Poker players, please explain this to me.

tthree said:
Maybe I have played you online.:laugh::laugh:
Click to expand...

It was online :eek: But this was quite a ways back :)

Also it was limit poker. The pot odds were high enough where I had to call and hope he had at best a Q high - think he had 10 high if I recalled.
 
Gamblor said:
Thunder you must be playing against the same players I do ;)

Furthermore, even limping in with a mediocre hand pre flop is not a bad move, depending on bet/raise, position, other players, etc., Poker ain't blackjack.

Heck even the bad players are sometimes hard to crack. Think I'm still ticked over a recent lost all in pot, my AK two pair against a bad player calling big raises pre-flop and flopping a low set. Sometimes hard to get a read on stupid :laugh:
Click to expand...

Limping in with mediocre hands will either make or break you. You limp in with A,J out of position and someone else limps in with A, K after you. An ace hits, can you fold it? or do you think he's trying to push you because you know he knows you limped in... I could go on and on about limping in.
As far as you losing a big pot with A,K to a small set, how did it go pre-flop? He probably knew he was a small favorite or even money and with implied odds it was worth it for him. If he flopped a set, I have run into few people who can fold a flopped set no matter what is out there. And as far as getting a read on stupid, this is true if you're the best player at the table, but how often does that happen (honestly now bud lol). Respect the "stupid" people because they are the ones who pay the bills. Poker is long term, just like blackjack.
 
blackjacktilt said:
Limping in with mediocre hands will either make or break you. You limp in with A,J out of position and someone else limps in with A, K after you. An ace hits, can you fold it? or do you think he's trying to push you because you know he knows you limped in... I could go on and on about limping in.
As far as you losing a big pot with A,K to a small set, how did it go pre-flop? He probably knew he was a small favorite or even money and with implied odds it was worth it for him. If he flopped a set, I have run into few people who can fold a flopped set no matter what is out there. And as far as getting a read on stupid, this is true if you're the best player at the table, but how often does that happen (honestly now bud lol). Respect the "stupid" people because they are the ones who pay the bills. Poker is long term, just like blackjack.
Click to expand...

Yep agreed. As I mentioned, the "stupid" person was absorbing big raises pre-flop. Caught me completely by surprise, figured out too late after I re-raised her all in and she called - still held the sliver of hope this person was completely stupid, but alas. Could have been a mistake on my part, knew she was the type of person to call with almost anything pre-flop, but didn't consider she was bad enough to take big pre-flop raises with a small pair. But of course, board flops AK4, have to make this bet no matter what.

She wasn't a completely terrible player, just made fairly significant mistakes like mentioned above. She was actually on a nice run, beating everyone left and right raking in big pots. Until others, making even stupider plays when she was making the right ones, started crushing her. Ah poker :grin:
 
Lonesome Gambler said:
Reasons why online pokers can not just go to a B&M casino and start collecting money:

1. Higher BR requirements. A marginally winning player beating 50NL ($0.25/$0.50 no limit) for 3PTBB/100 who is also playing 8 tables at once (assuming 100 hands/hour, which is somewhat reasonable) for 20 hours a week can make about $25/hr, which ends up to be $500, before counting about $215 in rakeback (assuming 27%RB). So at $715 a week, the 50NL player is making about $35/hr. Similarly, a reasonable enough WR for $2/$5 live NLHE is about $35/hr. The difference? The former is going to call for a BR of 20-30BI ($1000-$1500) to play comfortably. Live, you'll only need 10-15BI, but now you're looking at $5000-$7500. The figures can be even more skewed for skilled online players, who can easily surpass 3PTBB/100.

2. Live poker requires different skills. In online poker, it would be absurd to open-limp with low pocket pairs in a FR game. If you actually end up flopping a set, you will never have the implied odds to pay it off post-flop in order to compensate for all the money wasted when you did not flop the set. Live, the is actually a +EV play and almost a necessary one at that. Most live games at these stakes will have 4 or 5 limpers and the same amount of callers should anyone raise. Profitable live plays would be suicidal online, and many players can't successfully adjust.

