack, john juanda, rafe furst they have no problem saying they are down on FTP. I think quiet lion and paul wolf have consistant wins and im not even sure about that.also if you think live is such a shitting game you should play live more cus if i consistantly win there you should be able to do a ton better and theres more money in it cus the size of the average pot in live games is much much higher then online. and if online players are so ****ing good then they should have ****ing murdered the wsop and wpt tournaments but they arnt doing so.and if you read what u quoted I didnt say bad beats dont happen live i said it FEELS like it happens more online.also you should back up your reasoning why online players are better players in general. and give examples, assuming you play both BM and online you would be able to tell us the differances. I feel like for sure that online takes alot more to concentrate so i may not play as well online.another fact you dont have to believe me or not, but clint baird and bleu329 went to vegas in december and I was with them for like 3 days. they are both better players online for sure. I have a consistant loss online but at vegas I was the only one to leave vegas in the possative in cash games. given my possative was only 800 dollars cus i only played for like 3 days. Maybe both Bleu and Clint just had a bad run and I had a good one but Bleu often cleans up online and he didnt do so well in person.I still think they are both better players then me live and online just odd that great online players leave with a loss in cash games when you people claim live is full of donks

[usctrunks 0]

also I do rely on alot on reads in person, its easier to get away from hands when you look at the guy and he looks like he cant lose the hand.like there are times where you look at the guy and your like omfg he hit that gutshot so you dont pay him off.online you just pay them off you know? saves money

[Marchione 0]

there are so many factors that come into play when talking about B&M casino's east coast VS west coast vegas during the weekend vs the weekdayregional (indian casinos)limits being played and so on !!there are so many layers to this debate !!!

[econ_tim 0]

also if you think live is such a censored game you should play live more cus if i consistantly win there you should be able to do a ton better and theres more money in it cus the size of the average pot in live games is much much higher then online.

being able to play multiple tables online and see two to three times as many hands per hour makes online play much more profitable than live play

and if online players are so censored good then they should have censored murdered the wsop and wpt tournaments but they arnt doing so.

johnnybax, dandruff and neverwin did all right at this year's WSOP. i'm sure there are others.

also you should back up your reasoning why online players are better players in general.  and give examples, assuming you play both BM and online you would be able to tell us the differances.

to play online, you have to own a computer. computer use and internet access correlates positively with education.

I feel like for sure that online takes alot more to concentrate so i may not play as well online.

maybe so.

another fact you dont have to believe me or not, but clint baird and bleu329 went to vegas in december and I was with them for like 3 days.  they are both better players online for sure.  I have a consistant loss online but at vegas I was the only one to leave vegas in the possative in cash games.  given my possative was only 800 dollars cus i only played for like 3 days.  Maybe both Bleu and Clint just had a bad run and I had a good one but Bleu often cleans up online and he didnt do so well in person.I still think they are both better players then me live and online just odd that great online players leave with a loss in cash games when you people claim live is full of donks

I have no idea who thes people are. In any case, winning players can have losing streaks that last for tens of thousands of hands.

[Abbaddabba 0]

also if you think live is such a censored game you should play live more cus if i consistantly win there you should be able to do a ton better and theres more money in it cus the size of the average pot in live games is much much higher then online.

I expect to see 40 hands an hour live.I expect to see between 250 and 300 hands an hour online.I can clear bonuses online. I can get rakeback online.Do you see why online is still more appealing despite having better players? I mean, that is if you're not a winning player (or only marginally beating the tables).

also you should back up your reasoning why online players are better players in general. and give examples, assuming you play both BM and online you would be able to tell us the differances.

Tighter and more aggressive for stakes of comparable value.

and if online players are so censored good then they should have censored murdered the wsop and wpt tournaments but they arnt doing so.

How do you even identify an online player?It's not part of their identity.And you're also confused.We're by no means saying that the best players play exclusively online. We're saying that the average online player is far superior to the average live player for comparable stakes.Can you see why those two statements have little in common?

