Posted Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:10 pm GMT by mindgame
Let’s try a civil conversation. I refuse to believe (in the face of sore temptation and no little evidence) that it’s beyond your capacities.
In response to my clearly mocking post you might have responded thus:
| Quote: | M, I resist taking the bait, but I am put-off by your suggestion that there is only one way to play poker; that you do it; that we don’t. That’s an affront to most of us here and, frankly, it pisses me off.
Who’s to say that you’re the one playing poker when, at this point in the evolution of the game, it might be argued that upwards of 95% of all the “poker” in the universe looks like ours? I suggest that majority rules: we are in fact, playing poker, you are indulging in a quaint anachronism much like those pathetic old geezers who dress up in antique Civil War uniforms and play war: fields full of guns and not a bullet in the bunch. Meanwhile, halfway around the world, men with modern weapons who would cut these guys to ribbons risk their lives in real battle to protect the rights of those engaged in comic opera.
The irony is lost on you, M. The game has passed you by. |
But no, instead of engaging with words and ideas (and surely you would subscribe to what I wrote above—you could well have written it and become very much the champion of most of our forum regulars) you bludgeon: trying to beat me into submission with pejoratives: | Quote: | | baseless, incendiary, arrogant and illogical. |
This is your reflexive (yes, unthinking) response to everything you disagree with. You are crude when you might be elegant. You insist upon using a truncheon when a rapier would be so much more fun. But, worse than that, you’re unconvincing and—more egregious still--you do not entertain.
So here’s a second chance: accept, endorse, or embellish and improve the response I wrote for you. Let’s try it: parry, thrust, parry, thrust…what do you say? Neither on of us will win this debate, and, if the forum were to vote at the conclusion, I will concede before it starts that your view would be endorsed. I’m not trying to win, simply to enlighten. Gentle mockery will be permitted, but name calling and labeling are a waste of time. Additionally, lengthy quotes, as when you copy and paste an entire post, are verboten: that wastes both time and space. Quote, if you must, one sentence, one idea at a time.
Let us fence. Put away your blunderbuss.
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:28 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
Can I vote for Supa's view before this starts, if it will save us the hot air?
Posted Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:41 pm GMT by mindgame
Now there you go, you've already pre-judged the debate as nothing but hot air, declaring the victor before he even accepts the challenge.
Do you REALLY believe that there is nothing to be gained by exploring our two, quite different, points of view? You discount any possibility of learning something from listening to another way of looking things? If so, then I give up. I will withdraw and delete my post, despairing of finding any intelligent life among you youngsters, so wise you have nothing left to learn.
The burden you must bear, knowing as you do all that might be known.
Posted Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:38 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
I'm probably much older than you believe. As for why I think this "debate" will be pointless, I don't expect it to turn out any differently than the other brazilian threads that were started in this vein. I surely don't know everything, but I suspect you have nothing new to teach me that I haven't already heard.
Now, if you'd like to continue to flaunt your prose whilst supa flaunts his disdain, knock yourself out. I'll stay out of the thread. I really don't consider you more than a one-trick pony these days, and I've grown weary of it.
Posted Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:42 pm GMT by Skribbles
If this does happen... could you guys please agree to use small words for the unsmart ones here?
Posted Tue Nov 21, 2006 3:17 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| Skribbles wrote: | | If this does happen... could you guys please agree to use small words for the unsmart ones here? |
I'd prefer that someone travel somewhere and we have ourselves a reenactment of Johnny Moss and Nick the Greek till someone goes broke.
Posted Tue Nov 21, 2006 3:45 pm GMT by mindgame
Okay, before the clock has even started I'll take this penalty for verbosity and march my over-inflated ego back, kicking from the 35.
But lord, I've already written his lines (damn good, if I may so immodestly suggest) and yet you pile on so...
I'll keep it to short, declarative, sentences and words of 3 syllables or less--the occasional exception (like declarative) forced upon me by context.
(btw, I'm not sure I understand the use of brazilian in you post, but that may be because it's got 4 syllables.)
Posted Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:19 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| mindgame wrote: | | (btw, I'm not sure I understand the use of brazilian in you post, but that may be because it's got 4 syllables.) |
| Dave B wrote: | Donald Rumsfeld and his aides are giving Bush his daily briefing on Iraq. He informs the President: "You should know that three Brazilian soldiers were killed yesterday."
The President turns white, and slumps into his chair, looking shaken.
"Dear God," he says, lapsing into silence.
His staff exchanges puzzled and concerned glances, as Bush has never displayed such a reaction to casualty news before. They nervously watch the President, who sits, head in hands.
Finally, the President looks up and asks, "OK, tell me again, how many are there in a brazillion?" |
Posted Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:35 pm GMT by tame_deuces
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/S/signal-to-noise-ratio.html
Posted Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:09 am GMT by Hurricane Ham
Tame wins.
Posted Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:05 pm GMT by BeerWench13
I've been away so long! What the hell is going on here? Please someone explain. I'm totally lost and that minimizes my smartass comments and rebuttals. Thanks, guys.
Posted Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:54 pm GMT by supafrey
Mindgame is frustrated that he's not as young as he used to be. He takes it out on us bendy youngsters by claiming whatever we do isn't "real" despite making more money than he could ever dream about.
Posted Wed Nov 22, 2006 2:04 pm GMT by suitedaces84
Furthermore, years of beating incredibly soft 10/20 games the midwest lead him to believe he is much better than he is.
Posted Wed Nov 22, 2006 2:15 pm GMT by supafrey
shhhh clearly 10/20 is harder live you young gun moran.
Posted Wed Nov 22, 2006 2:24 pm GMT by Dave B
Why, exactly, is 10/20 live limit w/ $150-200 average pots less significant that 2/4 or even 5/10NL with the same average pots?
I do not totally agree with mindgame about online poker, I play it 70-80% of the time. But there is a ton of very important aspects of the game that are missing.
I also think that some of you are being naive about the differences without any experience to back it up.
Posted Wed Nov 22, 2006 2:51 pm GMT by supafrey
| Dave B wrote: | Why, exactly, is 10/20 live limit w/ $150-200 average pots less significant that 2/4 or even 5/10NL with the same average pots?
|
I dont remember saying anything was less significant.
