Question about a difference between online and reality

Hi,

I'm not too big on online poker. I started posting here a while back hoping to discuss some real life poker, but there isn't too much of that here. Then I went to vegas for two months and I forgot about this site.

I recently read something that interested me and I wanted to pose it to some online players to see what the responses are.

According to many noted poker authorities, only about 10% of poker players (real life that is) make money. Even less make enough to scrape out a living. I have also read the figures of 15% or 20%, but never more than that. The other 80-90% of players lose money, ranging from small losses to big losses. So basically, you have a small percentage of good players absorbing the winnings while a large group shares the losses.

I recently read on sharkscope that 1/3 of the players they rank have positive ROI ratings. That is amazing to me because in real life, the percentage of players that win at casinos could never reach 33%.

Has anyone ever discussed this here? Why do so many more players win online than in real life?

And yet, who are we to say what reality is? Maybe over a large enough sample of hands with infinite game selection and +EV situations, poker is a game that has a higher ROI than we experience in "live" situations.

Think about it: You're forced to wait on the rail for hours, waiting for a seat to open. Then you only get to play 30 ~ 40 hands per hour, and to top it off, you got seated beside some shmuck who hasn't washed in a week. Maybe when you finally saw pocket 10's pre-flop you'd push a little too hard to try and take the pot right there. Maybe you'd try to be a hero. You know you deserve it.

Maybe we feel pressured to play it differently in live games because we know how long it takes to find good situations and don't want to pass them by. Folding those 10's to a raise is a lot harder to do live than on-line when you're 4-tabling and are involved in 2 other hands at the same time.

The argument about seeing more hands online doesn't really work because when you look at the sample we are talking about here it's big enough. It's all the hands all the live players play and the results of all of them, so there is plenty there to work with. I don't think if we waited for a few hundred years the percetage of winners would go up as a result of more hands being played.

I've heard a lot of people say online players play a little better. I don't see it. If anything, I think live players play better. If it's easier to fold a marginal hand online because of multi-tabling, then that has to be offset by the fact that it's a lot easier for players to click that call button than it is for them to shove a stack of chips forward and watch them raked into the pot.

I really don't think online players are any tighter than live players as a whole. In fact, many of the live players are online players and I see the same BS loose play in both.

Then I guess Sharkscope is lying. They can't all be right. Besides, posting crappy ROI's for on-line players and tanking your product sales as a direct result of that posting is just bad business. I was only trying to rationalize a statement you made.

Assuming that figure about live players is correct (I've got no idea about its accuracy, but I play both live and online FWIW), my guess would be this:

People log onto online poker sites to play poker. They go to casinos, however, to gamble.

So good, bad or otherwise, you'll find more poker players at your average online table, and you'll find more gamblers who just happen to be playing poker that night at a casino table.

33%+ cant win at casinos? In the long run casinos are amazing, insane profit. Im cursed so I get rivered for huge pots, but like I said in the long run id be up thousands, you just gotta get the hours in. Its quite incredible how much money can be made, the play is bad and half the table are pure gamblers.

Its like 30% winning online players too, at least in short term like a month from what ive seen from datamining pics. In the very long run the winning player base is probably 20-25% but thats still a decent amount.

That is a good theory.

You deffinitely see a lot of people at the tables that are clueless about how to play good poker.

There is one problem with that theory though. Online players are no better than gambling non poker players....they might even be worse.

As a long time live player, I am much happier sitting at a table with a lot of young online players. When I see three or four 23 year olds with sun glasses and hooded sweatshirts, I KNOW I'm going to make money at that table.

I'm not saying that a 50 year old business man on vacation with a few grand burning a hole in his wallet is not a good target. But he isn't any better than the average online player with little or no live game experience who thinks that a flush draw on the flop hits 50% of the time.

That's my point. There is no way in hell that 33% of the players at any casino I have seen are winning players.

I really can't think of a reason why 1/3 of online players are making money.

