Cast your Vote: Is live easier than Online?

[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

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.

Well, nothing you said in your first post implied stake dependence, and typically, sites that are softer at their lower levels compared to other sites have similar differences as you move up.

Not sure if you're just trying to sound superior by indicating your 400k+ hand database and the stakes you play, but it doesn't validate your statement - Bovada is MUCH softer than other sites. One of the huge reasons is because many regs stay away from it (partially for reasons you mentioned), and another is because fish love sports betting ldo.

I found Bovada at the 100nl level to be quite comparable to something of a mix between 10nl and 25nl on Carbon. And I've still found tons of fish and not many particularly good regs at 200nl on Bovada. Others who have grinded Bovada as well as other US sites also attest to its softness - at all levels. I have no idea why you presume that it isn't softer than other sites.

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

There isn't always quick turnover. I've sat on plenty of tables with at least 3 or 4 of the same players for 100+ hands, and often if I'm patient, 400+ hands on 2 or 3 of them.

I think you vastly underestimate the value of a HUD in the 40-100 hand sample range. No, you obviously can't reliably look at their 3b stat after 40 hands, but being able to look at VPIP and PFR provides a ton of value that you wouldn't have if you were 4-tabling and just observing hands yourself.

Maybe you're really good at watching every table simultaneously, but most people aren't. Many people will only be watching 1 hand at a time, or possibly only hands they are involved in, so the HUD has even more value.

 

[HooDooKoo]

I found Bovada at the 100nl level to be quite comparable to something of a mix between 10nl and 25nl on Carbon. And I've still found tons of fish and not many particularly good regs at 200nl on Bovada. Others who have grinded Bovada as well as other US sites also attest to its softness - at all levels. I have no idea why you presume that it isn't softer than other sites.

IMO, debating about the softness of Bovada isn't worth my time or energy, so I'll just accept your statement that Bovada is soft.

There isn't always quick turnover. I've sat on plenty of tables with at least 3 or 4 of the same players for 100+ hands, and often if I'm patient, 400+ hands on 2 or 3 of them.

There isn't always quick turnover? Really?!?! Thanks for the news flash.

I think you vastly underestimate the value of a HUD in the 40-100 hand sample range. No, you obviously can't reliably look at their 3b stat after 40 hands, but being able to look at VPIP and PFR provides a ton of value that you wouldn't have if you were 4-tabling and just observing hands yourself.

Maybe you're really good at watching every table simultaneously, but most people aren't. Many people will only be watching 1 hand at a time, or possibly only hands they are involved in, so the HUD has even more value.

It appears that I'm doing a decent job watching four tables simultaneously, as I win consistently at the levels I play --- always 4-tabling --- without a HUD. Perhaps I could increase my win rate using a HUD, but I have no interest in finding out.

-HooDooKoo

 

[Matt Vaughan]

IMO, debating about the softness of Bovada isn't worth my time or energy, so I'll just accept your statement that Bovada is soft.

The point of the thread is discussing whether live is softer than online. You brought up Bovada, I replied with my opinions. If it isn't worth your valuable time and energy then don't post itt to begin with.

There isn't always quick turnover? Really?!?! Thanks for the news flash.

Again, I'm just replying to your blanket statements with reasonable replies. Not sure why you feel the need to lash out.

It appears that I'm doing a decent job watching four tables simultaneously, as I win consistently at the levels I play --- always 4-tabling --- without a HUD.

You entirely missed the point of my posts. This thread is a discussion about softness of different games. I VERY explicitly said that OTHERS don't do a good job of watching tables - NOT particularly you. My exact words:

Maybe you're really good at watching every table simultaneously, but most people aren't. Many people will only be watching 1 hand at a time, or possibly only hands they are involved in, so the HUD has even more value.

But yes, by all means, getting into a pissing match for no reason.

And just to top it all off you say this:

Perhaps I could increase my win rate using a HUD, but I have no interest in finding out.

Really? Solid, winning player doesn't care about increasing his win rate? Kay. GG, WP sir. You win life.

 

[HooDooKoo]

The point of the thread is discussing whether live is softer than online. You brought up Bovada, I replied with my opinions. If it isn't worth your valuable time and energy then don't post itt to begin with.

