Cast your Vote: Is live easier than Online?

[Jacki Burkhart]

in re-reading this thread for about the 7th time...trying to identify what I am missing...why my experience is so different from most replies...

I wonder if it's not because in the world of "live" poker there are also so many levels of live poker. from home games, to tribal casinos, to poker clubs to the wsop.

For me, I only play live poker in a casino about 10-12 days per year. The rest is all played in a poker club that will naturally have a very different purpose and clientele than a casino would. You need to know where these places are located through word of mouth as they do not advertise, and they are located in the "cheap rent" parts of town. You have to pay a fee just to walk in the door and become a "member" of the club and there are no slot machines or video poker or blackjack tables, c0cktail waitresses, or even c0cktails to be had once you get in there. It's all poker all the time once inside and so naturally, the type of person who ventures inside is not usually a casual or recreational gambler just on a quick break from the dental convention...

I don't know, maybe this is where my bias lies. I have found live poker (in my experiences) to be much different from the way most posters describe it. This business of limping in all the time and ignoring position...that actually sounds like online poker to me...but that's probably because of the cheap stakes I play online, and the more expensive stakes I play live.

 

[MediaBLITZ]

If you are saying live play is more difficult because you lack patience for the slower pace then that says more about you and your own shortcomings as a player than the game itself. But I can see where if you are just waiting for a hand and find the rest of the time meaningless and a waste then, yeah - I get it. For myself I find that time to be invaluable and part of the reason live play has been so good to me.

 

[Martinez]

Iv'e only played live poker 5 times with small entries usually about 30 - 50 players, but made the final table every time.
On the other hand played much more online and made many more final tables including my fare share of wins with much bigger fields.
They are just different in feel and texture in my opinion. Both have good and bad things going for them, but on the whole I think online is easier as you can hide behind the screen and nobody gets to see the real you.

 

[WEC]

I voted No. They are different but equally difficult.

I guess if live were so much easier than online, the online pros would be pretty stupid to not fight to give up the computer and move to the live version. There should be a MAD rush to the live tables by SMART online Professionals. They should really cut down on the online play.

Instead I find plenty of horrid play online and live still. The real truth is it depends where you are playing live and online. Los Angeles live is way different than Las Vegas live games, and say Foxwoods (and other Est Coast) live games. And Bovada is different play than pokerstars and BCP. IMO

I think it is true some people find live easier for THEM, and vice versa for various reasons, skillsets and personal choices.

 

[HooDooKoo]

I guess if live were so much easier than online, the online pros would be pretty stupid to not fight to give up the computer and move to the live version. There should be a MAD rush to the live tables by SMART online Professionals. They should really cut down on the online play.

Holy Specious Argument, Batman!

The pros that play online do so MAINLY for one of two reasons (or a combination of the two):

1. They can multi-table online, which is impossible live. As a result, online pros won't give it up even if they think playing live is easier. Even if their win rate per 100 hands is lower online, their absolute profit is much higher online due to the volume obtainable my multi-tabling.

2. Playing online is incredible CONVENIENT. No travel time. No dress code. No need for cash on hand. Easily accessible restrooms. Free food.

The reasons above should be self-evident to any thinking human, and demonstrate that you theory is asinine.

-HooDooKoo

 

[wanderingthehall]

I voted that live is easier. I am a microstakes player both live and online, meaning my average online buy-in is $1-$5 and my average live buy-in is $20-$150. I play online 20-40 hours a week. I play a live tourney a few times a year.

Full background, from Vegas, learned how to play live in cheap tourneys there, but was going to college in the Midwest where the closest live poker was 2 hours away and I was a broke college student. I loved the game so I started playing micros online.

Live is what I really love, but I haven't had the extra money to put towards it, so I have fun with the zero to hero online.

So here is why I think live is easier, and keep in mind my experience is just the cheap daily tourneys casinos offer.

