Poker players, please explain this to me.

  • Dyepaintball12

    Poker players, please explain this to me.

    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

  • MangoJ

     

    Live poker and online poker are two different games.

    First: in online poker you can play multiple tables simultaneous. You can specialise in quick decisions which are sub-optimal but fast. But since they are quick, you can play 10 tables at once, raising your total EV per hour.

    Second: In live poker you are subject to your tells which are more or less missing in online poker.

    Third: With online poker you have much more “tools” available, evaluating your hand and your opponents.

  • kewljason

     

    Me too! I am not a poker player online or live and am totally not familiar with what is going on. I know the government passed laws a while ago like 2006 or 2007 making it harder for US players to play online with funding accounts and stuff and at that time some online sites stopped accepting US players, but from reading it seems players found a way around that or something. So what changed recently that it has all of the sudden completely dried up?

  • FLASH1296

     

    Perhaps you do not fully understand what “Low Stakes” mean to some players.

    Hundreds of thousand of people enjoyed playing for pennies, or nickels and dimes, on-line.

    NOT hyperole.

    Have you seen a legal poker room where you can play $1 – $2 “Limit Poker” ?

    Nope.

  • Midwestern

     

    What just happened to online poker in the US was DEVASTATING to online poker players. Bankrolls of 5, 6, and 7 figures are completely frozen and players are freaking out as to whether they will ever see that money ever again. To put it in terms of blackjack, assume that an AP player puts in thousands of hours at his local casino, and instead of cashing out, keeps his BR in high denomination chips. Well, what if in one fell swoop, this casino refused to honor cash-outs of chips in play because of suspected chip counterfeiting. The player would be stuck holding worthless chips and he would have wasted many hours of his life. Moreover, his future career could be in jeopardy.

    (end example)

    The whole reason behind the site shutdowns is because of money laundering. Any Joe Schmoe could sign up, deposit money via e-check, and play poker with any other Joe Schmoe. The online sites had no due diligence on who their customers were so anyone could sign up. Any money was good money.

    Suppose Druglord X buys in for $10 million dollars at a high-limit poker table and tells his friend in the US, a Mule, to play at the same table with him. Druglord purposely loses all of his chips over time to the Mule. The mule can then cash out his winnings legally as gambling revenue. This is money laundering and that is why the poker sites are shut down.

    As far as the live experience vs online experience….well live poker can be very slow, where you may only see 15 hands an hour. would you consider your time as an AP well spent if you went from one dealer who could deal 100 hands an hour to play BJ at a dealer that only dealt 15 hands an hour? I wouldnt…
    Online, expert players could properly play 6 + tables of poker. More tables meant more hands played, more variance, and hence more money.

    the hard part about the whole situation is that there are legitimate grinders out there with 6-figure bankrolls out there making a living with online poker that are now out of a job and out of their bankroll. yikes!

  • FLASH1296

     

    Midwestern,

    I agree with what you have posted re: money laundering.

    Just as an aside … brick and mortar poker rooms ordinarily deal 30 hands per hour.

    A dealer pushing the action along slower than that hurts himself re: the gross tokes that he gets, as in most rooms, dealers “keep their own”

  • flyingwind

     

    If I were in another country, such as Japan, China, Canada, Thailand, or Singapore, can I deposit or withdraw money from poker websites? Which websites are still playable now?

  • Canceler

     

    Quote: kewljason said:
    So what changed recently that it has all of the sudden completely dried up?

    On April 15th, for some major poker sites, it was this:

  • Lonesome Gambler

     

    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.

  • fubster

     

    Quote: 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

    You’re playing 25 hands per hour live as opposed to 1500 or so.

  • fubster

     

    far fewer games to choose from as well. factor in expenses (gas, food, tips, rake that’s at least twice as high) and you can see why live poker is not the best way to make a living.

  • Midwestern

     

    Quote: FLASH1296 said:
    Midwestern,

    I agree with what you have posted re: money laundering.

    Just as an aside … brick and mortar poker rooms ordinarily deal 30 hands per hour.

    A dealer pushing the action along slower than that hurts himself re: the gross tokes that he gets, as in most rooms, dealers “keep their own”

    don’t know what you’re trying to say flash.
    a poker dealer would have no motive to slow down the game by dealing slow… What makes live poker slow are the PLAYERS! taking a long time to decide strategy, bet sizing, getting reads on opponents…

    regardless, 30 hands an hour on one table gives the expert player less opportuntiy to make $ than 30 hands/ hour on 5 tables…

  • blackjacktilt

     

    Quote: MangoJ said:
    Live poker and online poker are two different games.

