ahosang 0 Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Regarding the live vs online thing: I think the only major difference that really applies on a hand by hand basis is the tells that you can gain when playing live. Getting a '99% certain' tell on a player when they are betting on the end(eg in NLHE) is really sweet when you can make it pay(or save money). Observing for tells should me a major part of your endeavours at the table. Apart from that , I don't see much difference in the games in terms of strategy. Live is slower, but everybody accepts that, so that's not the point... Link to post Share on other sites
Abbaddabba 0 Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 You'd probably want to establish a working definition for what "completely different" means before you argue something so trivial. Link to post Share on other sites
ahosang 0 Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 You'd probably want to establish a working definition for what "completely different" means before you argue something so trivial.Huh??I'm not really arguing for anything. Just pointing out one aspect of poker that doesn't exist online. And one which can make a 'major difference' on any given hand - and therefore to profitability.When you're faced with a tough decision, and you have no tell, you're limited to making a 'fuzzy' decision based on profile etc.The better live players are making major decisions with much more confidence. That's not trivial. It's catching bluffs, and so on, when we wouldn't have done so online without the 'physical tell'. Link to post Share on other sites
kkot 0 Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Huh??He was referring to Poolie. Link to post Share on other sites
Actuary 3 Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 ahosang,Abbaddabbadddoooodeeehead was not talking to you.,His use of "quotes" gave it away.BDPoolie was the target. Link to post Share on other sites
Actuary 3 Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 He was referring to Poolie.Are you trying to replace me as mediator? Link to post Share on other sites
kkot 0 Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 You caught me! Link to post Share on other sites
ahosang 0 Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Oh right!! I didn't really see anyone on this page saying that, so I just assumed it was a reply to my post. Yeh, I see the quote now in actuary's post at the top. No harm done. Link to post Share on other sites
BDPoolie 0 Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 ahosang,Abbaddabbadddoooodeeehead was not talking to you.,His use of "quotes" gave it away.BDPoolie was the target.Apparently you think the same. Otherwise, you would explain your opinion, as Zach has numerous times, instead of saying everyone can have an opinion, but their opinion is wrong, as you have done here.There you go....you nailed it on the head. I am the "target". We can't just have an open discussion with various opinions.I NEVER said that my opinion was correct and everyone else's is wrong. In fact, I said the exact opposite.I have been reading posts here for a long time and have enjoyed most of them. But I have commented on two topics and was completely blasted for both. I give up. I no longer want to participate in a forum that is not willing to let others have an opinion and just say "I respect your opinion but do not agree" and leave it at that. You guys have to constantly beat down anything that is not in your "horse blinders view".My opinion may not be what you agree with, or it may not even be correct; and that's fine. But I started out like the OP with a $20 BR in the .01/.02 rooms and learned absolutely nothing. It wasn't until I decided to go to .25/.50 until I started seeing improvement in both my game and others. I was just relaying my experience, trying to give a different perspective to the OP.Am I a 'high stakes' player now? No. I play 1/2NL and occasionally 2/4NL, and yes those games are different than .25/.50 and I would bet that they are different than 100/200.I was just trying to save the OP a little time. Forgive me. Link to post Share on other sites
Actuary 3 Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 uh.you tied my name to a quote from Viper.and bye.and lighten up.You are missing the point Link to post Share on other sites
BDPoolie 0 Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 uh.you tied my name to a quote from Viper.and bye.and lighten up.You are missing the pointYes. Sorry. I wasn't sure how to quote two different people, so I copied and pasted one into the other. Didn't want to post twice.No "bye" is in order. I'm still going to read the posts because there is some good and fun info on here most times. I am just going to be vary wary about putting myself out there from now on.Maybe I am missing the point. Not really sure I saw a point from most people other than to say I was wrong. Link to post Share on other sites