1. The players have seen waaaaay fewer hands. Most of the players I talk to live have never played online, have only played a little online, or haven't played much online since BF. Even if they use to play online, they are rusty as far as # of hands they have recently seen, and I'm under the impression online play has gotten more difficult over the years.

2. Over half the players live make basic mistakes such as ignoring position, playing A-rag, chasing flush draws with the wrong pot odds, etc. Most seem to not be aware of these concepts. There are plenty of players that this describes online as well, but when you combine that with #3 it makes for easier profit....

Example: Last tournament I played in I was clearly getting some respect from the table, and the person on my right said they were really glad I was sitting to their left. I really wish she was baiting me, but she sincerely thought she wanted a good player on her left and not her right.

3. Live play is not nearly as aggressive. It's easier to push my opponents out of hands, and it's easier to put opponents on a range with their bets when they bet/raise less than what I'm used to online.


Now I think there are 2 main reasons that most people feel live poker is harder.

1. No HUDS - It's very common online to use a HUD and multi-table. Many players become reliant on those stats. They also don't have the attention span to stay focused on just one game.

2. tells - Online players aren't used to their physical expressions affecting the game. There is no need to hide your body language when your opponents can't see you.

I don't have problems with those because 1. I don't use a HUD and 2. My body language is a result of what's going on around me, not what I'm thinking. So, I'm naturally blank faced if I'm not interacting with someone. If I do have an expression, it has to do with the social interactions that I'm a part of and doesn't reflect my cards at all. It really works to my advantage.

To sum it up, I put a lot of time in online because I love to play and I'm willing to build my BR from freerolls and be happy with winning a few hundred a year off of that. However, next year I'll have the opportunity to start playing live more frequently and will hopefully be successful enough to play a few times a month.

 

[Jacki Burkhart]

I voted that live is easier. I am a microstakes player both live and online, meaning my average online buy-in is $1-$5 and my average live buy-in is $20-$150. I play online 20-40 hours a week. I play a live tourney a few times a year.

Full background, from Vegas, learned how to play live in cheap tourneys there, but was going to college in the Midwest where the closest live poker was 2 hours away and I was a broke college student. I loved the game so I started playing micros online.

Live is what I really love, but I haven't had the extra money to put towards it, so I have fun with the zero to hero online.

So here is why I think live is easier, and keep in mind my experience is just the cheap daily tourneys casinos offer.

1. The players have seen waaaaay fewer hands. Most of the players I talk to live have never played online, have only played a little online, or haven't played much online since BF. Even if they use to play online, they are rusty as far as # of hands they have recently seen, and I'm under the impression online play has gotten more difficult over the years.

2. Over half the players live make basic mistakes such as ignoring position, playing A-rag, chasing flush draws with the wrong pot odds, etc. Most seem to not be aware of these concepts. There are plenty of players that this describes online as well, but when you combine that with #3 it makes for easier profit....

Example: Last tournament I played in I was clearly getting some respect from the table, and the person on my right said they were really glad I was sitting to their left. I really wish she was baiting me, but she sincerely thought she wanted a good player on her left and not her right.

3. Live play is not nearly as aggressive. It's easier to push my opponents out of hands, and it's easier to put opponents on a range with their bets when they bet/raise less than what I'm used to online.


Now I think there are 2 main reasons that most people feel live poker is harder.

1. No HUDS - It's very common online to use a HUD and multi-table. Many players become reliant on those stats. They also don't have the attention span to stay focused on just one game.

2. Tells - Online players aren't used to their physical expressions affecting the game. There is no need to hide your body language when your opponents can't see you.

I don't have problems with those because 1. I don't use a HUD and 2. My body language is a result of what's going on around me, not what I'm thinking. So, I'm naturally blank faced if I'm not interacting with someone. If I do have an expression, it has to do with the social interactions that I'm a part of and doesn't reflect my cards at all. It really works to my advantage.

To sum it up, I put a lot of time in online because I love to play and I'm willing to build my BR from freerolls and be happy with winning a few hundred a year off of that. However, next year I'll have the opportunity to start playing live more frequently and will hopefully be successful enough to play a few times a month.

well thought out response!