[Cheppa 0]

Conclusion, I suck at inter-net poker ring games. I am sticking with B&M. Unless I go and get 4 IP addresses and a couple of computers with different accounts, then maybe I might try it again…I now know this group of guys… all playing at different sites and all very good friends. What they are doing is they all set up accounts at four different sites. Then one guy plays Site A with all four accounts, another guy plays Site B with access to all the accounts, and the others play their sites the same way. They are killing the games. They trust each other so much and are making a lot of money, what ever each player is making on their own site, is there money. They don’t share the pool, because they still think one is better than the other.lol For example Player A playing site A. If he manages to make $2000 on player B’s account at site A, then player B makes the withdrawal and gives Player A the money. So, one guy could be playing 2 or 3 seats at one table and just keep rotating the players to avoid suspicion.One guy is killing the 6 seated games at Party. Therefore I am never playing ring games online just because of this. I am sure now that I have ran into this at some point in time.

[WhiteSpade 0]

Just curious.. they're all buddies who I assume are from the same area. Are the addresses they use all from the same area as well? It's not too rare to see a couple people from the same city at a table... but 4? This should be a red flag for the rest of the table. But then again... these could be people from different areas and we wouldnt even have that hint. It sucks knowing that people can get away with this crap.

[oceansize 0]

Old Mexico brought up something right away that I was thinking of as I read your post.What do you think are the key elements out of place (or differing elements, might be a better term) that you find in online play (apart from speculation of bots, collusion, etc...) that you don't find in the B & M's?I know when I go play live, I'm setting time out to go. I am focused on the players, paying attention to small talk, paying attention to chip stacks and how the table flow is oriented and shifting (tight field to low, vice versa) and all of that stuff.In contrast the conard of playing online is that it is always available. You might have boxing or a movie on, or dinner is cooking in the other room, or 20 minutes or so until an obligation will pull you from your chair...etc..Do you find any of this stuff to be a factor? The only other thing I can think of is that while there is collusion out there and bots and computer cheat software and players that have faked URL's playing at the same table from 3 different computers in their living room....all of that is risky and expensive and not worth the hassle....excepting at the very tall money games you are talking about.If you really want to put it to the test, why don't you try playing the lower limit fields where it really wouldn't be profitable to a would be cheat (what your gonna spend all that time and money and major risk to take $250 off a 2/4 limit game?).The lower limits may not be your style, but to my way of thinking, it might be the next logical step to test out your playability in that realm.Other only other thing I can think of to consider are that online limits the information you can extract from opponents that you can get in a live situation. You really need to be focused on stacks, movement, actions and betting amounts. That's really all you've got to go off of.

[Cheppa 0]

They are not from the same area, some are close to each other. Though they never sit all 4 at same time.. just 2 or 3 at a time. With a short handed table just having 4 cards on the table is an advantage.

[Cheppa 0]

Old Mexico brought up something right away that I was thinking of as I read your post.What do you think are the key elements out of place (or differing elements, might be a better term) that you find in online play (apart from speculation of bots, collusion, etc...) that you don't find in the B & M's?I know when I go play live, I'm setting time out to go. I am focused on the players, paying attention to small talk, paying attention to chip stacks and how the table flow is oriented and shifting (tight field to low, vice versa) and all of that stuff.In contrast the conard of playing online is that it is always available. You might have boxing or a movie on, or dinner is cooking in the other room, or 20 minutes or so until an obligation will pull you from your chair...etc..Do you find any of this stuff to be a factor?

Oh, for sure.. watching TV and playing.. too distracting. Espcially when playing one table. You glance at the screen see cards hit call and don't realize there was a raise.. oh oh. Things like that happen on line but not in a card room.

If you really want to put it to the test, why don't you try playing the lower limit fields where it really wouldn't be profitable to a would be cheat (what your gonna spend all that time and money and major risk to take $250 off a 2/4 limit game?).The lower limits may not be your style, but to my way of thinking, it might be the next logical step to test out your playability in that realm.

The 2/4 games and 3/6 are profitable, but boring. It's the 10/20 and 15/30 games I can't beat. Thats why i have a problem, and don't think it is my play. But cheating.