Actuary 3 Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Maybe I am missing the point. Not really sure I saw a point from most people other than to say I was wrong.The point was contained in the series of questions I posted a few posts above. People play differently, looser/tighter/passiver/aggreessiver, etc across locations and stakes.The objective and Theory of Poker remains constant, however.It's not that you are wrong; Zach just wants everyone to get past the point of splitting it into "Micro vs Hi Limits" or "Live vs Online" and instead, talk in tangible terms such as "Ave players to the flop" or "Preflop raises from UTG, generally means at least TT".General terms like "different" don't lend themselves towards useful discussions.Even at 01/02c games, you can make good and bad decisions and learn why they are such. Link to post Share on other sites
Zach6668 513 Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 Actuary just explained my obsession with not seperating live and online better than I've ever been able to. Solid. Link to post Share on other sites
Actuary 3 Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 Actuary just explained my obsession with not seperating live and online better than I've ever been able to. Solid.sweet! Link to post Share on other sites
alexg 0 Posted February 11, 2007 Author Share Posted February 11, 2007 didn't expect such a response. My $20 are just for entertainment purposes only btw. Although it would be nice if I can grow it. Link to post Share on other sites
Money022 0 Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 Even at 01/02c games, you can make good and bad decisions and learn why they are such.Sums it up in a nutshell pretty well. Link to post Share on other sites
litlebullet 0 Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 I'm not rich by any means, but if you can't afford to start with $100 BR, then you shouldn't be playing.What I mean by that is that you're not really learning the game playing at .01/.02 stakes. No one cares at all about those stakes so you're not getting a valuable learning experience.Not to say that .10/.25 or even .25/.50 is much better, but it is a little better.Hey, it's just my opinion. We're all entitled to ours.I disagree too. Playing at those stakes will either A) Frustrate you to the point of quitting poker forever. B) Teaching you how to play maniacs, how to take bad beats, how to play shortstacked, how to grind out. All-in-all, it would give you a good basis that I have because I started from those stakes. Link to post Share on other sites
ramenandeggs 0 Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 instead of putting in $100 if you're not sure you can even keep the 20-40, i suggest moving up from play money to freerolls. Link to post Share on other sites
Heraclitus_V 0 Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 instead of putting in $100 if you're not sure you can even keep the 20-40, i suggest moving up from play money to freerolls.play the freerolls... there is no tougher competition than a bunch of fools with no cash on the line. when you are consistently in the top 10% you will be winning freeroll cash to start your bankroll. use your freeroll winnings to play in ring games and low stakes tourneys and move forward from there. if it has taken you a whole year to become comfortable enough to play cash games then your game is suspect. never never never play ring games with a low bankroll... cash games are where the sharks feed... when you are consistently placing in tourney cash you can venture into deeper water. Link to post Share on other sites
lostless 0 Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 The whole you can't start with 20-40 bucks is crap. Depoist 20 and use the other 20 to buy Small Stakes Hold Em by Sklansky.The fundmental concepts I learned playing 5-10c were invaluable - raising for value, pot-odds, domination, not playing small aces, value betting, position, etc.I started with SSHE and 50 bucks. I have grown it to over 2500 today. It just takes some patience and a williness to learn. And I still have much more to learn. ie I am still a major tournment donkey.GL Link to post Share on other sites
Abbaddabba 0 Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 You dont need any money, period.There're lots of places that offer free rolls in some capacity for people who havent deposited.Absolute Poker exchanges an assload of play chips for $50. Pokerstars play chips have (in the past) been sold for cash.And there are a lot of $5 no CC required sign up bonuses for smaller sites.EVerything i have is from a free roll. Link to post Share on other sites