I was thinking of this thread saturday night as I played a live tourney....and Gawd a lot of the players were really bad...but then...I encounter a lot of really bad players online too...

I think it's easier to be stupid online, or make risky plays because there are no social consequences that go with it. you can just hit the red "x" and all your humiliation is gone...you don't have to wait for a count, gather your crap, coat, purse, make the walk of shame and talk to people on your way out.

 

[misko]

Live is easier no doubt.I play online must of the time,but when i go to the casino
i see the diference must of the players are bad, and they just want to have a good time...

 

[jj20002]

online poker should be harder because there are more players,

if a live tourney occurs anywhere then most of the players are locals (obviously there are big tourneys that are magnetsa for the players worldwide)

online toruneys are always available for everybody and most of the best players will be there,

 

[jimmy62]

I think live is easier because you have to be able to look everyone in the face.I do think people make calls,raises and bets they wouldnt normally make because they dont have to deal with other players at the table on an emotional level after a really stupid decision.All they have to do is click off and join another table of strangers.

 

[HooDooKoo]

Since this thread got resurrected today, I'd like to pose a follow-up question to this group (especially OP, who I believe began playing cash online at Bovada relatively recently).

If you're only playing online at Bovada, doesn't that have to be harder than playing live?

At Bovada: you can't use a HUD, so you can't get an edge that way; you have no opportunity to get any live reads because you're not in the same room as any of your opponents; but you're still subject to the more aggressive, more positionally-aware play that is standard online.

In summary, playing online at Bovada basically provides you with the worst of both worlds --- making it pretty much the toughest poker experience you can be subjected to.

Thoughts?

-HooDooKoo

 

[hffjd2000]

"Live poker is easier than online" wins. Period.

 

[badalhoco345]

I never play a tournament live for real (a few times I play with my friends but that's different) but I think it's easier to play live. When we play online we don't have the same perspective of our opponents if we were playing live. We can take a better read of the game and of the players live. Online, we basically just can take some notes of the players that are more common to we catch in the tournaments.

 

[Matt Vaughan]

Since this thread got resurrected today, I'd like to pose a follow-up question to this group (especially OP, who I believe began playing cash online at Bovada relatively recently).

If you're only playing online at Bovada, doesn't that have to be harder than playing live?

At Bovada: you can't use a HUD, so you can't get an edge that way; you have no opportunity to get any live reads because you're not in the same room as any of your opponents; but you're still subject to the more aggressive, more positionally-aware play that is standard online.

In summary, playing online at Bovada basically provides you with the worst of both worlds --- making it pretty much the toughest poker experience you can be subjected to.

Thoughts?

-HooDooKoo

... Except that bovada is super soft by online standards.

 

[maik357]

For me live is easier. Online is almost the same only after reaching close to the bubble or after the bubble. My personal belief is I have a loose attitude on live game, not meaning my game is loose, just my attitude. I talk a lot, and this I believe throws some off. Also online is almost impossible for me to read. There are of course some obvious tells online. Just to me some people are so easy to read live. There are of course a few good actors like myself, very few though. Online there are many fish even out of the micro stage. This is what makes online harder for me. When the fish are all belly up, then the play is almost same live or online.

 

[Jacki Burkhart]

Since this thread got resurrected today, I'd like to pose a follow-up question to this group (especially OP, who I believe began playing cash online at Bovada relatively recently).

If you're only playing online at Bovada, doesn't that have to be harder than playing live?

At Bovada: you can't use a HUD, so you can't get an edge that way; you have no opportunity to get any live reads because you're not in the same room as any of your opponents; but you're still subject to the more aggressive, more positionally-aware play that is standard online.

In summary, playing online at Bovada basically provides you with the worst of both worlds --- making it pretty much the toughest poker experience you can be subjected to.

Thoughts?

-HooDooKoo

yes, in general I find online play without a HUD to be harder than online play with a HUD.