5/10nl is a much bigger game than 10/20 live. 5/10nl ONLINE is an infinitely more difficult game than any live game I've ever seen spread up to 20/40.
Your claims about experience are shaky - not many are as forthcoming with their relative amount of exp at live tables. I'm also curious as to how much there really is to "get" about live poker. Almost all of the "tells", "experiences", "stories", "feelings" and other fluff I hear about from live poker is laughable - this fake mystique that people want to have over the game they waste their time over is understandable, but a joke.
If you want to talk about poker "experience", I'm willing to put money down that I've played a good number of hands greater than Mindgame, and have moved so well past these fluffy notions having ANY tangible effect on winrates that I have trouble not being downright condescending. Add into the mix the other stuff I've mentioned - about degenerates, depression and the downright gross feeling most cardrooms have from atleast half their clientele that the computer screen just looks all that more valuable. That's not even getting into the money/time issues.
Posted Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:15 pm GMT by Dave B
Naive: Almost all of the "tells", "experiences", "stories", "feelings" and other fluff I hear about from live poker is laughable
Granted, a lot of games this plays no impact. But, when you get to a certain level, that is the only thing that separates one player from another. Most of the time you dont even realize how much you are giving away until players lay make big laydowns against you then call your re-raise with next to nothing.
I am not talking about someone touching their nose or betting with one hand instead of the next, but most is just the image (or grossly overacted false image). The conversations, what they say or dont say. Immediate reactions to comments-things that cannot be duplicated online.
Things that arent "tells" but help you to make accurate reads and get paid.
Posted Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:37 pm GMT by suitedaces84
| Dave B wrote: | Why, exactly, is 10/20 live limit w/ $150-200 average pots less significant that 2/4 or even 5/10NL with the same average pots?
|
Not less significant, just easier. If you play against terrible players you're bound to get the impression you're better than your are.
Posted Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:43 pm GMT by Dave B
I dont know that there are more bad players at a 10/20 game live than a 5/10NL game.
Posted Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:47 pm GMT by supafrey
| Dave B wrote: | Naive: Almost all of the "tells", "experiences", "stories", "feelings" and other fluff I hear about from live poker is laughable
Granted, a lot of games this plays no impact. But, when you get to a certain level, that is the only thing that separates one player from another. Most of the time you dont even realize how much you are giving away until players lay make big laydowns against you then call your re-raise with next to nothing.
I am not talking about someone touching their nose or betting with one hand instead of the next, but most is just the image (or grossly overacted false image). The conversations, what they say or dont say. Immediate reactions to comments-things that cannot be duplicated online.
Things that arent "tells" but help you to make accurate reads and get paid. |
You can only accuse me of naivity (spelling?) if I haven't considered these ideas at some point - ignorance, arrogance, whatever the reason, etc.
You don't seem to get that perhaps I HAVE thoughtfully reasoned out both sides of the debate, listened to the ramblings of old school players that claim "gut feel" is enough for playing, heard every cliche of "playing the player", or watched people make what seemed to be "strong laydowns". I have. I have thought these ideas through and I have on occasion (despite your pointing to my relative newbiness at live games) been witness to what most would describe as magical plays and mucks.
Some conclusions:
1. These same things are possible online.
2. Most of the time when people see something "remarkable" it really isn't. It's almost always down to experience and the game gets shockingly more A-B-C and predictable for me with every 10k hands I play.
3. People lie, repeatadly, about how/why they make their plays. People that get absorbed in the mystique of it usually just don't get the reasoned part.
4. I am far from a weak/stupid player. I get the game on atleast some level (even a metaphysical one) so things are rarely "beyond" me on a day to day basis, especially at any stakes that are relevant for this discussion. This is arrogant, but important to note. Look at the level of skill of most people that claim some sort of intangible "quality" to live poker - the very same people that speak of tells and "reading people" and all the wonderful considerations that mindgame brought up (Digression: Who the heck is any good and still has to worry about exposing cards, playing in turn, not talking too much, or any of the other dozens of things mindgame mentions as being a "part" of live poker!?)
When good players say things like "i could just tell he was bluffing" it is because they are attempting to simplify a dozen different factors into a sentence that an average player will understand. A poor player takes this and understands it as a great player understanding the "magic" of the live game - this is wrong. Poker is MIND NUMBINGLY AND PAINFULLY SIMPLE TO PLAY, LIVE OR OTHERWISE.
Posted Wed Nov 22, 2006 4:11 pm GMT by Dave B
Supa, I play where there is generally 200-300 other people 24/7. Over half are either regulars or frequent players. I have sat next to a player (young Asian dude) name Sony who seems to always win, and that is not an exaggeration.
One time I sat right next to him and watched everything that he did because I was trying to learn what he was doing that I was not. I honestly swear that he went an hour, playing maybe 20-25 hands out of 30-35, no less than 10 times he never even looked at his cards.
Now, he is definately playing a different game than I am. And I dont think that anything he is doing is mind numbing or simple.
I do think that anyone can learn some basics and be successful. But I constantly watch a small group of regular players (maybe 5-10%) that seem immune to any swings or bad sessions. Nearly every time they sit at the table, they collect chips. They are just so much better than everyone else that there has to be more to it than just having a better understanding of a very simple game than the rest of us.
Posted Wed Nov 22, 2006 4:24 pm GMT by suitedaces84
| Dave B wrote: | | I dont know that there are more bad players at a 10/20 game live than a 5/10NL game. |
The comparision was between live games of the 80s/90s/early 00s to current online games.
Posted Wed Nov 22, 2006 4:26 pm GMT by mindgame
If I can jump in here I'd like to point out that there is SO much information, so much going on at a live game that no one can possibly keep track of it all. It's picking out what's significant and then correctly identifying what it means that is art of this game (a high signal/noise ratio as an earlier player put it).
There simply isn't NEARLY so much going on in an online game--I mean come on, it's not even CLOSE--and virtually everything significant that IS going on can be tracked infallibly with software, analyzed instantly, then tabulated and presented to the player at the press of a mouse button.