    First: in online poker you can play multiple tables simultaneous. You can specialise in quick decisions which are sub-optimal but fast. But since they are quick, you can play 10 tables at once, raising your total EV per hour.

    Second: In live poker you are subject to your tells which are more or less missing in online poker.

    Third: With online poker you have much more “tools” available, evaluating your hand and your opponents.

    Pretty much sums it up. Hands per hour is the big one.

  • moo321

     

    Quote: Midwestern said:
    don’t know what you’re trying to say flash.
    a poker dealer would have no motive to slow down the game by dealing slow…

    I know a lot of poker dealers that don’t get this concept, though.

  • MangoJ

     

    Quote: Midwestern said:
    a poker dealer would have no motive to slow down the game by dealing slow… What makes live poker slow are the PLAYERS! taking a long time to decide strategy, bet sizing, getting reads on opponents…

    It’s also the dealer. Washing the cards after every hand…

  • FLASH1296

     

    Midwestern … You posted about playing 15 hands per hr.

    You were so far off in that figure, that a correction was in order.

  • Dyepaintball12

     

    Oh. I see. I guess it is a big deal! I thought the US temporarily allowed players to log back in to claim their money though?

  • Midwestern

     

    can you imagine having the SEC and the FBI sieze your 6-digit bankroll?

  • mjbballar23

     

    Quote: Dyepaintball12 said:
    Oh. I see. I guess it is a big deal! I thought the US temporarily allowed players to log back in to claim their money though?

    poker stars has already started cashing out money. Full Tilt will likely follow suit in the next week or two. Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet are rumored to be filing for bankruptcy, thus not paying back any players money.

  • SleightOfHand

     

    Quote: mjbballar23 said:
    Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet are rumored to be filing for bankruptcy, thus not paying back any players money.

    Now that is a big surprise. I only have 4 figures in my online poker account on PokerStars, but given this news, I am very thankful that I didn’t sign up for those websites

  • 21forme

     

    Question from someone who knows nothing about online poker:
    Is there any poker software, telling you the best play (similar to computer chess) that people use on these sites? If so, how can the game be fair?

  • Sharky

     

    Quote: SleightOfHand said:
    …I only have 4 figures in my online poker account on PokerStars,..

    including decimals?

  • Gamblor

     

    Hey live poker is the only game that pretty much a guarantee that you can win 100% of your sessions… if your playing against a table of fishes. Of course you’ll hardly find that in casino poker rooms.

    Before the the online and TV poker craze, I would estimate that 30-40% of live players at a casino were bad players, and the rest solid.

    Nowadays I would estimate 10% of players are bad, and the rest solid.

  • mjbballar23

     

    Quote: Gamblor said:
    Hey live poker is the only game that pretty much a guarantee that you can win 100% of your sessions… if your playing against a table of fishes. Of course you’ll hardly find that in casino poker rooms.

    Before the the online and TV poker craze, I would estimate that 30-40% of live players at a casino were bad players, and the rest solid.

    Nowadays I would estimate 10% of players are bad, and the rest solid.

    No way. When the poker craze first started, 99% of players were bad. Nowadays it varies greatly on what limits you are playing, where your playing, and what day/time of the day it is . The high stakes live games might have 1 or 2 fish at a table, or somedays there might be 4-6. It all just depends

  • Gamblor

     

    Assume you play in Vegas where you get more tourists and this might be true.

    I usually play casinos in the East, so full of locals. I feel fortunate to get 1 or 2 fish at the table.

    When I say bad, I mean constantly chasing inside straights, chasing runner runner flush, calling stations, steamer, etc., bad.

    Not rocks, calling all in JJ pre-flop with 2+ other all ins (ok this is bordering on really bad), calling 27 suited bad – these people are the equivalent of BJ players who don’t hit 12 v 2, soft 18 v 10. Personally I think these are bad players, but not terrible.

    Come on, there was never a time 99% of players were bad, maybe 30 years ago

The BlackjackInfo Knowledge Base contains over 200,000 messages posted by the BlackjackInfo community.

Posting and replies to the knowledge base are no longer available, but comments and replies are welcomed on the blog.