Still, I crush most online games and it is not true live.

I realize I am a minority and possibly an anomaly in my results. I am examining the possibility that I may have some live tells that others are exploiting. I have already found and eliminated 2 live tells.

I think perhaps the biggest factor in my live results compared to my online results is that my live play tends to be at "real" events. (not just home games or weekly locals tournaments). I travel to poker series that generally are comprised of fields of other serious players who consider themselves "good". So, I'm not really comparing apples to apples.

Also, I've noticed that while my online results are much better than my live results in terms of ROI and %ITM...when I bust out of these live tourneys I tend to make a killing in the single table tourneys which are generally comprised of the other bustout players.

 

[Jacki Burkhart]

I'm also getting a kick out of reading back through this thread at how many people admit to not playing live, but they still think it's easier.........(crickets chirping)

 

[duggs]

you are not comparing the same stakes tho, and you aren't really comparing meaningful or equal sample sizes.by that logic i have a 400% ROI in live 1ks but a negative 100% ROI in live 100 tournaments for 1ks are clearly softer.

what stakes do you play online? volume? sample size? win rate?

ditto for live? over a meaningful sample size you are either letting the stakes significantly affect you or you will have a larger edge live.

 

[Jacki Burkhart]

you are not comparing the same stakes tho, and you aren't really comparing meaningful or equal sample sizes.by that logic i have a 400% ROI in live 1ks but a negative 100% ROI in live 100 tournaments for 1ks are clearly softer.

what stakes do you play online? volume? sample size? win rate?

ditto for live? over a meaningful sample size you are either letting the stakes significantly affect you or you will have a larger edge live.

Well, according to the general themes of most posters on this forum, my sample sizes for both live and online are "meaningless". IMHO, most regs on this forum have ridiculously stringent standards for sample size. According to conventional wisdom Daniel Colman and Greg Merson and Vanessa Selbst and Mark Newhouse are all just luckboxes until proven otherwise because they don't have thousands upon thousands of results at the same stakes to compare....

But if you will excuse my low sample size, I have approximately 1,240 online tourneys at stakes between $1-$77 and a ROI of +21.1%.

And live I have about 150 tourneys at stakes between $50-$1,500 and a ROI of uhmm....eeek.... -23.8% That is greatly skewed by the handful of WSOP events I have played and I've bricked in all of them. If I subtract my WSOP events then my ROI is +10.05% over a sample size of 144.

I realize how low that sounds to online players...but please realize that playing 25 live events per year (most of which are 2 or 3 day events) equates to devoting every other weekend of your life to poker. Volume for live play will always be low. It just will.

 

[duggs]

Well, according to the general themes of most posters on this forum, my sample sizes for both live and online are "meaningless". IMHO, most regs on this forum have ridiculously stringent standards for sample size. According to conventional wisdom Daniel Colman and Greg Merson and Vanessa Selbst and Mark Newhouse are all just luckboxes until proven otherwise because they don't have thousands upon thousands of results at the same stakes to compare....

But if you will excuse my low sample size, I have approximately 1,240 online tourneys at stakes between $1-$77 and a ROI of +21.1%.

And live I have about 150 tourneys at stakes between $50-$1,500 and a ROI of uhmm....eeek.... -23.8% That is greatly skewed by the handful of WSOP events I have played and I've bricked in all of them. If I subtract my WSOP events then my ROI is +10.05% over a sample size of 144.

I realize how low that sounds to online players...but please realize that playing 25 live events per year (most of which are 2 or 3 day events) equates to devoting every other weekend of your life to poker. Volume for live play will always be low. It just will.

well like anything it depends how robust you want those results you draw to be, this isn't unique to poker, it applies to all fields that draw from statistical probability theorems.

yea and i mean thats typically why people separate different stakes, as your higher stakes losing masks winning at lower stakes, i can imagine a similar thing happens online as your edge in smaller stakes will be higher. but yea sample size matters, 155 isn't close to meaningful in something as volatile as live tournaments (i don't know the average field size, but larger the field sizes and top heavy payouts tremendously amplify variance)

but back to my main point throughout this thread, you can't just ignore the fact you are comparing stakes which are 30 times smaller for online. if live were truly not as soft as online then you would have the same ROI in 1k online tourneys, and i would be a winner at 200nl and up

 

[S3mper]

Ummm whats all this no HUD at Bovada?