They aren't the same game. And owning operating the software as I do I think it's fair to say that the live game (I will refrain from the incendiary adjective "real") must be played without these "crutches."
Imagine Casino Royale if it were about online poker...
YAWN!
Posted Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:24 pm GMT by supafrey
| Quote: | | There simply isn't NEARLY so much going on in an online game--I mean come on, it's not even CLOSE--and virtually everything significant that IS going on can be tracked infallibly with software, analyzed instantly, then tabulated and presented to the player at the press of a mouse button. |
Then wouldn't online poker be easier - why do you still have trouble?
Posted Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:31 pm GMT by mindgame
| Quote: | | Who the heck is any good and still has to worry about exposing cards, playing in turn, not talking too much, or any of the other dozens of things mindgame mentions as being a "part" of live poker!? |
You misunderstood this point--these are some of the goofy things that are going on all the time in a live game. They aren't things I worry about DOING, they are things I worry about MISSING, or failing to correctly ascertain the significance of. Who saw, who didn't, what does it mean, what does this guy or that guy or some other guy THINK it means. My point was to illustrate the myriad of behaviors 9 opponents (good, bad, ugly, acting and authentic...etc) are simultaneously engaged in. None of this information is available in an online game and all of it is important in a live one.
I wouldn't be so stupid as to suggest that more money can be made live--practically and potentially it's not even close. Likewise the risk is much higher live: when an online hotshot is playing mathematically near-perfect hands seven to eight tables at once he's spread his risk so well that even one or two tables going south will only dent his earnings that day. Live? You can have 8 or 10 hours of hard work erased on one or two hands. Hey, we play where the rubber meets the road and it's a jungle out here with not a computer in sight to help us.
Posted Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:58 pm GMT by supafrey
| Quote: | | I wouldn't be so stupid as to suggest that more money can be made live--practically and potentially it's not even close. Likewise the risk is much higher live: when an online hotshot is playing mathematically near-perfect hands seven to eight tables at once he's spread his risk so well that even one or two tables going south will only dent his earnings that day. Live? You can have 8 or 10 hours of hard work erased on one or two hands. |
hahahahha
Posted Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:31 pm GMT by tame_deuces
Though I won't be as blunt as Supa, I will agree that that is a gross misrepresentation of online play/multitabling/statistical tools and the influence these have on the game/variance thereof.
Posted Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:55 pm GMT by Buffarino
| supafrey wrote: | | Poker is MIND NUMBINGLY AND PAINFULLY SIMPLE TO PLAY, LIVE OR OTHERWISE. |
That's funny. So Doyle Brunson says he learns something new every time he plays but you believe poker is painfully simple?
I'll take Doyle's word for it over yours, especially when I factor in my owne experience.
Posted Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:57 pm GMT by supafrey
do you want to be doyle brunson?
or do you want to win money?
do you even like - want to win a FAIR BIT OF MONEY?
that's very very easy. If you have strict adherance to basic rules you can make money (taking out the stupid emotional part).
If you want to be a mixed 200/400fl champ then it may be a little harder.
Posted Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:03 pm GMT by Buffarino
| supafrey wrote: | do you want to be doyle brunson?
or do you want to win money?
do you even like - want to win a FAIR BIT OF MONEY?
that's very very easy. If you have strict adherance to basic rules you can make money (taking out the stupid emotional part).
If you want to be a mixed 200/400fl champ then it may be a little harder. |
Yeah, you can consistently beat lower limit games just by playing a tight/aggressive style with good bankroll management. That's exactly what I do and I rarely lose. I don't have the time to try and be a top player. I play to make a bit of money and to have fun. But to make a blanket statement about how simple the game is when the best players in the world disagree with you is disingenuous at best.
That's all i was getting at.
Posted Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:41 pm GMT by zinn0
No, I'm pretty sure he's on to something. Poker is easy.
Posted Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:35 am GMT by BeerWench13
| supafrey wrote: | | If you have strict adherance to basic rules you can make money (taking out the stupid emotional part). |
QFT.
Wait... did I just agree with Supa??? I must be losing it. 
It's those damned emotions that get me every time. You know, that little voice in the back of your mind that says "I just know he hit his set when that 3 hit the turn. No, maybe that was his 2nd pair. No, maybe he's got a gutshot now." And you talk yourself out of that first read and want to kick yourself when he flips over those pocket 3's. Those are the ones that get me.
There is instinct in play, live or online. However, I can't seem to tell when the guy is scratching his nose while he's sitting in his chair in front of the computer. If he's sitting across from me and can't seem to swallow and his vein is pulsing, it's a bit easier to tell.
Posted Mon Nov 27, 2006 2:17 pm GMT by UrAteUp
Some things never change in this forum...
Testerone is always here in an over abundance.
The arguements never change...it's either...poker is rigged...or...the ever reliable...online is easier then live...or...poker is not situational.
Truth of the matter is...Mindgame can't say online is easier or harder till he has a few 10,000 hands raked up.
Just as Supa can't make judgements on live play till he has logged a few 10,000 hands there.
Can't we all agree that some people like live play better then online and let it go at that? Does one male have to always be right and the other wrong? Can we not have such things as OPINIONS and IDEAS...or do those things only exist in the outside world and never in this forum?
A wise man once said...this forum used to be about poker...but now it's about egos... (the wise SOB was me)
Arguing in forums is like the special olympics...
Posted Mon Nov 27, 2006 2:34 pm GMT by BeerWench13
I prefer live play, personally, because I can seem to get a better read on my opponent after a while. However, I've made some scary calls and laydowns online based on a particular player's betting habits. I just like casino play more because the beer is free there and men are easily distracted by cleavage. My only advantage online is that they think I'm a stupid drunk girl who doesn't know what she's doing. Okay, I admit they're mostly right, but it does pay pretty well when I get lucky.
| UrAteUp wrote: | | Testerone is always here in an over abundance. |
I love it!
| UrAteUp wrote: | | Does one male have to always be right and the other wrong? |
Last time I checked, yes. Women are the same way. The only difference is that most of us (present poster and all other female THP'ers excluded of course) wait until the other is gone and say it behind their back.
| UrAteUp wrote: | | Arguing in forums is like the special olympics... |
Why not just say "DEE DEE DEE"?
