32Red Poker Blog

I’m very unusual for my age; I spend more hours playing ‘live’ poker than playing online. However, in almost every respect, I would consider myself an online player. This is largely because people my age are expected to be so, but also to do with my playing style, and the way I think about the game. I guess it would also be true to say that I have played far more hands online, even if recently I have spent less hours there.

What I have found really interesting recently is the challenge of trying to make the transistion to being a successful ‘live’ player from my usual way of playing- the measured aggression of internet play. One of the reasons I am so passionate about ‘live’ poker is what has become a massive discrepancy between my success in online and live poker. Whilst I have been a fairly consistent winner online, I have really struggled for anything more than mediocrity in the ‘live’ game. In fact, after last week’s pass of a set against ace-high, a better word might just be crapness. I’ve always been someone who has thrived on a challenge, and this mirroring effect has just made me even more determined to improve my ‘live’ game, and achieve some success there.

I would say that this gap has been partly due to a pretty shocking run of luck- I seem to have had as much chance of winning a race this year as skinny white midget in the 100m final. However, what I am becoming increasingly aware of is that it is so naive to think that a winning online player should be able to step into the ‘live’ environment and expect the same kind of outcome.

There is an ongoing debate about which type of player is the better player, and I understand this has been particularly fierce in America- the young online grinders or the older, old school pros? I find it interesting, as the simple idea of a debate just doesn’t make any sense. I would say it is indisputable that the play is “better” online. Alot more thinking goes into each decision, creating a much better understanding amongst the top players of aggression, hand-reading, and all the technical terms, like polarised hand ranges and fold equities, that go along with it. There really is a much truer finesse in online play, and this is in part due simply to the fact that a greater number of hands facilitates a more interesting meta-game.

The crucial thing that I have realised is that the fact you can beat the better games online does not automatically mean that you can beat the weaker ’live’ games. The first reason is the variance; I would estimate that it would take me about two hours of 9-tabling online to even out to a variance I would cover in about six months of ’live’ poker (I would be interested if anyone had any thoughts on this?)

Take away this obivous reason, however, and the point is still very valid. If you have the weapons to beat a stronger game, then using those same weapons against weaker opposition is not necessarily the right thing. In fact, I’ve realised that getting used to using those weapons by playing online can even hinder my live game. There is no great difference, but a whole lot of subtle differences make the ‘live’ game very difficult to adjust to as an online player.

 The differences would be too long to list, but here is a typical example. To generalise completely, the “right” style online is to bluff small, and to value bet big to “represent” a bluff (Needless to say, this cannot always be the case, and leads to some interesting “double bluffs.”) As out next generalisation, the right style against an untalented ‘live’ player seems to be to make measured value bets, and to actually bluff big, to pressurise your opponent off the hand.  The reason for the difference is simply the level at which the two groups of players think about the game. Whereas online players are often great hand readers, ‘live’ players will think at a lower level, and just consider the value of their hand. A player with a decent hand to showdown might consdier his hand worth paying off a small value bet, but not worthy of a really big bet, and not give too much thought to his opponent’s hand range.

So should the online players continue to take the high ground over their ‘live’ counterparts? Of course not. Not only does the ‘live’ game create the biggest challenge and the most excitement, this game was designed to be played whilst looking into your opponent’s eyes, not  half way around the world from him. The online game’s greatness is in its convenience, but I see it just as a learning tool for the true challenge. This is why I’m so passionate about ‘live’ poker, and this is why I’m excited about the next big one- the GUKPT Grand Final in London next week.