I will say this though. My real life sit and go ROI is over 35% and my online sit and go ROI is only 9%. I also know a number of excellent players who have rather unimpressive online earning capacities.

To me, this suggests some sort of evening out effect of online poker, where good players don't do as well as they do in real life and bad players don't lose as much as the do in real life.

I honestly do not buy the argument that online players are better poker players for two important reasons. The first is that I observe the same lose play, overagressive betting and bluffing, and chasing with terrible pot odds in both online and live play. The second is that online players are some of the worst players I encounter at casinos, regardless of where the casino is or what level or type of game I am playing.

Needs proof, IMO

As for your win rates being lower online than live, again, I suspect the fact that there are more dead-money pure gamblers at the live tables has a lot to do with it.

Remember that I play and love both forms of the game. I also deal live, so I've seen countless examples of it: someone's only in the game because their partner is and they may as well kill the time by playing. Someone's friends just happened to be doing this tonight, so what the hell. Someone's drunk... so what the hell. Someone's here because they're running bad at craps and felt like a change. Those players exist, and there's plenty of them.

You simply do not see those kind of players at online tables, because they've gotta go to way too much effort to get there - they've gotta download a site, work out how to deposit on it... way too much hassle, they're never gonna do it.

There's another aspect to online win rates too: exactly how much online poker have you played?

It can take some time to get used to the reduced action times and overall pace of the game. As a live player, I know it took me months and months to get my head around playing at internet speed. If you haven't spent a lot of time playing online to get past that barrier, it's natural to expect that your results will suffer.

While I'm on a roll, are you playing the same stakes online as you do live? We can argue over whether online players or live players are better overall, but one thing I'd argue as almost irrefutable is that online players at the same stakes are significantly better than their live counterparts. $200NL live, for example, plays like $10NL online. I've observed it, as have countless others. Guys who play $10K buy-in tournaments live play $500 buy-in tournaments online.

One last thing - 9% ROI, while it may be less than your live figure, is still pretty good. Nice work. Have you converted it into $/hr though? One of the big upsides of the online game is the endless action - chances are you can play four or five SnGs in the time it'd take you to play one live SnG then wait for the next one to start. Five at 9%, or one at 35%? Assuming the same stakes, I know which one I'd take.

im actually way ahead in live poker then i am in online. I find it easier to make money at live poker because you can read people easier and there are not so many donks.

Whoa whoa, there arnt as many donks live? compared to online players?

Maybe if you are playing for pennies the players are terrible online.

Live players in the casinos, playing for *$200* buy-in 1/2 are some of the worse players in existance.

Online, playing 1/2 for a $200 buy-in, the players are quite skilled for the most part and the greater minority is the "donks" You are lucky to get 1 or 2 of them at a table online.

When I go to the casino, you have maybe 2-3 players that know what they are doing, 5-6 players that have NO IDEA what they are doing with their cards, and can "donk" away $200 in a matter of a few hands. Playing random ass suited hands like 74s or garbage like that, reloading for $200 at a time, gambling for the most part.

Its pretty common knowledge that the main reason you play live poker is to play against terrible players and make large amounts of profit. Reason being as thats its slow, and you cannot multitable like you can online. The sole reason is the fact that you can run up a $200 buyin into $600+++ in a few hours depending on the table.

Angle shooting that online is rigged imo. Worthless thread.

are you sure you've played live poker before?

Honestly, from what ive found, if you play in a $100 game live, the players are worse than online. Ill be that it changes the higher you get, but for the levels, 2/4 live is considerably worse than 2/4 online. This is only what ive noticed, but then again ive only played at 5 different casinos in california.

Pretty much the same the world over, I'll wager*. 2/3 live in Australia is no different (they do 2/3 and not 2/4 or 2/5 here for some reason - go figure).

Don't get me wrong internetpokerdonk, I love live poker and it's got a lot of things going for it. But there's just no way the majority of your claims stand up.