I'll make these shorter because I need to start being productive and stop posting on here all night.

3. Rake is significantly higher live than online and there's no rakeback.
4. Travel and time expenses weigh in heavily, depending on the availability of live action.
5. Game speed is excruciatingly slow in comparison, which makes it hard for online players to focus at times. It also means that swings can last a lot longer. And no multi-tabling, of course.

There are more reasons, but these are significant obstacles.

KJ, the UIGEA made it a lot harder to play online, and many sites stopped catering to US players. But sites like FTP, UB/AP, and PS still took US players. It was as easy as loading up money with your VISA card. After 4/15, US players could no longer access their entire bankrolls or play at any real-money tables. Big difference, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

B&M players tend to be WAY worse than online players - you won't find chimpanzee's playing $3 $6 blinds online, but in B&M it's very common.

If you don't already have a rep as a tight-aggressive player, you can stop right in any B&M joint and start shaking down oldsters for their social security money.
 
live games cannot compensate for the speed

Dyepaintball12 said:
Okay when on-line poker was banned I thought "Wow, that sucks. Well at least they can still play live".

Then someone told me that on-line was great because of the low-limits. I then thought "Oh, that make sense. Well I think most players can afford to still play live."

Now I'm reading on PRO POKER PLAYERS blogs that this is such a huge blow to them and they want to move from Vegas and blah blah

WTF? I understand on-line was convenient, but seriously you can't just switch to live poker? Low limits also exist there!

I'm not trying to be ignorant... I just want to know!!!!


- Dye
Click to expand...

And none of the casino allowed multi-tasking while playing poker..
Playing multipls table is very common in online poker...
 
Gamblor said:
It was online :eek: But this was quite a ways back :)

Also it was limit poker. The pot odds were high enough where I had to call and hope he had at best a Q high - think he had 10 high if I recalled.
Click to expand...

I understand. I have people push hard early in a hand when I am shortstacked in a tournament with big slick. I get 80% or more of my meager stack committed and call with nothing on the river because I am pot committed preflop. They get all mad when I beat their bluff. They say thats the worse play Ive ever seen calling with nothing. I just point out more conservative betting by them earlier in the hand and I would have folded on the river. Sometimes his hand was the worst possible. They just decided to push the whole time betting they could get you to fold. I think if they were paying attention to the hand they would say it was the second worst play during the hand.
 
Lonesome Gambler said:
Reasons why online pokers can not just go to a B&M casino and start collecting money:

1. Higher BR requirements. A marginally winning player beating 50NL ($0.25/$0.50 no limit) for 3PTBB/100 who is also playing 8 tables at once (assuming 100 hands/hour, which is somewhat reasonable) for 20 hours a week can make about $25/hr, which ends up to be $500, before counting about $215 in rakeback (assuming 27%RB). So at $715 a week, the 50NL player is making about $35/hr. Similarly, a reasonable enough WR for $2/$5 live NLHE is about $35/hr. The difference? The former is going to call for a BR of 20-30BI ($1000-$1500) to play comfortably. Live, you'll only need 10-15BI, but now you're looking at $5000-$7500. The figures can be even more skewed for skilled online players, who can easily surpass 3PTBB/100.

2. Live poker requires different skills. In online poker, it would be absurd to open-limp with low pocket pairs in a FR game. If you actually end up flopping a set, you will never have the implied odds to pay it off post-flop in order to compensate for all the money wasted when you did not flop the set. Live, the is actually a +EV play and almost a necessary one at that. Most live games at these stakes will have 4 or 5 limpers and the same amount of callers should anyone raise. Profitable live plays would be suicidal online, and many players can't successfully adjust.

I'll make these shorter because I need to start being productive and stop posting on here all night.

