Giving up online poker

ntlbell

I really don't want to start a moaning thread or a BB thread or "it's rigged" thread.

Has anyone on the forum given up playing online and actually stuck to it?

I'm in RoryC mode where I really have had enough of online play and want to stick to playing live.

If you have, do you find it hard making time to go to live cash games?

Have you noticed any changes in your approach to the game?

Has your BR suffered in any way?

Have you ever been tempted back to online play?

etc etc

Dub13

I am going the other way....starting to play alot more on line,you just cant beat the choice of games on line.But I still love live games,I just make alot more on line.

ianmc38

ntlbell wrote:

I really don't want to start a moaning thread or a BB thread or "it's rigged" thread.

Has anyone on the forum given up playing online and actually stuck to it?

I'm in RoryC mode where I really have had enough of online play and want to stick to playing live.

If you have, do you find it hard making time to go to live cash games?

Have you noticed any changes in your approach to the game?

Has your BR suffered in any way?

Have you ever been tempted back to online play?

etc etc

Opposite for me too. I tilted away a few hundred a few days ago and on tilt decided to move from low stakes to $1/$2. Have made 1.6k in a few days including about -$600 in bad beats.

shoutman

I had stopped playing online for about four months, withdrew all my money from pokerstars. Then one night was playing in town and a friend from school asked me how i was doing online and I siad i had stopped he asked me why and I said I was sick of it.
He said fair enough and told me he was playing on ladbrokes.

Got a bad beat out of the tourney that night went home stuck fifty quid into ladbrokes and havent looked back, you can find me at the $10 sngs


I like Ladbrokes as even at lower levels the standard is just about right for me ie. I am better then all the players but they arent too bad to be regularly sucking you out in rediculous situations.

jtsuited

cashed out all my online funds on november. went on a 2 month break and returned and haven't had a serious losing session live since. Getting back online soon as soon as i pay off some of my credit card.

5starpool

I am trying to play more online too, but I find it hard to make time to do that between football on telly, going out and playing live, which I much prefer. I find it hard to be consistent online though, and invariably a winning session is followed up by a losing session. I think I need to examine my game for leaks, some of which I am aware of anyways, but can't stop myself from doing.

I also must play more multis online, to change the monotony from cash games.

corblimey

Gave up a while back when I discovered that in live poker, sometimes the other guy doesn't get his runner-runner flush! Tempted back by the ppp Open promotion (particularly the free ticket to the WSOP), but have been drawing even on the $10 STTs. Will see how it goes, but fully expect to lose the whole lot to some muppet with 62o

The problem I have with the live game is the amount of time you invest for a small chance to win. In most cases, to get to the final table and finish itm requires around 5-6 hours of playing in my local room. I played 6 STTs (6 seat, normal and speed, 2 tables at a time) in half that time on Saturday. I didn't make as much money as I would have live, but nor did I lose as much.

Culchie

I think if you are a winning player at whatever stakes you play, then giving up online poker is a mistake.

You get in your car, travel into the Fitz (if you are lucky to live within driving distance) to a casino, and can be knocked out within an hour with a bad beat, so night over.

Online, you open up another table, and you play another game.

Obviously over time, due to amount of hands played, tournaments entered, your online results are probably going to see a greater level of consistency and accuracy (whether that is winning or losing) than the odd night on the casino.

Don't get me wrong, there's no substitute for playing live, well it's a poor one, but if you're a winning player, and it's not affecting other parts of your life, then you should continue playing online, if nothing else but to boost your offline bankroll which has a higher variance factor.

Bankroll management, as ever, is the key.

ionapaul

I'm like Dom, I just cannot find any time for online play between going out a few nights a week, football, TV and live play twice or three times a week. It is hard to realise: 'I'm giving up a modest secondary income by not finding the time to play online!' I wish there were twice as many hours in the week!

Imposter

ionapaul wrote:

I'm like Dom, I just cannot find any time for online play between going out a few nights a week, football, TV and live play twice or three times a week. It is hard to realise: 'I'm giving up a modest secondary income by not finding the time to play online!' I wish there were twice as many hours in the week!

