Online Versus Casino Play
> The fact that the rake is a bit less in an online setting is more than
> offset by: A. Better game selection in a cardroom.
You've never played online and you obviously know very little about online poker. At the least, online poker offers far better game
selection. It's laughable to assert otherwise. Only if you include the entire county of Los Angeles does one geographic area combine
to offer better game selection than playing online. But of course you would have to drive many miles and spend a couple hours looking
over to at least four cardrooms to see the selection available to and accessible by online players in literally two or three minutes.
There are certainly advantages to casino poker over online poker, but game selection sure isn't one!
Windows - Mac
> But the bottom line is: Online poker is a negative EV losing proposition,
> as is all online gaming and most B&M gaming.
You again obviously have no idea what you are talking about... One way that online poker is superior to casino poker is because more
players do better. The rake online, especially at microlimits, is much smaller that in casinos. Players can and do beat .50/$1 online
poker (partly) because the rake is so favorable (and partly because of so much stinky play). Saying online poker is a negative
expectation, losing proposition is just ignorant. All poker that is raked is negative expectation for the total group of players, but
winning online is easy, especially at the lower limits, for players who take the time to play well.
> Casino poker offers a slim, and I do mean slim, opportunity to make
> money for a small subset of players who are disciplined
> Online poker offers no such opportunity, even if it's straight up, which
> it's not. And please, all you losers out there, don't bore me with your
> phony Excel spreadsheets showing solid profitability. Just keep playing,
> and losing, keep excellent records, and in the long run you'll realize
> I'm right. When that time comes, quit playing, if you can.
What an absurd statement. People all over the world get visited by DHL every week because they win at online poker. Some have won over
$100,000 in a year. What do you base this crazy statement of yours on?
> I know nothing about [online poker], except everyone I know bitches and
> moans about their losses, and all the strange and inexplicable
> they're constantly getting. Including many players right here on RGP.
Okay, that is reasonable to base conclusions on what you hear from other people, but you seem to only be listening to the negative.
RGP has plenty of players who beat online poker for not just a little but a lot of money. Do you think Geary and Prock and O'Malley(s)
are making it up? Do you think that it is *impossible* that they aren't making it up?
Furthermore, if you were to look at a lot of statistics -- whether based on looking directly at
hand histories or a program like Pokerstat -- you
could see that what goes on online is perfectly mundane, common, *normal* everyday poker blandness and weirdness. And further
furthermore, if you really wanted to have a semi-educated opinion on this, all you have to do is download one of the online clients
and watch the games yourself. You don't have to sign up for anything. Just watch. It's all run of the mill poker normal-ness.
> And you're right. I've never played it. Because it's so damn obvious
> that there's no edge.
Huh????? At the very least... at the VERY least... you gotta see that there is an edge in games where some player plays every hand
while you choose to play only the strongest hands. Of course there is far more too it than that, there are edges every freaking where,
but if you *only* look at starting hand selection, it should be obvious that sensible players have a big edge over loonies.
> I'll take the game selection in my local casino over any online poker
> room that is filled with colluders and hackers. Number of games is
> irrelevant. What's the point of having millions of games to choose from,
> if they're all crooked and being played by colluders, bots, hackers,
> and other virtual bandits?
So you have zero experience with games, but you conclude there is more cheating online than in casinos (which is utterly impossible)
and even more to the point, you conclude that the level of cheating makes the games unbeatable. There is cheating in all forms and
types of poker -- casino, online, tournament, home games -- but all are still beatable.
> The rake at realistic limits is a tad lower than that of a casino. But
> the rake is the least of an online players problems. Collusion, internal
> corruption, external hackers, and the complete neutralization of what
> few edges a live action player might possess, now those are the real problems.
You should do a little study before you make ludicrous assertions. Surely some edges are neutralized playing online, but some edges
are heightened dramatically. For instance, via hand histories you can
study the play of certain of your opponents in a way
that you surely can't in a regular casino. You can see how they bet certain types of hands, analyze how they react immediately after
losing hands, see how they bet second best hands, see when they checkraised, and on and on and on and on. If you make the effort,
there are many areas where a good player has a much greater edge online than in a casino simply because you have more knowledge
As for the cheating, again, observe the games yourself, analyze hand histories... it simply is not a large impediment do overcome (it
is a small one though).
> More players do better???!!! Yeah, maybe in the the Badger Dreamscape
> where one is hawking a "GUIDE TO WINNING ONLINE POKER". Everyone
> I know who has touched online poker, has been torched by online poker.