[fakeusername2 0]

many people that say B&M casino is much easier to win than online, are making generalizations based on only thier own limited experience of live play.lets get one thing straight. everyone can be experiencing the same thing online because wherever you live, whether it be NYC or timbucktoo, you can get online to any of the major poker sites and play people from around the world. so your experience online will be similar to everyone else's. most likely you will be facing a variety of opponents with a wide range of skill level.however this can not be same for live play. most likely you are restricted to the live games in and around your dwelling. if you live in Deer Lodge, Montana, you might only be able to play at your local card room or some indian resv. and your experience to live players is very limited.( that was an extreme case). a trip or two to vegas with a winning session does not constitute an opinion of live play. in the case above it is easy for one to say that live games are easier than online.for those that live in L.A., Vegas, AC, etc. have much different experiences of live play. dont get me wrong, live and online are 2 completely different monsters. but those that have the luxury of big card rooms at their disposal have to agree that live play is not weak. or weaker to online for that matter.sure you can say that 15-30 online is much easier than 40-80 live but than you are being biased. you might beat the one game of 40-80 at your local card room whenever it may be going(if there is even one consistantly going), but here in L.A. and im sure more in vegas there are 4-5 tables going minimum 24/7(commerce) and the games can be weak sometimes or tough as nails other times. and at the smaller card rooms throughout the country that even have 40-80, it is probably the same people playing day in and day out. so unless they are improving their skill level everday, well ....all im trying to say is that for someone that lives in a smaller city with limited live play can easily make a statement that online players are way better than live but for others like me that live in a large city with live poker options all over the place, i can not make the same statement.one last thing, lets say you think online 15-30 is leagues ahead of 40-80 live. and say you can make a 1 BB/hr rate at 15-30. if you felt your skills were that good and live poker is much weaker, why would you not make the move to go live in vegas or l.a. or AC and play 40-80 and make 1bb/hr. i mean do you really have a job that pays you better than 80$/hr right now.

[Abbaddabba 0]

however this can not be same for live play. most likely you are restricted to the live games in and around your dwelling. if you live in Deer Lodge, Montana, you might only be able to play at your local card room or some indian resv. and your experience to live players is very limited.( that was an extreme case). a trip or two to vegas with a winning session does not constitute an opinion of live play. in the case above it is easy for one to say that live games are easier than online.

Ive been to dozens of casinos, and played on several sites for extended periods of time. The best 2/4 live game ive seen has been comparable to some of the worst online 2/4 games ive seen (or should i see the worst live games are comparable to the best online games?). In the limited experience that ive had at 5/10 and as high as 15/30 live, the tables were comparable to typical .50/1 tables that ive played at on party.Im not basing that on results, but the quality of play. The players are just so obviously horrible live that it stands out. It's not as if ive made a point of doing some study - but when the difference is so significant, you cant help but notice.It's possible that, of the dozens of casinos ive played at through atlantic city, vegas, niagara and various other locations - that all are atypical. But it's extremely unlikely considering how many ive been to. And everyone else ive ever spoken to who's opinion i respect has noticed the same.

one last thing, lets say you think online 15-30 is leagues ahead of 40-80 live. and say you can make a 1 BB/hr rate at 15-30. if you felt your skills were that good and live poker is much weaker, why would you not make the move to go live in vegas or l.a. or AC and play 40-80 and make 1bb/hr. i mean do you really have a job that pays you better than 80$/hr right now.

A great player can make more at the online 15/30 despite the fact that the 40/80 live has worse players. You can potentially be seeing 5 times as many hands an hour. Plus you dont have to tip, plus you can get rakeback, plus there are bonuses to clear etc.But many people who share these sentiments (that live players are far worse) have moved to vegas. There are several on the forum that i know of.

[bcook823 0]

There is some good information on this subject herehttp://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...5964&highlight=I think its steam control for most people in your (our) situation. People seem not to steam as bad live. IMHO

[Suited_Up 2]

The 2/4 games and 3/6 are profitable, but boring. It's the 10/20 and 15/30 games I can't beat. Thats why i have a problem, and don't think it is my play. But cheating.

Wrong!