Let's look at the facts as they present themselves...
Do I make more money live or online? Live.
Is it easier for me to find a game live or online? Online.
Can I pick up physical tells better live or online? Live.
Can I pick up on betting patterns better live or online? Online.
These are the way things are for me, personally. Many folks may have the opposite experience. That doesn't make them wrong, just weird. Anyone not like me is weird. I'm kidding of course, but I'm trying to lighten the mood a bit.
You guys are wishing I was still bogged down at work right now, aren't ya?
Posted Mon Nov 27, 2006 2:39 pm GMT by supafrey
hey wenchie how big does my roll have to be b4 you leave your husband for me?
Posted Mon Nov 27, 2006 2:45 pm GMT by UrAteUp
| supafrey wrote: | | hey wenchie how big does my roll have to be b4 you leave your husband for me? |
bahbahbahhahahahahahaha...these college boys have some vivid imaginations and wild asperations.
Posted Mon Nov 27, 2006 2:50 pm GMT by BeerWench13
Supa, hon, you'd kick me out in a week. I'm a spoiled alcholic gambler. And I'm old. And I'm conservative in spending unless there are odds attached. You need to find you some hot, young filly to spend all your money on manicures and makeup.
Posted Wed Nov 29, 2006 10:01 am GMT by mindgame
Hmmmm
The last time I checked your picture I'm pretty sure I was looking at a hot young filly.
(Of course at my age that's any hottie under age 32. Then again, truly beautiful women are still at least a decade from peaking at 32, so I think I'm okay here.)
Posted Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:24 am GMT by mindgame
to UrAteUp:
I’m having a lot of trouble understanding this post. I went to great pains to structure the request that started this thread as an invitation to exchange ideas and opinions. I went so far as to state the position of those who disagree with me in a way I thought was clear, forceful, and convincing.
At the outset I conceded that I would be in the minority and I think I made it clear that it wasn’t about being Right or Wrong—how then do you construe this as a matter of jackasses, heads up, butting egos? Supra declined the invitation, as was his right, and I declined to remark on that except to say that we may have too little in common for a fruitful discussion. It strikes me that the whole thing has been quite civil in tone.
Let’s look at what you’ve said:
| Quote: | | “The arguements never change...it's either...poker is rigged...or...the ever reliable...online is easier then live...or...poker is not situational.” |
None of these issues was raised as a subject of discussion. My point was quite different entirely. It’s a question I'm really asking--and certainly a forum is exactly the place to pose questions—is online poker so different from live (original) that it’s a different game entirely? You know my opinion on this. I believe online is an interactive video game which is a derivative of poker.
I don’t think it’s poker, though, and my reasoning is straighforward on the matter: online players routinely engage in behavior that would be illegal in ANY casino, ANY poker room, ANY home game. I’ve listed quite a few specific examples and could give you more. If you are breaking the rules you aren’t playing the game. Period. You are playing another game altogether. Call it poker if you must. After all, Playstation calls their game football, but even when the box has his name on it, John Madden isn’t going to make serious argument that football is what it is.
Supra plays a game he describes as “mind-numbingly simple, ” and he may, indeed, make a small fortune doing it. I know of no serious live players who describe their game as Supra does, but they are, after all, playing poker. When the WSOP is played online, online players can insist that they are playing poker as well.
| Quote: | | “Truth of the matter is...Mindgame can't say online is easier or harder . . .” |
If I have given the impression that I was making a case for which is easier, I am not. Not my point at all. I don’t think online is easy, nor is live.
| Quote: | | “Arguing in forums is like the special Olympics…” |
Arguing in forums? Why not? What better place? I’m not saying rage at each other or trade insults. I’m saying put forth ideas and opinions and defend them with thoughtful argument. If not here, where?
Posted Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:02 pm GMT by supafrey
| Quote: | | Supra plays a game he describes as “mind-numbingly simple, ” and he may, indeed, make a small fortune doing it. I know of no serious live players who describe their game as Supra does, but they are, after all, playing poker. When the WSOP is played online, online players can insist that they are playing poker as well. |
1. What you "know" is irrelevant.
2. What they tell you and what they know are two different things.
3. Not many people are as straightforward as me.
4. So - is poker whatever the wsop decides?
5. What you play (for the most part) is NLHE, I gather. The rules, nuances and modern-day derivitives of this game look next to NOTHING like the original "poker". If change is somehow the characteristic of note, then you, sir, aren't playing true poker either.
6. Live players, as we have seen on this forum, often get their head stuck up their own ass as to how "awesome" what they think they do is. Try to tell a lawyer that what they do isn't that "hard" and see their response. Why would live poker players (especially when ego and dick-swingin' seem to go hand in hand with 3/4 of the douches I've seen at tables) ever be that honest with themselves?
Posted Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:56 pm GMT by mindgame
Thank you for a well constructed response. I’d like to look at it.
| Quote: | | “What I know isn’t relevant.” |
Good grief, what IS relevant? What I don’t know? I know hundreds of poker players, dozens of solid ones. I’ve got a library on poker of over sixty books written over a 40 year period and these writers I include in those live poker players whom I know—in fact most of them would be widely conceded to be experts. When I say I know of none who would describe their game as you describe yours I believe it is more than relevant: it amounts to what a court would regard as
a) expert testimony
b) a vast preponderance of evidence.
| Quote: | | “What they tell you and what they know are two different things." |
True enough with a lot of players: deception is part of the game and being disingenuous is a fair ploy. However, those writing poker books and are not in this category and none will opine that the game is “mind-numbingly simple.” It’s not.
| Quote: | | “So poker is what the WSOP decides?” |
Good question. Can baseball be described as the game played in the World Series? Well, yeah. I would say the world championship of an activity may be a fair yardstick by which to define the pursuit when engaged on a serious level. What better paradigm?
| Quote: | | “What you play…is next to nothing like the original 'poker.'" |
I wouldn’t go that far. It is very little like “poque” the French game brought to New Orleans that eventually evolved to poker. It is not greatly different from the five card games of draw and stud that were played on riverboats of the Mississippi. But the point is good. The game MUST evolve. You may be playing a game that people will come to understand as true poker—but you are not yet. Simple numbers won’t give you that.