* Seriously - we're discussing a pretty nebulous topic but if there were any way of actually quantifying the issue, I'd put money on it.

I'm still not sure that online poker should have a 33% winner rate overall. Maybe online would have more winning players, but 1/3 seems an absurd number to me. Apparantly it doesn't seem that strange to many online players.

In the past year and a half I haven't played much at all. But a few years ago I played thousands of online rig n blows. I can multi table up to 8 tables comfortably, and more not so comfortably. Although I prefer to play one table because it reminds me of live play when I actually watch what people are doing.

No, I would never play the same stakes online as real life. Currently, I would not put more than $20 on a sit and go online. In contrast, I play $500 or $1000 sit and goes at casinos.

I used to play $50 HORSE tourneys on full tilt when my HORSE ROI was 35%. But that was right before I quit my job to play live and I haven't had the time to invest in online poker that I used to have....my wife gets pissed when I spend a week or two away from home and then I turn on online poker when I get back.

If you think I'm running into better players in a $20 online sng than I am at a $1000 live one, I still won't argue with that. Sometimes I am shocked at how bad someone who risks $1K live can be. But then again, I am also shocked when I see an online genius raise KJ in early position and get it all in on the flop with a single pair when he has 75 big blinds in his stack...then I look him up and his ROI is 20% or higher. That's why I don't risk money online. Strange play wins the day too often for my taste.

Don't get me wrong though, I have made some money online. I just made a $500 withdrawal. I just don't make enough money so that I can stay home and play online instead of having to fly or drive to casinos to play real poker.
Thanks, but it still doesn't feel right.

There are many differences between online poker and live poker. I've given up thinking about whether or not it is rigged. I just make note of those differences and each time I find a new one, like this 33% winner rate thing, I remind myself that I'd rather be a winning player live that can only scrape up a few hundred here and there online than an online genius who stacks off when he plays 5/10 at the casino.

Beat me to it...

Yes, I agree with this....

I don't necessarily agree with this. I can always find one to chip up offa.

'cept last night..... What a nightmare.


---

I have yet to play at a live 1/2 game that has even one player that knows what they are doing other than myself. 1/2 NL at a casino is all about dodging random hands.

But if we look at an online game that is comparable, lets say .10/.25 NL....would you say that is comparable?...if we look at that game, we see a lot of player that have no idea about starting hands, position, pot odds, etc. Now and then I will play a small stakes cash game online. I would say that I see the same garbage at a .10/.25 NL game online that I do at a 1/2 NL game live. I will see players limp-call any two suited cards from out of position and then play draws on the flop like they have the nuts....same as they do at the casino.

If, as I blieve, the play is comparable, then a good player should have no problem, as you put it about the 1/2 live game, running his $25 buy in up to $75++ in a few hours. This is not the case however.

I'm not offering up a reason for why a good player will have more trouble tripling his buy in at a dime/quarter online game than he will at a 1/2 live game, but I will refute the idea that the live players are any worse at 1/2 than they are at dime/quarter online. Same garbage play, different results.

Hell, I'm lucky if I break even at one of those dime/quarter cash games online!

You're post is worthless sir. If you have nothing to say, then say nothing. Or better yet, start a thread extolling the virtues of online poker.

Do you really think it's worthless to discuss the differences between online and real life.

I probably is, unless you play both. In that case it's a good topic.

You probably play exclusively online. Most players who immediately get deffensive about online poker being "rigged" are almost 100% online players who make it to a live game once in a while and get their ass handed to them.

If you only play online poker and you never play live, then I feel sorry for you because you are missing out on most of the things that make poker such a great game. If you win online and can't win in real life, like most online winners, then don't play live and never even think about the differences between the two, because whatever they are, they benefit you.

However, if you are like me, and you make a lot of money playing live, but can only make a small fraction of that profit online, then discussing the differences between the two might help you become a better online player.