Once you realise it's work that gets in the way you'll have found the solution

Daithio

I think it's a really good idea to give it up for a month or so every so often. It can really start to wreck your head, and you get in to a zone where there's no chance you'll win. Once you start thinking negatively about poker, online or live, take a break until you actually want to play again. If you're even thinking about giving up online then this is a definite sign that you should stop for a few weeks at least.

fuzzbox

shoutman wrote:

I like Ladbrokes as even at lower levels the standard is just about right for me ie. I am better then all the players but they arent too bad to be regularly sucking you out in rediculous situations.

No offence, but it seems to me that you really dont understand poker.

Drakar

I would have thought that offline play would have had a much lower variance because you can read people?

5starpool

Imposter wrote:

Once you realise it's work that gets in the way you'll have found the solution

I realised that years ago. Wish I could be arsed to try and see if I could make a living online, but I don't play enough to build a bankroll that I would be comfortable jacking in my guaranteed income. Damn me and my cowardly ways. :mad:

ionapaul

5starpool wrote:

I realised that years ago. Wish I could be arsed to try and see if I could make a living online, but I don't play enough to build a bankroll that I would be comfortable jacking in my guaranteed income. Damn me and my cowardly ways. :mad:

I know for certain I would end up disliking poker if I felt I *had* to put in X amount of hours per day / week / month.

Drakar

I don't find multitabling enjoyable, and definately wouldn't like to be doing it for 4/5 hrs a day every day...

ianmc38

Drakar wrote:

I don't find multitabling enjoyable, and definately wouldn't like to be doing it for 4/5 hrs a day every day...

I hate 4-tabling, but I get too bored single tabling. 2-tabling is a happy medium.

roryc

Culchie wrote:

I think if you are a winning player at whatever stakes you play, then giving up online poker is a mistake.

I would consider myself a winning live player, yet over time my online play has gotten worse and worse. I took months off and cleared my head, and my stress basically disappeared. Yet, the minute I returned I was bombarded with quads, straight flushes, royal flushes. I had quads beaten by quads etc.

I know that there is no point in sitting here moaning about this, and the reason I returned is because I know there is plenty of money to be made. But I just can't seem to get my head around it. Regardless of whether I make money at it, the amount of stress it causes me totally makes it pointless.

I would love if somebody turned around to me and said "ah, I can see what your doing wrong", but that doesn't seem likely. One thing I have noticed is that some of you seem to only play 1 or two tables at a time, whereas I play 4 every time. Could this be something I'm doing wrong? Perhaps if I start at 2 tables and work my way up?

The main thing that fcuks me up online is TILT. As anybody that has played with me live will know, I don't usually tilt in a live game, yet when playing online, I can be screaming at the computer within 5 minutes of sitting down! I just can't compensate for the difference between live and online play. When I have quads beaten, or see a royal flush, I am shocked, as I don't think this has ever happened to me in a live game. Yet it happens regularly online. And this causes me to go on major tilt. It is so hard to keep my cool when hands like this happen in quick succession.

Hughesy

roryc wrote:

I am shocked, as I don't think this has ever happened to me in a live game. Yet it happens regularly online.

Rory, do you not think the fact that you are playing 4 tables at a time online plus the speed between hands is greater (no shuffling) means that you play considerably more hands online....


just a thought:rolleyes:

mewso

fuzzbox wrote:

No offence, but it seems to me that you really dont understand poker.

Please don't use the statement "No Offence" to excuse offending someone immediately afterwards. I'm getting tired of the snide comments these days.

fuzzbox

musician wrote:

Please don't use the statement "No Offence" to excuse offending someone immediately afterwards. I'm getting tired of the snide comments these days.

Perhaps I should have explained myself better.

When bad players call your bets with crappy hands, then in the long run you will win a LOT of money.

What often happens is that players *believe* that moving up in stakes will change this. However, this precise thing is what makes you your money.

At the higher levels, there are less players doing this, but if you find one, then you try to use him as your ATM for as long as he has money.

At the lower levels, there are lots of players (at the same table) who do this. What happens, is that the strategy for play differs at the different levels.

When lots of players play in all pots, and call down with any old bag of crap, then Suited Aces, Suited Connectors and Pairs are the strongest hands. However, try to avoid backing your stack with top pair (or an overpair), in a multi-way pot. However, be much less inclined to fold a draw.

The point I was (badly) trying to make - is that it is from bad players that we make our money, and if our table is suddenly filled full of good players, well it is much much harder to make money from them.