Most people are playing it online now. But many more people are playing football all over the planet than are playing it on Saturday and Sunday (college and NFL professionals). I think it’s fair to say that those in high school or “home” football games do their best to model the game after the one they pay money on the weekends to see. Will football ever come to be understood as the game played in front of a monitor or television? No, regardless of how many are playing the video game.
I decline to respond to the last point. It’s not your best effort.
Posted Wed Nov 29, 2006 2:58 pm GMT by Dave B
6. Live players, as we have seen on this forum, often get their head stuck up their own ass as to how "awesome" what they think they do is. Try to tell a lawyer that what they do isn't that "hard" and see their response. Why would live poker players (especially when ego and dick-swingin' seem to go hand in hand with 3/4 of the douches I've seen at tables) ever be that honest with themselves?
I think that you might misunderstand what some of us are saying. Personally, I find the live game much superior because it is more fun. Yes, it is slower-so I play higher stakes live to balance that out.
I like seeing people, what they do and how they do it. I like seeing reactions to what I do or plays that I make. I like stacking chips and watching others rebuy for 2, 3, 4, then 5 times.
It is very rare that I "read" a player and make a move accordingly. I have felt that people have "read" me and that scared the crap out of me. But when saying there is more to do and see in a live game vs online, it isnt applying some special skill-it is just seeing peoples reactions and the table talk that is missing from online.
When Mindgame says that the live game is superior to online, I completely agree. I dont agree because it takes some special skill, or that one is easier to beat, I agree because it appeals to more of my senses and I enjoy it more. If I enjoy a steak over a PB&J, I say it is better. I might eat more PB&Js than steaks. To me, Supa, you are debating the nutritional value of a food as oppose to the experience of eating it.
I dont know what things are like in the Canadian casinos. But in the way Vegas is "superior" to my local (albeit huge and action filled) casino is in the experience that it delivers. For example:
1) Vegas has HOT cocktail waitress vs 10% hot, 60% doable, 30% unattractive
2) Vegas has the best food and drinks vs subpar bar food
3) Vegas has international diversity at nearly every table vs my casino w/ 3 Asians, 3 regulars, 3 college kids and me (BTW-if you havent had some loud mouthed Southerner, some loud mouthed NYer, a Scandanavian, a Middle Eastern all thowing the verbal barbs around you are in for some real unique fun)
I could go on, but you get the point. Even though Vegas is superior to my home casino-it doesnt mean that the players or games are worse.
Posted Wed Nov 29, 2006 3:03 pm GMT by supafrey
| mindgame wrote: |
Good grief, what IS relevant? I know hundreds of poker players, dozens of solid ones. Irrelevant. I know more, several somewhat intimately. Your knowledge of "lots of players" is no more relevant than me making a psychoanalysis because i "know lots of people". I’ve got a library on poker of over sixty books written over a 40 year period and these writers I include in those live poker players whom I know—in fact most of them would be widely conceded to be experts. When I say I know of none who would describe their game as you describe yours I believe it is more than relevan. What author would take 30 bucks from you for a book and then write "this game is very easy. Mindnumbingly so." Kind of twisting the knife, no? Have you... ever ASKED anyone? Go ahead - ask a long term NLHE expert (although I guess I don't count, because I've only beat up on low stakes live cash for about a year) whether they could teach a 15 year old kid to beat the game FOR LONG TERM, SUSTAINED AND RESPECTABLE INCOME. They will say yes.
| Quote: | | “What they tell you and what they know are two different things." |
True enough with a lot of players: deception is part of the game and being disingenuous is a fair ploy. However, those writing poker books and are not in this category and none will opine that the game is “mind-numbingly simple.” It’s not. See - when you respond to my points about how stupid the mystique of poker is with "deception is part of the game and being disingenuous is bla bla bla" I have trouble answering you back. Either way - I'm not saying it's only purposefully hidden as being "tough", but also because some people (even those beating it) don't often realize how routine and redundant their playmaking really is.
| Quote: | | “So poker is what the WSOP decides?” |
Good question. Can baseball be described as the game played in the World Series? Well, yeah. I would say the world championship of an activity may be a fair yardstick by which to define the pursuit when engaged on a serious level. What better paradigm? Then clearly whoever wins a 10k tournament is the best player in the world that year.
| Quote: | | “What you play…is next to nothing like the original 'poker.'" |
I wouldn’t go that far. It is very little like “poque” the French game brought to New Orleans that eventually evolved to poker. It is not greatly different from the five card games of draw and stud that were played on riverboats of the Mississippi. But the point is good. The game MUST evolve. You may be playing a game that people will come to understand as true poker—but you are not yet. Simple numbers won’t give you that. Simple numbers are irrelevant. (Fallacy) "Common sense" discourse is irrelevant. (Fallacy deux). Just ask South African slave traders how awesome it was to have the majority of the population agree with them on what was "right".
Most people are playing it online now. But many more people are playing football all over the planet than are playing it on Saturday and Sunday (college and NFL professionals). I think it’s fair to say that those in high school or “home” football games do their best to model the game after the one they pay money on the weekends to see. Will football ever come to be understood as the game played in front of a monitor or television? No, regardless of how many are playing the video game.
I decline to respond to the last point. It’s not your best effort.Wrong. It's probably my most blunt and honest one. |
Posted Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:19 pm GMT by tame_deuces
| Quote: | | Your knowledge of "lots of players" is no more relevant than me making a psychoanalysis because i "know lots of people". |
I don't know who/what/where/when this was written or in what context it was written.
But it is a fallacy to think that personal knowledge will beat statistical data when it comes to predicting the action of people. I study psychology and every serious study says the same personal opinion and analysis, even from experts is less accurate than statistical analysis.
What does this mean for a poker player?
Stop trying to get into the head of your opponent or some such magical corny tree-hugging load of psychoanalytical crap. Expect him to be doing/holding what he usual holds/does in this situation - even if that means realizing he could be mixing it up, that is just a valuable piece of information as knowing he isn't mixing it up.
