Online Poker Paranoia
Bennett Niizawa wrote..
> I raised with 99, flopped a set and lost to a flush. A few hands later,
> I raised with QQ, flopped a set and lost to a flush... maybe the bias
> has switched to the suited cards...
A measure of the irrationality of most anti-online posts is they are all over the board. Some allege coordinated boards, some
allege quads, some allege flops of random garbage (keep people from solid hands), some allege big flops to build action pots.
All contradictory, no doubt colored by people who think what happens to them happens to everybody.
Windows - Mac
> Badger says: "The measure of the irrationality of most anti-online posts is that
> they are all over the board." Is that a logical assertion? If a number of people
> make contradictory claims, may we safely conclude that all of the claimers are
> irrational or even simply mistaken?
My statement is absolutely logical (even if you
mischaracterize it). Notice "most". Important word, "most". Just for the sake of argument, let's say one of our regular
posters here, cdgbs, is right, Paradise puts up too many random-junk boards so that players then can't confidently bet solid hands. Well,
if that is true, then all the "truckloads of quads", "too many straights", "all those suited cards" claimants
are completely wrong. These claims are like economists, you lay them end to end, and they point in all directions. By definition, most of
these claims *must* be wrong. If black is black, then black can't be purple, it can't be green, and it can't be white.
People by all means should post questions and concerns. Others can then respond with their own experience. What we *usually* get though
are irrational statements of "online poker is rigged for sure!!!" Statements like that are entirely different than a person
raising doubts. Those are posts made by a guy sitting in the corner, his arms crossed, shaking his head, deadset on the fact that
Moline is the capital of Texas.
> Your [Winner's Guide to Online Poker] is really nothing more than
> a sells pitch for Paradise Poker and it's obvious that the advertising
> money you get from them is very important to you. However, it does
> seem that you are trying to offer some advice about playing online,
> but I don't think you are really concerned about the success of the players
> as much as the success of Paradise Poker.
Which of course is not the point of why I asked you to read it in either case. The point is that players who win online think about
things that you don't consider, while you are sitting there thinking "this is rigged".
> But I don't think most of the newer players know of the phenomenal
> turnover rate at Paradise Poker. And there must be some reason why most
> players do not continue playing there long term. And in my opinion, it is
> because Paradise Poker is a sophisticated scam.
Leaving aside this poster's own lack of introspection, one thing about online poker is most players play very poorly. Not counting the
highest Holdem limits, from the hand histories that get posted here and from cruising around to various games, the level of poor play
is pretty shocking. Now this level may even be compatible to b&m casinos, but I was just looking at my lists of "awful"
and "good" players, and virtually all the good players I've noted in my under-a-year of online play continue to play.
At the same time, more than half of the dreadful players no longer play (at least at the same level they were, they may be playing
micro-limits and I don't know it).
The "sophisticated scam" at work is that good players play and beat the tar out of lousy players, with the house getting a dandy
rake in the process.
To all the skeptics who don't want to play online for some reason, it is free to download Paradise Poker and sign up for an anonymous
play money account. I'm not suggesting you play, but that you then just surf around the various games (you can do this anonymously)
and just watch the amazing play that goes on. It's a real eye-opener, and also should give people a fresh view on their casino
opponents (at least below the 15/30 level).
Poor, unthoughtful, non-studious, lazy players get creamed online. Some then bitch about it. But more come along and replace them.
> I'm not sure why you are such a consistent supporter (and promoter)
> of Paradise Poker,
Online poker is a great addition to the poker world and because right now Paradise is the best place to play (in general).
> but it seems possible it is their advertising on your website that
> is your primary motivation.
I like getting paid to advertise; and I like playing and winning. The existence of online poker has made me money, so I like it for
that too. But all forms of poker make me money. I'm glad that they all exist (except Lowball...).
> Because what I have seen from my own playing experience and
> from observing the other players there, is that the poker games
> appear to be completely controlled thru the software programming.