[ThatPkrGuy 0]

I have been playing poker on the net for about 1½ year and have lost about $15000. I have not kept track of my hourly rate, just my losses. I do however keep track of my hourly rate in brick and mortar rooms. A summary of my logs is at the bottom of this post. I asked a couple of very good brick and mortar players (ROCKS), how they do on line. They say that they can’t win at online poker ring games either and have given it up. Playing in a brick and mortar room, one of the Rocks made close to $100000 playing a mix of 15/30, 10/20, and 5/10, and the other Rock won around $80000 playing 10/20 and 15/30 only. When I am at a table full of people I don’t know and someone brings up online poker I always make the comment “I can’t win at online poker”, everyone at the table generally concurres that they can’t either. Oh sorry, there always seems to be one person says they do win at online poker. That person generally turns out to be the worst poker player at the table. LOLTo me, it seems like every poker player that I meet can’t win online ring games. Thought there are Urban legends who apparently do. I have yet to meet these people.However when I first started playing online ring games I won and won big. Then I managed to bleed it all back. Plus more. When I got tired or I should say censored off at that site I switched to another site and started winning again. Then I would lose it all back plus more. This seemed to be a pattern..lol Am I running into collusion, bots, or what ever? Just seems to me that individuals who play only one seat at a table just can’t win.When I have absolutely nothing to do (can’t find a real game) I still play some online, but only sit and go’s or MTT’s now. When I am not board and concentrate I do well at these. Unfortunately, the money I win at these games I sometimes tend to lose playing ring games, can’t help myself. This happens because I have nothing to do and get board waiting for the next MTT.I have been playing poker for about 10 years, and will play 10/20, 15/30, 20/40, and even 40/80 limit games (that one make my blood run) and will be profitable in brick and mortar room. Getting a feeling and watching people is the big part of my game. I am not a great mathematician but have a good grasp on the odds. My game of choice is 2/4 or 5/10 no limit. I play 2/4 mostly because this is the game that is most played where I live. I play only on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and the occasional weekday. Plus I love live Multi Table Tournaments with a $100, $300, $500 buy in. I have a real job and won’t quit it to play poker. It would make my mother to worry too much about me. LOL She does not understand the game. Plus poker is enjoyment for me not a job. Thanks for taking the time to read this post. Opinions and comments would be great.For those interested here is my 2005 summary: Online -ev is $15000. Brick and Mortar +ev is $47000 At 2/4 and some 5/10 NL:- I have 512 hours of play with an hourly rate of $46.18/ hour. Total of $23,644At 10/20 and 15/30 Limit: - I have 277 hours of play in at hourly rate of $42.72/hour. Total, $11,833Tournament play:- 112.5 hours at $103.60/ hour. For a Total of $ 11,655Therefore my total earnings this year is $47,132 - $15000 = $32,132

I would highly highly recommend NOT playing online lol...you are doing great outside of it.Just accept it as a leak and keep killing the B&M cash games!

[fakeusername2 0]

however this can not be same for live play. most likely you are restricted to the live games in and around your dwelling. if you live in Deer Lodge, Montana, you might only be able to play at your local card room or some indian resv. and your experience to live players is very limited.( that was an extreme case). a trip or two to vegas with a winning session does not constitute an opinion of live play. in the case above it is easy for one to say that live games are easier than online.  

Ive been to dozens of casinos, and played on several sites for extended periods of time. The best 2/4 live game ive seen has been comparable to some of the worst online 2/4 games ive seen (or should i see the worst live games are comparable to the best online games?). In the limited experience that ive had at 5/10 and as high as 15/30 live, the tables were comparable to typical .50/1 tables that ive played at on party.Im not basing that on results, but the quality of play. The players are just so obviously horrible live that it stands out. It's not as if ive made a point of doing some study - but when the difference is so significant, you cant help but notice.It's possible that, of the dozens of casinos ive played at through atlantic city, vegas, niagara and various other locations - that all are atypical. But it's extremely unlikely considering how many ive been to. And everyone else ive ever spoken to who's opinion i respect has noticed the same.

one last thing, lets say you think online 15-30 is leagues ahead of 40-80 live. and say you can make a 1 BB/hr rate at 15-30. if you felt your skills were that good and live poker is much weaker, why would you not make the move to go live in vegas or l.a. or AC and play 40-80 and make 1bb/hr. i mean do you really have a job that pays you better than 80$/hr right now.

