Compared to the original late night poker, with real professional players, this amateur edition is snoresville. Boring anodyne players, boring (and poor) play - all the excitement of a wet Sunday afternoon in Rhyl. I don't begrudge the nethead amateurs their success, but because they've played most of their poker online they have no table character, and no idea of face-to-face psychology. None of them have any memorable character traits, and most of the 'action' is robotic, percentage play. Where are the outrageous bluffs, the psyching out, the banter? Nowhere, because you don't need those interpersonal skills to play online.
Can we please have the pros back? They were *fun* to watch, and the matches were genuinely exciting.
I hate the cringeworthy arrogance of professional players, they think they are far cleverer than they really are. Poker really isn't that complicated, it's just a matter of weighing up the odds, and weighing up your oppenents.
As for outrageous bluffers, they always get their comeupance in the end, and lose respect at the same time.
Originally posted by Salvador Caper: I hate the cringeworthy arrogance of professional players, they think they are far cleverer than they really are. Poker really isn't that complicated, it's just a matter of weighing up the odds, and weighing up your oppenents.
As for outrageous bluffers, they always get their comeupance in the end, and lose respect at the same time.
At least the pros are interesting, have personalities and table presence, and above all make good TV. The explosion in amateur poker (shame it's all Hold 'Em, mind) is great and I'm sure has been a breath of fresh air to the game, but the players who come from the online environment make crap TV. There's no personality, no banter, no psychology, no emotion, no interest. The amateurs who've only every interfaced with a website, rather than learnt how to deal with real players across the table, are barely capable of saying anything other than the absolute minimum, and are bland milquetoasts with the personality of trainspotters on Mogadon. By all means have amateur contests, but don't waste airtime and bandwidth by putting them on TV.
I feel for Jessie May and his sidekick. Whereas in the first, groundbreaking series he was genuinely enthusiastic and excited, you can tell he's barely able to stay awake in the current series, and is struggling to inject excitement and suspense where neither exist. And what we see are the 'highlights' - god knows how many crap hands get passed out at the blinds before any 'action' takes place.
On the plus side, at least the stunningly beautiful Marina is still dealing.... ;-)
I have to agree that internet poker is nothing like real poker. It's not just the atmosphere that's different, the whole game dynamics change and strategies you use for real poker just aren't applicable for internet poker.
I've seen people raise all in and then the whole table calling, even when the stakes are high! You can't play poker with stupid people.
I have to agree that internet poker is nothing like real poker. It's not just the atmosphere that's different, the whole game dynamics change and strategies you use for real poker just aren't applicable for internet poker. .
An interesting opinion, worthy of some analysis.
First up, I think you need to be careful with calling live poker 'real' poker. Given that there are probably as many games taking place online as are live these days, the balance of the game is changing. Sure, live and online are different (for a whole host of reasons) but to call one 'real' and the other...well, what is it if it isn't real?
Atmosphere and dynamics are certainly different. One of the key elements of live play, the 'tell' which someone's action, demeanour, body language, facial expression etc etc, simply isn't there online. You have to adjust accordingly. I'd also argue strongly that it's harder to keep a sense of proportion with respect to 'virtual' chip stacks compared with having a real stack (or worse still, hard cash at a home ring game) in front of you. Sit'n'Go tournys have a lot to answer for - there are just too many people gambling because they can, well, just sit'n'go.
But I think it's a falacy to say that basic poker strategies aren't equally applicable to both. I play mostly for fun, and I can assure you that at low limits (up to $2/4 perhaps), the tight-aggressive disciplined game works equally well online. Lee Jones' seminal book, Winning Low Limit Hold 'Em was not written for online play, yet the basic theory and strategy is perfectly sound for playing online low limit.
quote:
I've seen people raise all in and then the whole table calling, even when the stakes are high! You can't play poker with stupid people
I know what you're saying, but I think you're wrong. If your game is solid enough, stupid people will pay you off. You just have to pick your spot and know that over time playing with the odds instead of against them is the winning way. For example, I sat down at a $25 NL table the other night (blinds at 50c/25c), online, at which 6 others were sat. It was fairly clear that we had 2 maniacs on board who were happy to raise anywhere up to $10 preflop. They were picking up the blinds and passing their money back and forth. If they didn't raise preflop, they bet the flop hard, all in even. So I sat back and waited. I let the blinds go round 3 times, raised once to $2 with TT, only to fold when asked for my whole stack by a maniac(who showed AQ so coin flippish at best...).
