Playing Consistently Online vs B&M

westside8 · Feb 17,2006, 12:00 AM

I'm just curious to what people think if they can have 3-4 sessions a week of approx 12 hours for a couple of months (kind of like a parttime/full time job), what would you prefer to do, or would you mix it up between the two?

The advantages I have come up between the two

Online:
Comfort of your own home
Multi-table
Play whenever you want
Lower rake
No tipping
Low cost for food/drink
More hands/hr

B&M:
Higher stakes (5/10 B&M is like 1/2 or 2/4 online according to some)
Easier to maintain focus

Any other advantages you would add to the list?

Any disadvantages you would put down for online poker?

all_aces · Feb 17,2006, 12:15 AM

Ahhh... the classic "online vs. B&M" debate.Â* Although, to be fair, you've put a new face on it with your particular angle here.

So, "LET'S SAY" that "SOMEONE" (certainly not you) wanted to play for like 12 hrs. a day, 3 to 4 times a week.Â* Almost like a job.Â* Say.

A while ago, I would have said that online is your only option.Â* And in this case, I still feel that way.Â* It's mostly because of the lower rake, and the opportunity to multi-table.Â* If you're taking this past a "hobby", then your win rate/hr should be your only consideration, and B&M just can't compare with online in that regard.

That being said, I am getting bored of online poker.Â* There.Â* I said it.Â* 2006 hasn't been great for me so far re: online poker, but I was getting bored of it in November '05, which might have been my "best" month for online poker, ever.Â* And I was still kind of bored.Â* Looks like it's time for another classic "online poker break"...Â*

I'm sorry online poker.Â* I didn't mean it.Â* Please, take me back...

No no... I am getting kind of bored.Â* I miss the live games, and I'm going to make an effort to play in more live games in the near future.Â* The Westside tournament actually reminded me again of how much fun live poker can be.

But if you're going to play those kind of hours, you're pretty much treating poker as a job.Â* And if it's a job, it ain't all about fun... stick to online.Â* Or move to Vegas where you can fleece some tourists.Â* Orillia, Port Perry, and Brantford are not what I'd consider to be tourist towns.

BTW, waiting lists can be brutal at B&M's, too. Another thing to keep in mind. And add "more hands/hr" to online advantages, even if you're only playing one table.

westside8 · Feb 17,2006, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by all_aces

No no... I am getting kind of bored. I miss the live games, and I'm going to make an effort to play in more live games in the near future. The Westside tournament actually reminded me again of how much fun live poker can be.

But if you're going to play those kind of hours, you're pretty much treating poker as a job. And if it's a job, it ain't all about fun... stick to online. Or move to Vegas where you can fleece some tourists. Orillia, Port Perry, and Brantford are not what I'd consider to be tourist towns.

BTW, waiting lists can be brutal at B&M's, too. Another thing to keep in mind. And add "more hands/hr" to online advantages, even if you're only playing one table.

What about say 3/4 of your time spent online, while spending a lone 12 hour session at a casino?

Will_Son · Feb 17,2006, 04:55 AM

Pros for online poker:
- bonuses/rakeback
- greater selection of games
- stats to aid in table selection (players seeing flop % and average pot size)
- buddy lists
- programs like Poker Tracker

Cons for online poker:
- tilting while multitabling is painful
- greater threat of collusion
- easy to lose focus

KRNL · Feb 17,2006, 12:51 PM

Last year I actually tracked my ROI stats for on-line vs. B&M and found that:

On-line is less profitable, per-table, despite travel costs, tipping and the higher rake because of the lower quality of players. There is also much more cash on the table at B&M games. Compare the stacks at CN's 1/2 to the stacks of a 1/2 game of Stars. I also focus much better on intangibles when I'm live, which means better reads, better hand selection on my part &c. I also don't burn off chips playing low-profitability SNGs just because I can. Finally, due to all of the above, I can play more consistently at higher stakes (5/10 and even 10/20 NLHE) than I could playing at Stars or Party. Oh, and it is also easier to control your losses playing live, since it is easier to get unstuck from a bad session when you need to reload.

When playing four tables however, on-line is more profitable. This is also helped by the fact that I gain about two hours (at least) for every session played at home that I don't have to spend on travel. However, I do like to use the travel time to Niagara to review strategy and then make notes on my play, which has its own value.