A great player can make more at the online 15/30 despite the fact that the 40/80 live has worse players. You can potentially be seeing 5 times as many hands an hour. Plus you dont have to tip, plus you can get rakeback, plus there are bonuses to clear etc.But many people who share these sentiments (that live players are far worse) have moved to vegas. There are several on the forum that i know of.

you make alot of great points here.i can see how the amount of hands per hour online vs live and multi- tabling can have a big impact.i can even agree that based on the sear number of online players vs live makes it is probable that there are more skilled players online than live.but let me make a couple of points.first off, from your visits to live casinos in places like vegas, AC, etc. wat would you say your sample size of hands played were? just wondering if it is an amount that you would agree is enough to negate variance.also i believe when comparing the lower limits of online vs live, it is not a fair comparision. the existence of micro limits online completely tilts the evaluation. when a complete fish decides to go at it online, unless they are filthy rich and have no concern for stakes, they mostly start at limits like .5-.10, .25-.50 or .50-1, etc. at live casinos on the other hand, they usually have to start at 1-2 or 2-4 at the least. i would completely agree that limits such as 1-2 to 3-6 are played far better online.my main agruement is geared more toward the higher limits. i find it difficult to agree with statements made by online players that say they kill the 5-10 or 10-20 limits online, and those games are comparable to live games at limits like 40-80. im not sure how the 40-80 games are at local card rooms in small cities around the country, but i doubt they are comparable to the ones in L.A. or vegas. in regards to your statement that so many more hands are played online than live, because of this fact each hand live is fought hard for tooth and nail in live play. the games are super aggro and very loose.i dont think we are too far apart in our thinking. i can agree that there are more skilled players online than live in general. however i think people that prefer online play, make a real stretch with their comparisons sometimes. i think your comparison of .50-1 being comparable to 15-30 is one of them. take a .50-1 limit player online at put him in a 15-30 limit game here at commerce casino and it wont be pretty. i mean if this is the case how many tables can you have on your screen to make this +Ev to stay at your .50-1 online game.online might have more skilled players volume wise, but the very best players are live players. if you dont agree with this take it up with this sites host DN. see wat he has to say about this.(p.s. when comparing the two platforms, you also have to consider those that play a similar amount of live and online poker with similar success)

[Abbaddabba 0]

first off, from your visits to live casinos in places like vegas, AC, etc. wat would you say your sample size of hands played were? just wondering if it is an amount that you would agree is enough to negate variance.

The variance of what?Im not basing this on the results of my live sessions. The players are just clearly worse. On average there'll be 8 to a flop at the typical 2/4 game. That's unheard of online. The number of casinos ive been to makes for a more than sufficient sample to draw conclusions in and of itself. That others who i respect have found the same just confirms it.

my main agruement is geared more toward the higher limits. i find it difficult to agree with statements made by online players that say they kill the 5-10 or 10-20 limits online, and those games are comparable to live games at limits like 40-80. im not sure how the 40-80 games are at local card rooms in small cities around the country, but i doubt they are comparable to the ones in L.A. or vegas.

Comparing 5/10 online to 40/80 live probably isnt that accurate.But i can tell you is that of all the 5/10 games ive played at, they are on par with a lot of .50/1 games i find; if not worse. There are exceptions to that rule. Some .50/1 tables are horrible and some 5/10's are strong... but on average, that isnt the case. At least not at any casino ive been to.

online might have more skilled players volume wise, but the very best players are live players. if you dont agree with this take it up with this sites host DN. see wat he has to say about this.

Daniel plays online. In fact, he has his own poker website. Maybe you've heard of it; it's called full contactp poker. :!:But the issue isnt whether the "best" players play live or online. It's that the average live player is far inferior to their online counterpart for identical stakes.