1. No, Scourrge --- the point of this thread is to discuss whether live play is "softer" than online play, not to compare the relative "softness" of online sites (which you have done). I'm not interested in debating the relative softness of online sites, so I chose to abandon that discussion.

Again, I'm just replying to your blanket statements with reasonable replies. Not sure why you feel the need to lash out.

2. I wasn't lashing out. I just think that your statement:

"There isn't always quick turnover. I've sat on plenty of tables with at least 3 or 4 of the same players for 100+ hands, and often if I'm patient, 400+ hands on 2 or 3 of them."

doesn't say anything useful. Sorry.

3. I didn't miss the point of any of your posts. I just don't (necessarily) agree with them.

4. Finally, I didn't say that I'm not interested in increasing my win rate at Bovada. I said I'm not interested in doing so by utilizing a HUD.

-HooDooKoo

 

[Matt Vaughan]

The point of the thread is discussing whether live is softer than online. You brought up Bovada, I replied with my opinions. If it isn't worth your valuable time and energy then don't post itt to begin with.

1. No, Scourrge --- the point of this thread is to discuss whether live play is "softer" than online play, not to compare the relative "softness" of online sites (which you have done). I'm not interested in debating the relative softness of online sites, so I chose to abandon that discussion.

Just lol.

 

[Matt Vaughan]

HooDooKoo, if you're going to post shit at me, at least have the decency to do it in the thread instead of attacking me via PM.

 

[ozziwar]

I have played live on very few occasions but I was at the wsop this year and was amazed how soft it was in a $1500 tournament. I would compare it to a $20 online tournament in terms of how soft it is. Atleast in the start and day 1. The field get thougher tho, alot of pros are great to abuse the fishy players at the WSOP.

 

[theRaven68]

live is softer and more readable and predictable

 

[bezobrazny]

It's not easier just prettier..

 

[John A]

I thought this was just a joke at first, but since it's considered a serious question I'll throw my hat. I've played online and live for about 10 years now. I'd say roughly that whatever stake you play online, it's equivalent to about 5-10x that same stake in a live game. So if you play .5/$1 online, you could easily play 2/5 or 5/10 profitably. I live in CA with a lot of famous card rooms and a lot of good players.

So in summary, it's not even a close comparison for what should be obvious reasons. You can't multi-table 12 tables live. Well, you could, but they won't let you.

 

[mendiolacubicle]

Playing live is harder, people are loose and standard play of poker sometimes doesnt cut it during live games. Although tournaments may look easier than cash games in live sessions.

 

[arizoney]

Live play seems to be easier for me for thats how i learned to play.

 

[Luan]

easier Live pq to the not to say that the guy ta using some program to trapaciar and TBM coming face to face to see if the opponent is bluffing or not!

 

[RamdeeBen]

I've not had anywhere near as much experience playing live as online, but enough to see the average player pool being worse than online by a mile.

Like, when you compare buy-ins etc it's just so different in terms of skill. Example; online my average stake for tournaments is probarbly $10-$20 which is like £10-£15.

Live, my average stake are between £30-£100 tournament buy-ins and average field size being 30-40 players. I'd say at best, 5 players in the whole field are competent but not necessarily "great" or even "good", just not really terrible players , whilst the rest are just plain terrible. Now if we compared playing those stakes and field sizes online, I'd expect the field to be way tougher by a long mile.

The same goes for cash, I've played some cash recently at casinos, limit being £1/2. Basically $2/4 and at a full table, I felt I had a really good edge. There was one player who seemed good, but the other 8 was really bad, like 5nl online at best standards. 10nl players online could easily beat them. I know for a fact if I sat at $2/4 online I'd be the dog at the time, or at least one of the worse even on a "good" table.

A $5 tournament games are tougher than a £50 tournament live etc etc.


I can't imagine anyone saying that live is harder, or both being equal just different games. Sure you have to play completely different, but a basic solid approach is enough to crush live games at what would be classed as mid/high stakes online where that approach just won't work.

 

[veltins]

live game is much more easier than online games .. so many bad Players in live just to have fun with Drinks n socialise.. or waiting for blackjack table to open n Play poker in bet.. it s the most juicy games on offer