Learn to adjust to the guys calling your bets all the time. Dont pay them off when they change from check/call to BET. And when you have a hand BET like a lunatic. When you have learned
1. Patience
2. Discipline
3. How to beat the bad players by playing better cards in better positions more often than they do

THEN move up the stakes.

Moving up makes it harder to win money, not easier.

Drakar

The other point I think is that alot of players will call with stupid draws, but when they hit players who should be far more sensible still pay them off. An example might be a pair of aces vs JT and a flop of A89. Aces make a half pot sized bet, which gets called and a 7 or something comes on the turn. People have to stop paying these guys off when they go all in!

Running Bing

Kinda hard to give up a hand like three aces just because theres three to a straight on the board. Youd have to know your player well/have a good read on him. He could be bluffing when the scare card came, slowplaying a set of 9's or 8's, could be holding A7, could even be slowplaying two pair as Ive seen many players do at low levels. I do agree that players call to much when they know their beaten(I feel this is a problem I have) but most of the time its the right move, especially at the lower limits.

shoutman

fuzzbox wrote:

Perhaps I should have explained myself better.

When bad players call your bets with crappy hands, then in the long run you will win a LOT of money.

What often happens is that players *believe* that moving up in stakes will change this. However, this precise thing is what makes you your money.

At the higher levels, there are less players doing this, but if you find one, then you try to use him as your ATM for as long as he has money.

At the lower levels, there are lots of players (at the same table) who do this. What happens, is that the strategy for play differs at the different levels.

When lots of players play in all pots, and call down with any old bag of crap, then Suited Aces, Suited Connectors and Pairs are the strongest hands. However, try to avoid backing your stack with top pair (or an overpair), in a multi-way pot. However, be much less inclined to fold a draw.

The point I was (badly) trying to make - is that it is from bad players that we make our money, and if our table is suddenly filled full of good players, well it is much much harder to make money from them.

Learn to adjust to the guys calling your bets all the time. Dont pay them off when they change from check/call to BET. And when you have a hand BET like a lunatic. When you have learned
1. Patience
2. Discipline
3. How to beat the bad players by playing better cards in better positions more often than they do

THEN move up the stakes.

Moving up makes it harder to win money, not easier.

First of all not too impressed by the no offence but you dont understand poker remark... obviously offence was intended or you wouldnt of said it.

Secondly I play soley low level sngs, $10dollar at the minute. I understand while playing cash games you are going to make money off fish, after all that is the game isnt it?
I think though that it is dangerous in sngs to have a couple of really brutal players at your table as for example if you push with a high pair say kings for example on a table with a decent standard you will not have people calling you with ace rag or suited connectors unless there is 1)pot odds to do so or 2) They believe they are a head.
In most cases they wont believe they are a head as generally I am a tight player so I wont give off the impression that I would be going all in with crap.

However if you were playing on a table with a couple of absolutely terrible players your odds of winning that hand will decrease as there will be more combined outs for your opponents. You understand what I am saying?

I understand that overall you will be doubling or trebling up against these players if they do call with 89 of hearts and ace 2 off suit against your cowboys, but in a sng on ladbrokes I just dont need to be trebling up to be placing itm. Therefor I believe it is an advantage to me to have a good standard of play as oppossed to having five "i'll push with any two" players at your table.

I hope this clarifys where I am coming from.

fuzzbox

Why would you want players to fold their A2 against you when you go all-in with KK?

This simply does not make sense.

Which was my point in the first place.

shoutman

You still arent understanding me.

I am quite happy when its one person going in with a2
But when there is another one going all in with 78 suited
and another going in with q 9 and another going in with 55 I am no longer odds on to win the pot. In this case I would only win roughly fourty per cent of the time. I know I am still pot favourite but I still am not odds on to win.

Norwich Fan Rob

if they keep calling with rags vs your big pairs, u might get a beat every one in 5 tourneys, but the rest of the time u will double up, happy days.

shoutman

even with that one beat every five tournements it has proven to be better for me to not get that one beat.

On stars I was never consistantly losing money.
While on Ladbrokes I place in 9 out of ten sngs I play.

Norwich Fan Rob

if u got KK in vs A2, Q9, 55 and 78 every STT, your ROI would be massive.

aidankk

shoutman wrote:

even with that one beat every five tournements it has proven to be better for me to not get that one beat.