As for supa saying the game is easy, as always it is the rule of 'the numerous small'. From an overall standpoint, poker is hard since few players are consistent winners. But enough (10% or so? I'm not sure) people are winners to make being a winner at low to medium stakes nothing spectacular.
Like...you don't have to be very tall to be amongst the 10% tallest people in the world, and you aren't necessarily very good if you are among the 10% poker players that win.
Posted Fri Dec 01, 2006 3:00 am GMT by snoogins47
I think I'm finally gonna have to give in, read this thread, and tell people who's right and who's wrong. I've been avoiding it so long.
Posted Fri Dec 01, 2006 3:13 am GMT by supafrey
obv i will be right, coach.
Posted Fri Dec 01, 2006 11:45 pm GMT by crack
| snoogins47 wrote: | | I think I'm finally gonna have to give in, read this thread, and tell people who's right and who's wrong. I've been avoiding it so long. |
I am still avoiding it.
Posted Sat Dec 02, 2006 4:37 pm GMT by Buffarino
| Dave B wrote: | I think that you might misunderstand what some of us are saying. Personally, I find the live game much superior because it is more fun. Yes, it is slower-so I play higher stakes live to balance that out.
I like seeing people, what they do and how they do it. I like seeing reactions to what I do or plays that I make. I like stacking chips and watching others rebuy for 2, 3, 4, then 5 times.
It is very rare that I "read" a player and make a move accordingly. I have felt that people have "read" me and that scared the crap out of me. But when saying there is more to do and see in a live game vs online, it isnt applying some special skill-it is just seeing peoples reactions and the table talk that is missing from online.
When Mindgame says that the live game is superior to online, I completely agree. I dont agree because it takes some special skill, or that one is easier to beat, I agree because it appeals to more of my senses and I enjoy it more. If I enjoy a steak over a PB&J, I say it is better. I might eat more PB&Js than steaks. To me, Supa, you are debating the nutritional value of a food as oppose to the experience of eating it.
I dont know what things are like in the Canadian casinos. But in the way Vegas is "superior" to my local (albeit huge and action filled) casino is in the experience that it delivers. For example:
1) Vegas has HOT cocktail waitress vs 10% hot, 60% doable, 30% unattractive
2) Vegas has the best food and drinks vs subpar bar food
3) Vegas has international diversity at nearly every table vs my casino w/ 3 Asians, 3 regulars, 3 college kids and me (BTW-if you havent had some loud mouthed Southerner, some loud mouthed NYer, a Scandanavian, a Middle Eastern all thowing the verbal barbs around you are in for some real unique fun)
I could go on, but you get the point. Even though Vegas is superior to my home casino-it doesnt mean that the players or games are worse. |
I agree, Dave. I play live because online bores the hell out of me. I don't do it for the money, I do it for the entertainment. I enjoy the social nature of playing in a live game. The money is secondary.
I also wonder if supa has ever sat at a real table (not a home game, but one in a casino). Another thread says he won't be 21 until June.
Posted Sat Dec 02, 2006 5:29 pm GMT by mortaleclipse
If I remember correctly he said he has cause you only got to be 18 to gamble in Canada, could be wrong.
Posted Sun Dec 03, 2006 4:31 am GMT by Skribbles
| mortaleclipse wrote: | | If I remember correctly he said he has cause you only got to be 18 to gamble in Canada, could be wrong. |
Yes. You can gamble in Canada at 18. And supa is 18+....
Posted Sun Dec 03, 2006 2:55 pm GMT by snoogins47
I logged probably ~30 hours opposite him playing MONSTROUS $1/$2 NL in Windsor. Time to read this thread.
Posted Sun Dec 03, 2006 4:00 pm GMT by snoogins47
I'm going to start out my response by taking a cue from B. Rabbit in the greatest rap-themed Karate Kid ripoff of our time: 8-Mile.
I'm a few months shy of 22. The majority of my experience has been playing online. I'm a cocky young-gun online multitabler who doesn't make the majority of his money looking into people's souls through their Oakleys and figuring out that they have AK precisely a la Tilt (ignoring the fact that our hero, Eddie Town, reasoned that the Matador had AK precisely based on empiricism and logic that works in the exact same manner online as it does live) Hence, those of the opposing viewpoint aren't going to even consider that I may be right, regardless of how much sense my response makes. I'm gonna make it anyway though, because I'm such a young, bright-eyed idealist who hasn't figured out the harsh realities of the real world!!
Mindgame: (paraphrasing of course) A 'video-game derivative of poker?'
10 Yard Fight was a video game derivative of Football. Pong was a video game derivative of Tennis/Table Tennis. Track and Field/Hyper Sports was a video game derivative of track and field events. Mike Tyson's Punch Out! (or that evil doppleganger featuring Mr. Dream... don't you love that when Tyson goes to jail, not only do they feel the need to strip his name from the game, but they feel the need to color his character white?) was a video game derivative of boxing.
Where are the cross-over skills? Where are the people who excel in both arenas, that haven't worked seriously at both seperately? To riposte the obvious response to this, let's take something like Madden, that is at least significantly more similar to 'real' football. I have no doubt that taking one random person off the street, and one random professional football player off the street, having both never played Madden, the football player probably stands (on average) to have an edge. But no football player with no Madden experience stands a chance against anybody who has played Madden frequently/regularly. I'm an accomplished guitarist, having played for nearly 13 years, and devoted much time and effort to technique. Having never played Guitar Hero, do you think I have much chance against a non-musician who plays Guitar Hero all the time?
We might say that the very best online poker players are not the same as the very best live poker players. I don't know if this is accurate or not, and neither do you, but it's definitely a possibility, especially in the sense that the VERY best live player and the VERY best online player are at least somewhat likely to be different people.
However, an overwhelmingly vast majority of the best online players, do extremely well live. An overwhelmingly vast majority of the best live players do extremely well online. An online-only player may need a bit of adjustment to sit in a live game if he's never played before (perhaps, repeating his betting motions and trying to relax) that a live player, switching to the internet, would not require... but to believe that this is going to seriously negatively impact an online player's edge in most situations is folly.