David_Nicoson 1 Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 hey everyone,"first time, long time" anyway I have been playing online poker for little over a year with play money and thinking of making the switch to real money. I plan to start off small and work my way up. Anyway, whats the basic rule(s) on bankroll management? I plan to start off with $20-$40. Any good software programs (free) out there for the people who do this as a hobby and not as a living?My story:Since I had amassed 3 million play chips, I was clearly the man, driving around in my play Lexus and ****.So I deposited 100 on UB and lost 95 or so in the first session playing 0.10/0.25 NLHE.I started playing 0.01/0.02 NLHE and 0.01/0.02 PLO. I learned a lot at this level. I eventually worked that into a good bankroll.You don't have to live at the penny level, but it's a good idea (imho) to show that you can beat it before you move up. Link to post Share on other sites
Bellerophon 0 Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Okay, I'm going to answer the guy's question since this is turning into Jerry Springer.I don't know if Cardplayer.com still has their tracking software but I think they do. I need to create a new account on there and see. Also, Full Tilt and most poker sites require a minimum $50 deposit. Don't listen to these guys about stakes or whatever. I would practice at a .10/20 NL or play some cheap tournaments. You will get jackals in there playing stupid because it's cheap, but generally you will be playing with people like you who don't want to invest a lot online. I had deposited $150 on DOYLESROOM.COM (now they don't accept U.S. players) and went down to $1.20 from playing a boat load of tournaments (MTT's, STT's and feeders to WPT and big cash tourney's). Unfortunately I didn't win any seats, but I got really close a bunch of times. Anyways, I played a $1 STT which I won and got my account up to $5.45. Then I took that to a .5/.10 NL table and won $13 and eventually turned that into $324. Pretty cool huh? Then I switched to Full Tilt and got cold decked last 2 nights and am down to $100. Moral of the story is that if you play well and get luck on your side, you will be fine.Secondly, I think that Zach is completely wrong about Live vs. Online. If you don't see that there's a difference between them, then maybe you shouldn't be a moderator on Daniel Negraneu's site. I mean, COME ON! I'm not trying to be a ****, but it's rediculous to think that playing at a B&M with REAL people, REAL chips, and REAL cards is the same as sitting behind a CPU clicking buttons. Sure; the game is the same, but the experience and feel of live poker is completely different. There are so many more factors involved, like READING PEOPLE, TELLS etc... Maybe you are so sick of defending your opinion because you are completely wrong and everyone else knows it. I just finished reading Daniel's blog on his online experience and am now recalling Jennifer Harman's experience from High Stakes Poker. Last time I checked, those are some of the 2 best player's in the world.Poker is a game of playing people and psychology. The cards do not matter most of the time. Dissapointingly, I must say that Allen Cunningham proved this durring his final table at the WSOP against Jame Gold (just 1 example). Allen, in my opinion, started playing CARDS more than poker. But Jamie played nothing but poker. All the greatest players play poker, not cards. I am preparing to hear backlashing from all of you cardplayers on here since that it what most of you seem to be from viewing these forums the past month. Don't worry, I probably won't be on here much longer. I am glad Daniel may be straying too. This crap gets old so fast. Link to post Share on other sites
SCS 0 Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Tells play a factor in live poker, but they aren't as big as you make them seem.If you play winning poker online, you'll be a winner live.All the reads and tells in the world won't help you if your strategy sucks.The biggest problem I have with live play is the speed of the game. I end up playing to many hands because of boredom, but I've gotten better at that. Link to post Share on other sites
Bellerophon 0 Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Tells play a factor in live poker, but they aren't as big as you make them seem.If you play winning poker online, you'll be a winner live.All the reads and tells in the world won't help you if your strategy sucks.The biggest problem I have with live play is the speed of the game. I end up playing to many hands because of boredom, but I've gotten better at that.I never said to discount strategy. And tells are huge in live play. So much more information to gather and process at a live table. Online is great for learning and practicing strategy and you can make a lot of money. It has helped me no doubt, but if I lived in Vegas or close to a casino (I use to play 5-10 limit almost every nite back home, i plan to move to Vegas in a year) I would chose to play live over online every time. Much more fun and I enjoy the opportunity to try and read people and out play them face to face. Poker is meant to be played at a table and the best players will always be judged at one. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now