Since I was playing almost 70 hours a week, in the end I actually chose to play primarily B&M and only play on-line during soft casino days (Mondays and Wednesdays) to avoid burnout. I just find on-line multi-tabling to be much more mentally exhausting than playing at B&M is.

all_aces · Feb 17,2006, 01:45 PM

Hi KRNL,

Wondering if you could clarify a couple of points...

Quote:

On-line is less profitable, per-table,Â* despite travel costs, tipping and the higher rake because of the lower quality of players.

I don't follow.

Quote:

Oh, and it is also easier to control your losses playing live, since it is easier to get unstuck from a bad session when you need to reload.

I'm sure you don't think that it matters whether you're up or down in any particular session, do you?Â* The notion of getting "even" or "unstuck" during one particular session is ludicrous to me.Â* It is one long game, and the game doesn't care whether you're up today or down tomorrow... when you stop and start in this "long game" and where your stack is at is irrelevant.Â* For example, Negreanu used to play 8 hrs/day when he was grinding it out here in Toronto.Â* At the end of the 8 hours, he would get up and leave, regardless of how he was doing in that particular session.Â* This is because he knew that it didn't matter.

That being said, if the game is very easy to beat, there would certainly be incentive to stick around.Â* But your stack should have nothing to do with it.

moose · Feb 17,2006, 01:52 PM

I agree B&M is more relaxing. Poker is a social game and you just miss out on that aspect online. It is also a competitive game and it is just more fun to felt someone live than online.

In public I keep my emotions more in check whereas live I find myself yelling at my monitor a lot - I can handle the beats better live, especially since I have the drive home to go over my play.

At the B&M you can look at the waitresses, whereas online, downloading porn blocks your view of the tables.

ScoobyD · Feb 17,2006, 01:57 PM

Quote:

I don't follow.

Ditto.

Personally, I would say:

On-line is less profitable, per-table (in terms of BB/100) because the players are better.

Online as a whole is more profitable though because you can play multiple tables (increasing # hands/hr), plus lower rake, no tipping dealers, waitresses, and no other incidental costs (besides your monthly internet bill) for transportation, meals, etc.

My question for the more experienced B&Mers is how much the weak play of a live game actually adds to your expected hourly rate.Â* Ie. I'd expect someone beating a $1-2 limit game online for 2BB/100 to easily be able to beat a live 5-10 game for at least the same win rate (per hand), if not more.Â* Of course this is somewhat offset by the slower play...

moose · Feb 17,2006, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScoobyD

My question for the more experienced B&Mers is how much the weak play of a live game actually adds to your expected hourly rate.Â* Ie. I'd expect someone beating a $1-2 limit game online for 2BB/100 to easily be able to beat a live 5-10 game for at least the same win rate (per hand), if not more.Â* Of course this is somewhat offset by the slower play...

I guess the problem is the lack of table selection. I can't drive down to Brantford, wait an hour or two, sit down at the table and get up and leave after 15 min. because the table is no good. You have to be able to adjust your play to the table and realize some nights you going to have to really work to be able to grind out a winning session.

Online I won't even sit down unless the table looks good and if it fills with rocks or TA's I go find another table. More and more I find that good tables don't last long, as the fish lose their money quickly and each one that goes is replaced by a TA in search of a good table.

ScoobyD · Feb 17,2006, 02:11 PM

Quote:

I guess the problem is the lack of table selection.

Good point moose.Â* Although, in general, I'd say there should definitely be enough weak players at the 3-4 tables going at whatever limit you're playing live to find a "good" game.Â* Although I think I probably don't request table changes often enough if I find I'm on a tighter table...Â* Might have to work on that...

magithighs · Feb 17,2006, 02:40 PM

I believe this really depends on your particular strengths.Â* Although online and live are similar, I believe they are very different beasts.Â* If you're a long term winner at one game it doesn't automatically translate to the other.Â* That's why you have so many B&M pros/semi-pros who believe online games are rigged or there's rampant cheating.Â* And many online pros, get hammered when they go to Vegas.