They're different, no doubt. There are likely some folks who derive a lot of their edge from subtleties in the live game that don't exist online. Well guess what: I contend that this doesn't make them magical, super poker players... I contend that this is a significant weakness. They're relying on one aspect of the game, and seriously neglecting others. Any player who could beat a group of 9 other players live, and can't beat them online, I don't think could ever be classified as a 'good' poker player, by any stretch of the imagination, and I don't think many folks would disagree here. Just because I can throw the ball 90 miles and hour doesn't make me a good pitcher. I'll zip through four years of high school ball and be one of the most dominant players in the state. I'll play in college. But I won't have a chance of actually getting anywhere, if all I can do is throw the ball 90 miles per hour.
They are different, and nobody will possibly ever deny that: there is simply more information to be gleaned, and more to give away, in a live setting than there is online. You win that round. However, the degree to which this information has an impact is very small, except among the extreme anomalies: the folks who are absolutely pitiful at one side, absolutely insanely excellent at one side, or opponents who are either. This doesn't happen nearly as often as the 'homegame heroes with self-professed supernatural reading skills' who lose online want to think.
I think, as much as relying on other opinions, conjectural evidence and everything else is a bit suspect, there is an interesting phenomenon we generally see:
Most successful online players argue that the games are quite similar. Quite a large chunk of those that argue that the games are drastically different are losers in one/both of the relevant arenas. Interesting trend?
To say that the games are the same is silly, but since the top players in each arena are almost universally extremely successful in the other arena, I think we might have to accept the fact that in the end, the games are intensely similar.
One thing that also stood out, like, in giant bold-faced letters:
| Quote: | | Live? You can have 8 or 10 hours of hard work erased on one or two hands. Hey, we play where the rubber meets the road and it's a jungle out here with not a computer in sight to help us. |
All this really says is that you play more hands online than live, so you have a much better idea of how well you're actually playing, a lot faster. It may say that there's a bit of mental toughness required to play live day-in, day-out that doesn't exist online, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that. However, if you're supporting live poker as 'true' poker, showing us something that basically says 'Look, my version is way more random than yours, I mean, it takes 5-10 times as long to be able to say with any reasonable confidence that I'm actually winning!' probably isn't the way to win anybody over to your camp.
As for complexity: The game is stupidly complex, and stupidly simple. Anybody who's played for any length of time can tell you this. It's mostly the nature of the game. Think of the difference between somebody who doesn't understand anything about the game/has never played/just kinda calls whenever, and somebody like... well I'll use myself simply because it's easier that way. Think about how ludicrously awful the first person does, compared to me.
Now compare me to Doyle Brunson.
Doyle understands the game, both intuitively and logically, in a fashion that is unbelievably deeper than me. He has a wisdom that only years and years of experience and brilliance can bring. He is way beyond me, in plenty of deep, complex, rich ways. I am nowhere near Doyle.
The comparison gets tricky, due to bankroll concerns and strength of opposition/experience, but let's try to ignore that for the time being.
Take all three players and put us in the same game.
The difference, strictly in our edge in the game, is going to be (depending on the structure and whatnot) astronomically high between myself and the total clueless beginner. Almost undoubtedly greater than the edge difference between Doyle and myself.
In 4-5 years of playing and thinking, I have reached a level of dominance against the bottom of the barrel. This is a level of dominance that, even given 60 more years of experience and likely much more talent, the best of the best are unlikely to ever in their life reach against me.
We see this trend in many games, but especially in games with a heavy element of randomness. The diminishing returns are astronomical, and that's why we say this game is so simple. Plenty of the decisions we make every single day are so obvious that we don't even think twice about them, and not only do they make up the bulk of our hands played, but they make up the bulk of our profit/edge as well.
I can compare to Backgammon, for the few people who might have enough experience with it to care. I've only been playing about two, maybe three months, but already there are probably people bad enough with little/no experience that I might be able to win 75% of my games against. (Ignoring the cube, since I suck so bad with the cube, that damned cube) If I were to keep playing Nack Ballard in single point matches, and somebody offered a bet on me paying out at 3:1, it would be very hard to reason whether or not that's a good bet. Many would say he's the best player in the world.
But anyway, to sum it all up: In poker, we have a situation where the carryover between the top players is huge in both arenas. The excellent live players and better, are almost all undoubtedly excellent online players, and vice versa.
I will challenge any professional football player to Tecmo Super Bowl for money.
I could keep going, but, I won't. I'll do that a few posts from now, I'm sure, but I figure this is way beyond long enough already.
Posted Sun Dec 03, 2006 4:25 pm GMT by Dave B
no.
Posted Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:20 pm GMT by suitedaces84
| snoogins47 wrote: | | I think I'm finally gonna have to give in, read this thread, and tell people who's right and who's wrong. |
So who's right????
btw, good post
Posted Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:49 pm GMT by BeerWench13
I'm not trying to argue, but I have a question regarding a point made by both Supa and Snoogs. Are you saying that there is no "intuition" in live play? I only ask because a few of the pros (i.e. Jennifer Harmon) claim to be intuitive players rather than odds calculators and I know a few players (given, I've only played them in local tournaments) who also claim that they just play off of intuition. I find myself using my intuition as well much more often against players that I can see face-to-face.
Is it a myth? Or is it also used in online play just not as readily as in live play? I find that I can get basic reads off of some players online just based on their betting patterns, stack size and, even occasionally, off of their verbosity in the chat box. However, I find that my intuitions a.k.a. "reads" are usually much more accurate in live play based on simple body language, statements that are made, how a player bets, etc.
Posted Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:23 pm GMT by supafrey
i would wager a pretty penny that your intuition comes more from your snap instinct than anything you consciously "deduce".
Where does that instinct come from?
I'm no scientician, but I'm going to emphatically say it comes from subconscious reads on betting patterns/past experience/irregularities in time taken/range/flop texture.
The more hands you play, the stronger/closer to the truth these reads get.