You can most definitely use a HUD at Bovada you just can't keep stats on players after they leave the table

 

[AWW_DIN]

i think calling bluffs or making bluffs are easier in live poker. there are more tells that u can work with. other than that id say they are about the same as far as difficultly.

 

[HooDooKoo]

... Except that bovada is super soft by online standards.

The vast majority (almost 97%) of my 400K+ cash game hands at Bovada are at 200NL or 400NL, and I have zero hands under 50NL there. I only mention this because I doubt that play at 200NL and 400NL at Bovada are particularly soft by online standards --- but I could be wrong about that.

yes, in general I find online play without a HUD to be harder than online play with a HUD.

Still, I crush most online games and it is not true live.

I realize I am a minority and possibly an anomaly in my results. I am examining the possibility that I may have some live tells that others are exploiting. I have already found and eliminated 2 live tells.

I think perhaps the biggest factor in my live results compared to my online results is that my live play tends to be at "real" events. (not just home games or weekly locals tournaments). I travel to poker series that generally are comprised of fields of other serious players who consider themselves "good". So, I'm not really comparing apples to apples.

Also, I've noticed that while my online results are much better than my live results in terms of ROI and %ITM...when I bust out of these live tourneys I tend to make a killing in the single table tourneys which are generally comprised of the other bustout players.

1. missjacki --- Thank you for your response(s).

2. While your online results currently far surpass your live results, you don't have a terribly meaningful sample in either case (which you acknowledged) --- especially live. The relatively small sample sizes make comparing your results at this point pretty meaningless.

3. The single biggest factor differentiating your live results and your online results is probably variance. Your live sample size is small enough that your negative ROI could very easily be a function of running bad in highly leveraged spots (in addition to the noise created by your six WSOP event bricks).

For instance, I have finished out of the money in each of my last eight triple-up tournaments --- having been knocked out each time AIPF with aces. I can't really get my chips in any better than that, but I've run bad in highly leveraged spots so my results over that small sample have been bad. Your live results could be similar.

4. If you honestly believe that online players are less skilled than live players (on average) and that that explains your better results playing online, then why not stop playing live tournaments and just play online tournaments? Online play is more convenient, cheaper (no travel expenses), faster, and you can multi-table. The amount of money available in online tournaments is enormous, so you could easily just be an online tournament player and make good money (part-time).

Ummm whats all this no HUD at Bovada?

You can most definitely use a HUD at Bovada you just can't keep stats on players after they leave the table

TJ --- I understand that you can use a HUD at Bovada. Having said that, due to the quick turnover at cash tables at Bovada, you rarely sit with players long enough that their stats become meaningful --- so the edge that HUDs provide at Bovada is largely negated.

-HooDooKoo

 

[Stealth puzzle]

So online is harder but you make more money playing it? I think both are easy but the suckouts online cause people to have to multi-table to make a profit. People are just as bad live but you get more information and a bunch of other factors that can allow you to beat it just as easy. And this argument where an online grinder can see as many hands online in a year that Doyle saw in a life time doesn't mean they have the recall. It just sounds like they're using poker tracking software and utilizing the data to make +ev moves. That's not skill, it's cheap and it's why so many people have a hard time transitioning between domains.

 

[VizziVizo]

Well if you look at the live and online tournaments you can find a lot of similarities. The level of players in tournaments with a small buy-in online and live tournaments in the same, often these tournaments players are not able to lose a small re-raise example. A tournament with a big buy-in players play better and not go into an all in preflop with King and Jack in the UTG.