3. Rake is significantly higher live than online and there's no rakeback.
4. Travel and time expenses weigh in heavily, depending on the availability of live action.
5. Game speed is excruciatingly slow in comparison, which makes it hard for online players to focus at times. It also means that swings can last a lot longer. And no multi-tabling, of course.

There are more reasons, but these are significant obstacles.

KJ, the UIGEA made it a lot harder to play online, and many sites stopped catering to US players. But sites like FTP, UB/AP, and PS still took US players. It was as easy as loading up money with your VISA card. After 4/15, US players could no longer access their entire bankrolls or play at any real-money tables. Big difference, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

I dont disagree completely with this LG, but if online players can adjust to playing 25 hands an hour, they will do fine live. An average 2/5 game has about the same skill level as about 5/10 cent online. Sure you get way less hands but your winrate (ptbb/100) can be 20x higher.
 
PonyPrincess said:
Not everyone played fullring NL online.

Also the pace, ~22 hands an hour as opposed to like 1000 an hour.
Click to expand...

1K and hour? if you're playing 9-10 tables. you generally get around 120 hands per hour online (6 max) and around 100 with 9. Depends obviously on the players, limit and action. 30-40 hands and hour live with a good dealer and good table.
 
Some thoughts on posts

Poker is my primary game so I'd thought I'd contribute my two cents to this discussion:
MangoJ: I agree with your comments
Kewljason: The 2006 UIGEA also cracked down on internet casinos. Only the lottery, horse racing, and fastasy sports were exempt from this asinine legislation
Flash: 2/4 is lowest limit game available live. But the rake makes it unbeatable.
Thirty hands an hour as about normal for a brick-and-mortar holdem game.

Sweden has a well-run online poker room. It is run by the government there and has a low rake. Eventually--some years from now--the inept US government will also decide to regulate internet poker and online casinos.
 
blackjacktilt said:
1K and hour? if you're playing 9-10 tables. you generally get around 120 hands per hour online (6 max) and around 100 with 9. Depends obviously on the players, limit and action. 30-40 hands and hour live with a good dealer and good table.
Click to expand...

if you're 10 tabling, you're getting way more than 120 hands per hour. you're probably getting around 1k hands per hour, maybe more.

i don't think i've ever played live where it was even close to 40 hands per hour. 25 hands/hr is the norm.
 
fubster said:
if you're 10 tabling, you're getting way more than 120 hands per hour. you're probably getting around 1k hands per hour, maybe more.

i don't think i've ever played live where it was even close to 40 hands per hour. 25 hands/hr is the norm.
Click to expand...

that is what i'm saying pertaining to online play, sorry if it was not clear. conditions affect hands dealt live, hence the statement of 30-40 hands per hour live.
 
Canceler said:
No one, from the other players to the dealers to the card room management, is going to put up with you playing even two tables simultaneously live.
Click to expand...

I can attest that this is true for BJ as well. I once two-tabled for a little while. I was playing a promo game with a very small max bet, restricted to one hand, and a very slow moving game. The hourly rate was decent, but nothing to get excited about. I was sitting at first. Just to pass the time, I started back counting the next table over. I made a few table max ($100) bets on that table while my table was completing the excrutiatingly long, absurdly complex shuffle. It only took a few bets before they told me I had to pick one table or the other :rolleyes: :laugh:
 
Nynefingers said:
I can attest that this is true for BJ as well. I once two-tabled for a little while. I was playing a promo game with a very small max bet, restricted to one hand, and a very slow moving game. The hourly rate was decent, but nothing to get excited about. I was sitting at first. Just to pass the time, I started back counting the next table over. I made a few table max ($100) bets on that table while my table was completing the excrutiatingly long, absurdly complex shuffle. It only took a few bets before they told me I had to pick one table or the other :rolleyes: :laugh:
Click to expand...

I once played craps with a guy at my table who was doing that. He would place his bets then turn around and play the other table.

Very odd, but his average total bet per table was around $60,000 so I'm guessing the casino was lovin' it. He did this at the Flamingo... if I was betting that much I think I would pick a nicer place...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top