Posted Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:41 pm GMT by BeerWench13
| supafrey wrote: | | Where does that instinct come from? |
How the hell should I know? I'm a woman. I have no clue where 85% of the thoughts that go through my head originate.
I'm kidding, but I see your point. The more you play, the more of a feel you can get and the easier it is to put others on a hand based on their past history.
Posted Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:46 pm GMT by supafrey
i love a woman that can stay on top of things.
*raises an eyebrow*
Posted Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:45 am GMT by Buffarino
| mortaleclipse wrote: | | If I remember correctly he said he has cause you only got to be 18 to gamble in Canada, could be wrong. |
Gotcha. Gotta be 21 most places in the States. I didn't know he was a Canuck.
Posted Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:51 am GMT by supafrey
Why talk about me like i'm not here..
Casino age is substantively 19 in Canada because of drinking laws in most provinces.
I've only logged live hours in the hundreds, maybe.
Posted Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:30 pm GMT by groton
why dont we solve this easy
we hold a live turny somewhere
on one side we could have the Pro Live group on the other pro Internet Group .
and see who realy has the most tallent
Posted Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:00 pm GMT by MJJ
| groton wrote: | why dont we solve this easy
we hold a live turny somewhere
on one side we could have the Pro Live group on the other pro Internet Group .
and see who realy has the most tallent |
Uhhh... might be biased to play that online (or live)
Posted Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:07 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| MJJ wrote: | | Uhhh... might be biased to play that online (or live) |
I don't think the "online" guys would mind playing live. In fact, isn't that the only way we end this stupid argument anyway?
Posted Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:09 pm GMT by MJJ
| Sean_in_NJ wrote: | | MJJ wrote: | | Uhhh... might be biased to play that online (or live) |
I don't think the "online" guys would mind playing live. In fact, isn't that the only way we end this stupid argument anyway? |
So if we get everyone to fly to the same place we can have a tourney and end this arguement... awesome
Posted Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:18 pm GMT by supafrey
playing live would really prove neither side of any of these arguments.
Posted Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:38 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| supafrey wrote: | | playing live would really prove neither side of any of these arguments. |
In lieu of any real substance, I'll accept a meaningless short-term result if this stupid "online poker isn't real poker" thing would just go away.
Posted Tue Dec 05, 2006 3:04 pm GMT by supafrey
this reminds me of when zeroswarm challenged me to HU
Posted Tue Dec 05, 2006 3:09 pm GMT by MJJ
| supafrey wrote: | | this reminds me of when zeroswarm challenged me to HU |
But that might have turned out differently if it had been played live...
OK, I'm done stiring this pot for awhile
Posted Tue Dec 05, 2006 3:32 pm GMT by Dave B
Didnt we used to have league play that settled all this?
Posted Tue Dec 05, 2006 5:09 pm GMT by UrAteUp
| mindgame wrote: | to UrAteUp:
I’m having a lot of trouble understanding this post. I went to great pains to structure the request that started this thread as an invitation to exchange ideas and opinions. I went so far as to state the position of those who disagree with me in a way I thought was clear, forceful, and convincing.
At the outset I conceded that I would be in the minority and I think I made it clear that it wasn’t about being Right or Wrong—how then do you construe this as a matter of jackasses, heads up, butting egos? Supra declined the invitation, as was his right, and I declined to remark on that except to say that we may have too little in common for a fruitful discussion. It strikes me that the whole thing has been quite civil in tone.
Let’s look at what you’ve said:
| Quote: | | “The arguements never change...it's either...poker is rigged...or...the ever reliable...online is easier then live...or...poker is not situational.” |
None of these issues was raised as a subject of discussion. My point was quite different entirely. It’s a question I'm really asking--and certainly a forum is exactly the place to pose questions—is online poker so different from live (original) that it’s a different game entirely? You know my opinion on this. I believe online is an interactive video game which is a derivative of poker.
I don’t think it’s poker, though, and my reasoning is straighforward on the matter: online players routinely engage in behavior that would be illegal in ANY casino, ANY poker room, ANY home game. I’ve listed quite a few specific examples and could give you more. If you are breaking the rules you aren’t playing the game. Period. You are playing another game altogether. Call it poker if you must. After all, Playstation calls their game football, but even when the box has his name on it, John Madden isn’t going to make serious argument that football is what it is.
Supra plays a game he describes as “mind-numbingly simple, ” and he may, indeed, make a small fortune doing it. I know of no serious live players who describe their game as Supra does, but they are, after all, playing poker. When the WSOP is played online, online players can insist that they are playing poker as well.
| Quote: | | “Truth of the matter is...Mindgame can't say online is easier or harder . . .” |
If I have given the impression that I was making a case for which is easier, I am not. Not my point at all. I don’t think online is easy, nor is live.
| Quote: | | “Arguing in forums is like the special Olympics…” |
Arguing in forums? Why not? What better place? I’m not saying rage at each other or trade insults. I’m saying put forth ideas and opinions and defend them with thoughtful argument. If not here, where? |
Mindgame,
Sorry to have taken your post of of context. I still think arguing in forums is pretty dumb...but whatever floats everyone's boats. I had dumber arguements on IRC...(come to think of it...most were Supa instigated...coincidence? ).
As for Wench being old...based on your comments to her or about her...you might want to move your noise a couple inches back on her anatomy...your nose is getting a little brown and it's not from sunburn...  .
It's all good though. I just misunderstood and saw where your post was leading into a online vs live arguement.
Posted Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:16 pm GMT by Buffarino
| supafrey wrote: | Why talk about me like i'm not here..
Casino age is substantively 19 in Canada because of drinking laws in most provinces.
I've only logged live hours in the hundreds, maybe. |
Good for you.
I was talking to someone else because he answered the question and you did not, smart guy.
Posted Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:15 am GMT by zinn0
Yea smart guy.
Seriously, why won't this thread die already?
Posted Wed Dec 06, 2006 1:39 am GMT by snoogins47
| zinn0 wrote: | Yea smart guy.
Seriously, why won't this thread die already? |
Because we won't let it, smart guy.
Posted Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:12 pm GMT by supafrey
| Buffarino wrote: | | I was talking to someone else because he answered the question and i'm a jerk. |
|
|