You say this, and it just sounds so unsophisticated when it comes to poker knowledge. What are you talking about? One specific would
be nice, and ten would be better. Players control the games there, and
good players mostly control the games. That
in a nutshell might explain why you feel out of control.
> And most of the players eventually stop playing there.
bad players quit because they realize they
play horrible. Some others quit because they refuse to accept that they play bad and do the work to learn to play better.
> But I once thought that the poker games were still possibly beatable.
The vast majority of good players beat these games. A few good players lose to extreme bad
luck or a complete inability to adapt to the cyber
environment. However, your statement is ridiculous. Lots of folks beat these games. Accept it.
> Although I believe that I observed the software limiting the amount of the
> winning pots with various ploys.
Just nonsense. Your opponents limit the pots you win. You just don't seem to understand how winning at poker works. To win, you have
to lose the big majority of the pots you play.
> So, it would be much more difficult to build up a bankroll and move
> to higher level. And this is something that I believe the software is
> trying to prevent. And not many players seem to do this.
Why would they not people to play higher? The rake is more in the bigger games.
Koji Myint wrote...
> The players are just better at Paradise in comparison to players
> at comparable limits at live casinos. For example, some players
> say that $1/$2 players at Paradise are as good as $10/$20 players
> at live casinos. I played at a live casino yesterday for the first time
> in about six months and was indeed surprised at how weak and loose
> the players were.
I see people say things like this, and I suppose it's all of matter of perspective and where you play, and what you play. Loose game
LA players are wonderful to play against, but they are tougher than the weak players I face on Paradise in the Omaha games. Loose/bad
is a much tougher opponent than
weak-tight/bad. Loose opponents can hurt me.
These weak-tight players have no shot. They are like slot machines.
Holdem of course is a different game. A bunch of weak-tight players are only going to be beatable for a relatively smallish amount of
money. But by no means do I think it is correct to think of a weak-tight player who mucks ATo as "better" than a loose aggressive
player who raises with 76s. This sort of thinking is, I think, what comes from misunderstanding the basics of the game which comes
from a reliance on
starting hand charts. Starting hands don't
matter nearly as much in Limit Holdem as betting ability and post-flop play.
> It's easier to go on tilt online and you can lose more once you are tilting.
> I do not think this is true for myself, but many other players say this is
> true for them. The increased speed of play punishes you more for tilting.
> The speed of play also makes it easier to go on tilt as you have less time
> to think about each hand. Others suggest that the lack of personal contact
> makes it easier to go on tilt: you do not feel as embarrassed online.
I think this is a wash. Increased speed is irrelevant if you are comparing the two. People go on tilt more online because they play
more hands, period. I also think the lack of personal contact can't possibly lead to *more* tilt, that's just illogical. Most tilt
occurs because of machismo: "you can't beat ME like that." I doubt there is hardly any player who would tilt more in 1000
hands online than in 1000 hands in a b&m casino. And then of course the restricted online bankroll makes it much harder to tilt
because many players simply will run out of money.
> Playing two tables divides your attention more than you think and
> you may not therefore be playing as well as you think. Playing two
> tables, I find that my play is more formulaic and that I do not get as
> good a read on my individual opponents. I can spot the maniacs, etc,
> but I do not catch the subtleties about the others.
Except for the very best players, and I mean *very* best, I'm convinced playing two tables is big loser for almost all players. A lot
of the inept weak-tight players are as inept as they are because they don't focus on one game. If you aren't beating online poker for
quite a lot, you shouldn't play two games (if you care about the money).
Decent but not the very best players could increase their expectation by playing two games, but my observation is that
good-but-not-great players are subject to much greater swings than if they only played one table. Big swings tend to hurt players in
lots of subtle ways: they play less (take breaks for a few days) when losing; they play on tilt when losing; they quit good games when
booking a winner, etc. Bad things get badder, good things get more minimized. For many, they might get a higher hourly rate, but end
up playing less hours because they are being driven nuts by the