[fakeusername2 0]

But the issue isnt whether the "best" players play live or online. It's that the average live player is far inferior to their online counterpart for identical stakes.

i only agree with this statement when in regards to lower limits.5-10, 10-20 are considered lower limits at live casinos.20-40 can be considered perhaps the start of middle limits.the higher you go in limits the less accurate your statement is.as far as DN playing online, yes i am aware of his site. but you would have to agree he is considered a live cash game and tourney player with limited online experience at best. even with that he took on some of the better high limit online players and so far has the better of it. so i believe this is a small example that backs my statement. in addition he has had the better of these online players on their forum. what would happen if he played them in a live casino. that brings another factor into the arguement. is the true test of ones poker skill attainable in an online platform. i believe poker in its purest form can only be played face to face. not behind a screen.

[blueodum 0]

About why some name pros might have net losses on the net:1) They may be tournament specialists and not have great cash game skills. Example: Matusow apparently salivates when he plays live cash games with Gavin Smith, though Smith is undoubtedly a talented tournament player.2) Barry Greenstein pointed to a possible reason - online, pros are generally playing stakes significantly lower than what they do in live cash games (if they are serious cash game players). Because of this, they may not be fully concentrated on playing their best.3) Live play is obviously sufficiently different from online play that the two require a slightly different skills set.

[Abbaddabba 0]

even with that he took on some of the better high limit online players and so far has the better of it.  

For particularly high limits, that might be the case. Who here would know though? I dont think any of us play beyond the "mid" stakes, save for a very select few. Ive played as high as 15/30 live and watched many tables higher than that. And i can say that, unless the players that i saw were highly atypical, they are far worse than typical (or average) players at their online equivalents. And it's definitely the case that you absolutely need to be a better player to beat an online 10/20 than you do to beat a live 10/20. Or an online 20/40, relative to a live 20/40... and so on and so forth.I dont think the issue was ever one of how the 'best of the best' choose to play.

[silkyjonson 1]

I dont know any rocks that are profitable like you are talking, maybe my definition and yours of a rock is wrong though...............

[fakeusername2 0]

i think wat is considered middle or high limit online is different than live and thats where the confusion or disagreement lies. 15-30 might be high limits online but is on the boarder of low and middle at live casinos(large ones at least, i.e. commerce, bellagio, and the poker industry for that matter) for example when i look at ultimatebet and click high limit tab it includes 15-30. anyone in the poker industry would agree that is not correct when it comes to live play. at commerce casino for example 15-30 is consider middle limit at best and there are plenty of tables running 24/7. this not the case online.my arguement was that althought you maybe accurate in that online players are more skilled that live, that is only the case at lower limits. starting at the middle limits i think the opposite is true. i guess it all comes down to what you consider middle limits. having grown up playing poker live, be4 online poker was around my definition of middle limits might not be the same as what online players think.when i look at UB and see the spread of tables at 15-30 and higher, there might be only 2 tables of each stake going at any given time. this seems to be the avg. well then just by the number of 15-30 limit and higher tables running at live casinos there has to be more skilled players in general at live play. of course it is true that there must be more fish as well at live games. this all boils down to my arguement that as the limits get higher there are more skilled players live than online. your statement might be correct if you were talking about the number of skilled players online in proportion to those that are playing because there are fewer.

[ricker 0]

I actually wrote an article for www.lifeofsports.com on this exact topic. If you like you can also check out my blog to read it as well.

[tommyrotten 0]

I play live in L.A. (3/6 limit mostly) on a regular basis and there is flat out no way in the world that anyone's going to convice me that online players are superior to B&M players. No way.A typical table at Commerce (or Hawaiian Gardens, The Bike, or anywhere else around here) is gonna be loaded with hardcore gamblers (we don't get the tourists here that Vegas gets) and ya'll are trying to tell me that there are multitudes of online players that would just crush them? C'mon.If I was 19 years old, sitting around in Iowa or wherever, beating the locals and booking winners online playing against a bunch of other hacks from similar next-to-nowhere little towns, I might be pretty happy with myself, too. Maybe thinking I'm a pretty good player that's better than most.But the real world doesn't work like that and ya'll are gonna be hurtin' if you come strolling into a legitimate B&M thinking you're gonna crush us inferior folk.I'd like to see one of you self-righteous Internet players sit down at a table full of Asian pros (and/or heavily-tattoed gangbangers who learned the game in prison) and try to explain to them how you're a clearly superior player. Chances are, you're not going to have stones enough to walk through the door---because you don't grow stones on the Internet.