You must know poor players, honestly. The people I know -- who granted are mostly very good players -- are virtually deliriously
pleased with how much they make online. But perhaps those are extremes. Again, a program like Pokerstat, or hand history analyzers
like Prock uses for himself, these show exactly what percentage of players are winning over a period of 10,000 or more hands. Tony
Hwang's numbers show a very high percentage of winners. More data will tell a better story, but if 10,000 histories show 40% or so of
the players are winning, then at worst it seems safe to assume that 25% win -- which I would have to assume is a higher percentage
than in casinos.
> .50/$1??? That's a loss leader to get the dopey compulsive gamblers hooked
> until they graduate themselves to higher limits where they can be fleeced by
> the normal rake and the hackers, colluders, and other various and sundry
> internal bandits. Gee, I think I'll dedicate my life to half and a dollar, where my
> expectation of 1-2 bets/hours nets me a tidy profit of $60/week if
> I play full time! Soon I can afford a bigger mouse. Spare me...
I don't know why you play, but most people play for fun, and also don't want to lose. A great thing about online poker is that it is
primarily played 5/10 and below. It's fun. The rake is cheaper than major casinos. Winners beat it for a reasonable amount of money.
You seem to be colored by the fact that you don't know winning players.
> There you have it folks. Easy profits. Can you spell *R*E*D* *F*L*A*G*?
> Geez damn. (smacking myself upside the head as I say it). It was right
> in front of me but I totally MISSED IT! All I have to do is take the time to
> play well... it's an epiphany.
Yup. That is all there is to it. If you play good poker, online or casinos, it is easy to beat poker if you have a proper bankroll.
This is in large part because many players, like you here, draw conclusions about things they know little about.
> By the way is that axes I hear grinding? Nope, must just be Badger's
> Ferrari warming up in the garage. Bought and paid for with profits from the
> WINNER'S GUIDE TO ONLINE POKER.
Well, it is free. Buy lots of Ferrari's with that.
> Please, no more of this. You're making dough off compulsive gamblers.
> It's a free country and you're allowed to do this. But don't mislead
> your fellow RGPers with ridiculous claims of easy profits from online games.
> That's just plain dishonorable.
Marc, ignorance is not bliss. You have no knowledge or experience on this topic but you shout anyway. (And this compulsive gamblers
nonsense, where does that come from?) Download the software and just watch. Try and learn *something* about what you speak.
> The structural edge in live poker is the ability to read opponents.
> And few people are good enough to do it profitably.
I just can't agree. This *increases* profitability, and is what makes the difference between great & very good players as opposed to
fairly good & average players. But simply playing quality cards in games where opponents don't is enough of an edge to beat many
> That edge is gone in online poker since you can't see or hear your opponent.
> So it's already a bad proposition, even if the games are honest and played
> by live opponents, which they're not.
This is simply not true. There is a LOT of reading
players online. If you played, and you were thinking about this one thing, you would notice quite a lot of information to read!
The speed of betting and the use of "auto-bet" features provide clear player-reading opportunities nearly every hand. Also, Annie Duke
mentioned this to me and she was right on -- playing online you observe player's betting patterns much more so than in casinos. As a
player, she said online play has helped her read betting patterns live. Since she said that, I've found this to be true for me too.
Reading betting patterns surely is not easy, but it is definitely observable online, and it is a definite
skill that can be learned.
> If you don't think the programmers who designed these programs
> also designed bots to beat them, then you're just plain naive.
No point going into the irrational paranoia stuff, but the bottom line for paranoid players should be simple -- play and win, or don't
play except at small limits for entertainment. From a purely mercenary point of view, cheating exists in all forms of poker, but I
still play and win because I try hard to win. As long as I make money, I make money. Cheating happens, but the DHL man still shows up.
I personally don't look at it only in those mercenary terms, but if you are in fact a good, thinking poker player, it's ridiculous to
not play online simply because of blind paranoia.
> My final word on this topic is advice: Stay away from online poker.
My advice is: Ignorance is not bliss. Learn something about what you're talking about. Try it. See why level-headed, thoughtful,
experienced students of poker post here about how they win online. See why the vast majority of negative comments about online poker
are based out of total ignorance or come from players who it is quite easy to see are not experienced and not thoughtful and don't
play well. Then also read the posts of new, studious players who have trouble beating the games but see that there is a lot of room
for improvements in their games.