Then I got dealt KK in the BB. Not my favorite hand, certainly not out of position, but worth investment. As it happened, maniac 1 raised to $2, maniac 2 called him. Against solid players, I'd re-raise that to get one or other out, even take it down there, fearful of the A. But these are stupid people who aren't folding. I called, ready to abandon my Kings and $2 if an A fell on the flop. It didn't. In fact the flop was KJJ. Barring the nightmare of quad Jacks (I'd have had to pay any player holding that, stupid or otherwise), I reckon this is mine. So what happens? I check. Stupid 1 bets $10, stupid 2 calls, I call too. Turn is a 9. I check. Stupid 1 goes all-in, Stupid 2 calls, and I call, remembering to say thank you very much when the river came up blank. Stupid 1 had J2o - remember he raised 4xBB preflop with that, Stupid 2 had T9o - he had called a $10 flop bet with an inside straight draw and then thought two pair was worth all-in. In the lead up to that hand, I'd sacrificed maybe $4-5 of my stack tops. I trebled up with one hand because stupid players tend not to think about the opposition - only about their own hand, and sometimes not even that.
And this is where online is VERY real - you can make very real money by playing basic strategy against the idiots out there who think they know what they are doing but don't. Lacks atmosphere, but so what?
When I called online poker 'real poker' I just meant that it simply wasn't 'live' poker, in noway did I mean it was a poor excuse for poker. In fact I play online poker far more than live poker, and indeed I was actually defending it from criticism earlier in thread.
I agree that many stratgies are applicable to both live and online poker, but there is no doubt that some just aren't.
And your example does indeed show how you can cash in from stupid players, but how often are one's hole cards KK and the flop KJJ? Not often! When at home playing online poker, I want to have fun playing poker, I really don't have the patience to wait til I get a hand certain of winning. It's just easier to leave the table and play with people who know what their doing. While any half decent player can mop up a stupid players hand, it's not as easy when the table is full of them. There are no hole cards I'd dare to call all-in with when the other 8 players have done so.
Luckily, stupid people either don't win enough to play on the higher stakes tables, or just aren't stupid enough to waste too much money and so I don't really get the chance to play that many stupid people these days - apart from when I enter freeroll tourneys that is.
When at home playing online poker, I want to have fun playing poker, I really don't have the patience to wait til I get a hand certain of winning.
First up, no starting hand is certain of winning; very few hands are certain of winning after the flop. Be that as it may, all the reading I've done about poker strategy and (as important) developing a winning mindset revolve around playing the same basic game regardless of the context. In theory, more skill and experience will be required as the stakes rise, but if I can't be a master at the lowest stakes (the one where most of the 'for fun' players are sitting) then I'll never make it higher up.
Thus, though I play only for entertainment, and for really modest stakes, I start every session focussing on discipline and patience. Any other attitude will vary my up and down swings more than I want, will lose me bundles in the short term and, worst of all, will just develop bad habits which would crucify me at a higher level.
aber armpit----your right--many dont play by normal strategy(what i call no-strategy)---i.e---u raise pre-flop to check strength of hands---then u lead after the flop.but they still bet to the river with nought--get lucky turn-river.
they may get lucky once or twice--but i know there bleeding money from there bank accounts good--luck and no--rivers
At least the people on this show are trying to do something, unlike the idiots on Big Brother that take up all three of C4 channels doing nothing for three whole months.
Originally posted by Wobbletastic: At least the people on this show are trying to do something, unlike the idiots on Big Brother that take up all three of C4 channels doing nothing for three whole months.
They don't, they take up channel 4 and E4. More4 has other programs on.
Originally posted by Wobbletastic: I've not watched much telly at all lately, it's more fun on the interweb.
I can agree with that, the only thing (except BB) that I ave been watching recently is Lost.
And I hate to say it but everyone is already driving me mad about BB. I can see already its going to be based on looks and how likely they'll be to have sex on tv