I would LOVE to learn how to make as much money online as I do live. I would love to not have to leave the house and just sit in my boxer shorts in my comfortable chair with my dog next to me while I make a living through my computer. I loath vegas. I hate to travel. I hate hotels. I don't even like casinos. I much prefer a nice home game to a casino poker table.


So far, all I hear in this thread is that online players are better than live players. If that is the case, then the answer to why I don't make as much online is that I'm running into better players than I am used to. Considering that I play $2000 NL cash tables and I play $50 NL online tables, I have trouble believing that, but hey, if that is the consensus, who am I to argue.

So far, the only claim I've made here is that 10% win live and 33% win online.

For the first figure, I can only cite what I have read in books and articles. If you do a proper google search, you should find several poker writers that give figures between 10% and 20%.

The second figure is from the FAQ section of Sharkscope.com. You can go there and look that figure up.

Those are my claims.

The discussion of why two to three times as many players win online proportionally is up you. Hell, you're one of the only ones here who put up anything worthwhile.

a positive ROI doesn't necessarily mean a winning player. people may win money over a few dozen (or more) games at a certain level, get overconfident and move up and/or take big shots. people who can beat a low limit but who move up before they are ready constitute a lot of losing players. if you beat a lot of $10 games at 10% ROI then move up to $50 games and bust your roll you may have a positive ROI but have lost money.

in saying this i in no way endorse the accuracy of the 10% and 33% figures - i'm just speculating as to why there is a difference assuming that they are true, which in the absence of actual evidence i'm quite certain are not.

I already told you that the sharkscope FAQ section says 1/3 of the players they rank are winners.


It would be IMPOSSIBLE to provide actual evidence for how many players win in real life. Casinos do not keep stats. My figure comes from reading about poker for years. I recently read an article on cardplayer.com that used the 10% figure and one of Sklansky's books that says 15%. I think helmuth said less than 20% in one of his books IIRC.

These are all just estimates.

So, since the sharkscope figure is on their website for all to see, then the figure your are "quite certain" is innaccurate is the one about live poker winners.

Since you are so certain it is innacurate, you must have a strong oppionion about whether the number is higher or lower.

Since your post seems to imply that you think I'm full of BS, and since my thread is about the difference between online and reality, then you must think the number is higher.

So how much higher than 20% do you think the percentage of live players is?

I cannot speak to live tinkering with the chips. I tell you that the reason I play online versus live is the exigent costs associated with travel and overnight stays in additions to the entries. (And also add that my husband is adverse to the idea of gambling though in his youth he was primarily from the streets and played pool, I understand). Should I ever win an entry [ chuckle; far from likely] ... then I might convince him go to a live competition.

Man you said it there if I was playing on line poker for a living my kids would be eating Spam and Ramin noodles off my winnings LMAO it is just for the enjoyment and sometimes a little extra change.....

no, you said they say that 1/3 of the players they rank have a positive ROI. there is a difference, as I explained. read your OP again.

maybe if you link us to this page it would help - i really can't be bothered trawling through sharkscope's site to find it myself.

edit: random other factor - rake online <<<< rake live.

wow bud a little angry are we. Well I don't have the oppertunity to play live games from my location so I don't know the difference. I work in Kuwait and put in 12 and 14 hour days. I just like to play a game every now and then ya know.

SharkScope - The Largest Online Poker Tournament Results Database

I'm not angry, but I felt the need to defend myself when one player says this is a worthless topic (so worthless there is an article on cardplayer titled "the differences between online and live poker" ) and another player basically says I'm making up numbers.

Notice Dorkus hasn't told us what he thinks the percentage of players who win live is.

Aside from everything else Dorkus and others have said, you do realise that Sharkscope only does tournament results, right? It says so right there in the title.

So you can't actually use that for estimating overall online player win rates, as it ignores ring games altogether.

Unless you only want to talk about donk 'n' goes, in which case, why are you banging on about cash game tables?

I don't think that is a relevant distinction.