You need different skills for the two games.Â* One of my biggest weapons online is speed.Â* I'm able to make very quick decisions and manage what my opponents are thinking.Â* This is pretty much useless in a B&M game.Â* So, I had to develop different B&M skills.

If I were you, I'd chart out my strengths/weaknesses, and then see how they apply to the B&M and online games.Â* I would then dedicate more sessions to one or the other and stick with it.Â* When you play 3-4 12 hour sessions in a week, it becomes real easy to "thrash" back and forth and lose focus.Â* Stay with it.

Also, note that there are many decisions you make which are not related to betting.Â* When to start/end a game is one of the biggest decisions you'll make.Â* The drawback to B&M is that you're stuck there, at least in your mind.Â* I had a huge impact to my B&M game when I decided I was "never stuck" and that I could sit down for an hour and then go home.Â* The game doesn't have to be bad to leave -- your performance is also a big factor.Â* If the game is good and you're not, then it's wise to get up and go.

Finally, I would limit my sessions to less than 12 hours.Â* Â*Or, have several breaks in between.Â* Always play your "a" game and don't let the "need" for sessions/hours make you play when you're on your "B" game.

Have fun!

Cheers
Magi

KRNL · Feb 18,2006, 04:17 PM

Quote:

I'm sure you don't think that it matters whether you're up or down in any particular session, do you?

I do, actually, simply because my play can be affected by how any given session's going. It's not just my stack, although that's usually a good barometer of how I'm playing, but I can be up two buy-ins and still be having a terrible session. To me getting stuck means playing when you know you're playing poorly and that's something I have a tendency to do. Sure, that's a weakness of mine, but I've seen enough other players get completely stuck in a game, losing buy-in after buy-in to know that being forced to take that extra trip to the ATM can save some serious bank sometimes. I know I have a bad habit of getting stuck in a game when a session starts to go really poorly, and I find it much easier to just walk away when I'm playing live. Which, as magithighs points out, is a really valuable skill to have.

Thinking about it though, B&M doesn't really have any inherent advantage that allows a player to make better decisions about leaving when things are suboptimal. All I can say definitively is that I make better decisions about playing when I'm playing live than when I play on-line. Certainly, the reverse can be true, but it's something every player should think about.

Quote:

On-line is less profitable, per-table, despite travel costs, tipping and the higher rake because of the lower quality of players.

Well, it was a vaguely constructed sentence but I thought "at B&M games" was implied.

Quote:

My question for the more experienced B&Mers is how much the weak play of a live game actually adds to your expected hourly rate.

My B&M win-rate was about 1.2BB/hour higher at 1/2 than my comparable on-line rate. For 5/10 the rate was 1.5BB/hour. I didn't have enough 10/20 hands to compare but I think the trend would've continued. However, it's hard to separate out all the factors, since, among other things, a) average pot sizes were higher at B&M b) players stay at tables longer in B&M (allowing better reads) and c) I seem to make better decisions playing B&M.

Dave Scharf · Feb 22,2006, 08:51 AM

I could never be a full-time pro.

To keep from getting bored online I have to play pretty high. But, I am unable to stay as focused online as I ought to be for the level that I have to play at to keep from bored. So, I tend to multi-table lower limits and I get bored fairly quickly.

In a traditional game I struggle with long sessions because there are bound to be some people in the game that I do NOT want to spend 12 hours with.

So, for me, I play short sessions on either format.

I am much more successful in live play. So, if I was forced to go pro I would want to be playing $30-60 live or $50-100 live. I would probably play 5 x 5 hour sessions a week and hope to book $1000 a week.

AcidJoe · Feb 23,2006, 04:24 PM

I prefer live over on line play anyday. Just seeing the look on your opponent when you bust his nice pockets with 7 2...... but seriously, I think you can more easily pick up what your opponent is holding live over on line. But you can't multi table, I prefer sit and goes, so on line wins out with me. But as long as I get my live game fix it's all good.

LuckyPaul · Feb 24,2006, 03:57 PM

As for me I find my online play is much better then live, probably because I dont have much live poker experience, trying to read people and not put out tells when I have a good hand just makes live poker frustrating and complicated for me. I do find live poker alot more fun tho which is why I am trying to get more practice at it but I find casino poker very intimadating right now which does not help my cause much.