On stars I was never consistantly losing money.
While on Ladbrokes I place in 9 out of ten sngs I play.

9 out of ten ???? cant be possible, at what level

fuzzbox

shoutman wrote:

You still arent understanding me.

I am quite happy when its one person going in with a2
But when there is another one going all in with 78 suited
and another going in with q 9 and another going in with 55 I am no longer odds on to win the pot. In this case I would only win roughly fourty per cent of the time. I know I am still pot favourite but I still am not odds on to win.

I understand you fine. You are a massive *money* favourite in hat particular spot.

You are in a 4-way pot with 45%+ chance to win.

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 45.6175 % 45.55% 00.07% { KK }
Hand 2: 24.3030 % 24.24% 00.07% { A2s }
Hand 3: 17.3997 % 17.33% 00.07% { 55 }
Hand 4: 12.6799 % 12.61% 00.07% { Q9o }

Everytime you put in 1000 tourney chips, you expect to end the hand with 45.55% of 4000 chips.

On average - when you play this hand - you pretty much double your money.

When you win this pot, you take out 3 other players, and you have a shed load of chips and you should cruise into the money.

What you seem to want - is for each bad player to attack you with their crap hands one at a time (like in a kung-fu movie), rather than for them all to join in the pig pile.

Hence my initial assertion.

Norwich Fan Rob

3 1sts and 1 unplaced effort is better than 2 2nds and 2 3rds !!
(this applies more so to the 6 handed STTs i usually play, but still holds true for your ones)

TacT

ntlbell wrote:

I really don't want to start a moaning thread or a BB thread or "it's rigged" thread.

Has anyone on the forum given up playing online and actually stuck to it?

I'm in RoryC mode where I really have had enough of online play and want to stick to playing live.

If you have, do you find it hard making time to go to live cash games?

Have you noticed any changes in your approach to the game?

Has your BR suffered in any way?

Have you ever been tempted back to online play?

etc etc

No, never. I enjoy the easy money too much! Not to mention stalking the biggest idiots to ever sit down at a poker table and throw their money around because all it takes is the click of a mouse.

Imho you just need a break. Be it a 3 day break, a month break or a week long break. Take some of the money you've earned and go splash out on something nice. Obviously if you think you've really had enough then do stop playing online but if you're using poker to generate income I think giving up online play is quite insane given what the ROI can be.

ok, so there's days you might get sucked out on and lose a chunk of roll but if you're playing well enough then the days where everything goes your way and the donkeys are calling when you have them by the balls should outweigh the negative.

Might I ask, why are you sick of it? Did you get hit for a chunk of your roll or have 5 muppets in a row suck out on you in big pots?

Anytime I get sick of it it's break time for at least 3 days. I think the toughest thing to do when you're playing online regularly is to take proper breaks and stay thorougly disciplined.

shoutman

aidankk wrote:

9 out of ten ???? cant be possible, at what level

I play twenty hand level 10 seater $10 sngs on ladbrokes.

And yes I understand what you guys are saying about being money favourites etc. But in my experience I have done ten times better on Ladbrokes then I have on Pokerstars, also in my opinion the players on Ladbrokes are better (or maybe just tighter) then those who play lower levels on pokerstars.
Or maybe its just that ladbrokes dont allow americans to play

marius

fuzzbox wrote:

What you seem to want - is for each bad player to attack you with their crap hands one at a time (like in a kung-fu movie), rather than for them all to join in the pig pile.

LMFAO

Drakar

If you feel the players are better on ladbrokes you'd really make more money by playing elsewhere (adapting your game if necessary). It would be quite unusual to consistently have better results against a set of players with a worse standard of play.

shoutman

look fuzz it was never my intention in that post to cause an arguement, i was merely making a comment in the thread about my personal experience.

I dont play poker for the money, I play it cause I enjoy it. I'd far prefere to be playing against good players, improving my game and hopefully winning, then playing against terrible players but getting a lot more money for it.

fuzzbox

I havent said a word in ages.

shoutman

fuzzbox wrote:

I havent said a word in ages.

You were the one who started it by saying i didnt know a think about poker, or words to that effect.

5starpool

shoutman wrote:

You were the one who started it by saying i didnt know a think about poker, or words to that effect.

Chill Winston.....