Sit and goes actually require more skill than cash games, not less. You not only have to know the game to profit from them in the long term, but you also have to know how to work the structure.

I play many sit and goes in real life. I play a lot here in Florida in particular because our cash game buy ins are capped at $100. Who wants to play a 5/10 NL game where everyone starts with ten big blinds?

Consequently, I play a great deal of $500 and $1000 sit and goes live. I can tell you from personal experience that the same players cash in them over and over and I know of several players who make thier livings playing these sit and goes exclusively.

I think skill is exaggerated in sit and goes...at least live. That is that winning players have a greater advantage and losing players are at a greater dissadvantage. This is mostly because players who might have an average understanding of the game and might be able to break even in cash games have trouble adjusting to the sit and go format. They can't understand the tight to start/loose to finish winning strategy. Most sit and go losers play loose up front and try to build a stack and then tighten up close to the bubble to try and ensure a third place finish.

At any rate, even if you think that skill is not more important in a sit and go than in a cash game, I think the rate of winning players v. losing players should still be comparable between sit and goes and cash games. It really doesn't make sense to me to assert that 10% of players win at cash games and 33% win at sit and goes. That would mean that 23% of poker players lose money at cash games but by some miracle become profitable players when they buy into a sit and go.

Are you asserting that otherwise losing players have a better chance to win at sit and goes than they do at cash games? If not, then the distinction is irrelevant to the analysis.



For DORKUS- From the first page of a google search:

Poker Bankroll | webooks

I also found three articles that say that 95% of poker players lose money in the long term, but I only mention them to show you that there are pros who are even less forgiving in their estimates than I am. I would wager that more than 5% of players are long term winners. My range is 10-20%. I think that is an acceptable range. It certainly doesn't seem out of the ordinary and it isn't some number I just made up.

It would be far more ridiculous to say that 33% of players make money in the real world of poker. I don't think any respected poker writer today would tell his readers that fully 1/3 of them can expect to be profitable poker players.

dont forget the vig...
Only rake and entry fees are half of brick and morter. that will increase your roi every day.

It's absolutely a relevant distinction if you want your argument to make even a tiny lick of sense

Here's the thing:

Wherever you're getting your live winner figures from, be it 10%, 15%, 20% of players, whatever the figure is - I promise you those "noted poker authorities" weren't talking solely about SnGs. They're just far too small a part of the live poker market for that to be plausible. You've gotta compare apples with apples.

Winning players could include players who lucked out and won a big tournament - I'd be 99.9% certain Jerry Yang is a winning player over his 'career', for example. Reckon Jerry Yang would be a winning player if you sat him in a $5/$10 live game for a year though? I don't.

There's equivalent online examples as well, naturally. People that freeroll their way into huge online tournaments and win big aren't unheard of, it happened at the latest Stars WCOOP main event. Point is though, your live figures include these kind of winners, and your online figures exclude them. Immediately we have a flaw in the data set.

As for cash games and whether we should expect the win rates at them to be different to SnGs, I've never seen data. Nor are any of us ever likely to, because that's not the way cash games work. But a difference in the win rates wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Why? You've said it yourself: you're a winning SnG player who's lucky to break even at $25NL online. Think you're the only one?

I won't argue that SnGs require specific skills - we could argue all day over whether those skills make you "better" than a cash game or MTT player, but in the end it really doesn't matter.

What I will argue, however, is that SnGs can be much more forgiving than cash games or MTTs. You mentioned "working the structure" and you're correct to - it's a big part of SnG play. I think therein lies your explanation though. There's no such thing as limping over the bubble and into the money in a cash game, and while the same thing can happen in MTTs you've got to play a lot longer to get there.

That, I put it to you, is the reason you can expect higher win rates in SnGs than you can in cash games. You might work the structure to put pressure on people at key moments, but others work the structure to grind out constant strings of third places. Take that safety net away from them in a cash game, however, and that player becomes a long term loser.