All Categories› Poker Chat

You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.

You might need to refresh your page afterwards.

A poker dilemma

Sky_DaveSky_Dave Member Posts: 3,288
edited July 2011 in Poker Chat
I've just noticed a conversation on Twitter between two of the best high-stakes pros out there, Brian Hastings and Phil Galfond. Galfond has moved to Canada to continue playing online, while Hastings suggested he's going to stay in America and try make it as a live game pro.

Galfond's response staggered me.

He said, 'Live is too hard, man. You won't make it.'

This could all be one amazing level, but think about if he's even vaguely serious. He (one of the best online players out there) is suggesting to another top online pro that turning in to a live game specialist would be too tough. Considering the talent they have, that's insane!

So, here's the question I am going to put up for discussion.

Do you think you could make it if you were to ever go purely as a live game player?

Which you obviously don't need to as we've got Sky Poker :)
· Share on Twitter
«1

Comments

  • acebarry10acebarry10 Member Posts: 7,556
    edited July 2011
    Hi Dave

    Having played online for about 3 years, but have only played Live twice, but I think I coped quite well live, yes there are more things to remember like bet sizing, postion, whats in the pot, it is there for you online, but not that much difference, I think I coped quite well.
    · Share on Twitter
  • YOUNG_GUNYOUNG_GUN Member Posts: 8,948
    edited July 2011
    Yes i think it's easier live as you get worse players, online has basically given us all the practice so if online poker ceased altogether i could kick bum live
    · Share on Twitter
  • CodexCodex Member Posts: 211
    edited July 2011
    i think the point is, your costs of playing live, per hand, are significantly higher than online, so you have to be significantly more succesful to win the same
    · Share on Twitter
  • Sky_DaveSky_Dave Member Posts: 3,288
    edited July 2011
    In Response to Re: A poker dilemma:
    i think the point is, your costs of playing live, per hand, are significantly higher than online, so you have to be significantly more succesful to win the same
    Posted by Codex
    Yup, this is very much the point. If you're winning say 15 big blinds per 100 hands online, you'd need to be playing much higher live than you would online to win the same amount of money per hour or just much more successful.

    I think this is Galfond's point, but still.... he might have to downscale a little bit from winning $300k per session but he could definitely get by on $5k/hour live, right? ;)

    · Share on Twitter
  • PiAnOpLaYaPiAnOpLaYa Member Posts: 554
    edited July 2011
    I would much rather play a NL200 down my local casino then anywhere online!
    · Share on Twitter
  • CrazyBen23CrazyBen23 Member Posts: 865
    edited July 2011
    In Response to Re: A poker dilemma:
    I would much rather play a NL200 down my local casino then anywhere online!
    Posted by PiAnOpLaYa
    +1

    When ive been to g-casino in sheffield the players are appaling, problem is you get alot less hands so its harder to make more $$
    · Share on Twitter
  • DOHHHHHHHDOHHHHHHH Member Posts: 17,929
    edited July 2011
    If online ended all the online pros would play live all the time, all the decent online players/(relatively)low stakes regs would become the 'occasional' fish in the live games, and all the total online fish would stop playing altogether.

    All the winning live only players atm would fast become losing live players, and then very infrequent/recreational live players.

    Every live game would consist of 9 sharks, or 8 sharks, 1 fish, and 37 sharks on the waiting list. 



    · Share on Twitter
  • rats107rats107 Member Posts: 230
    edited July 2011
    think it's more to do with the amount of volume he can get in live tbh, very doubful if he could make the same living live playing fewer hands and quite possibly lower stakes?

     Also i'm thinking live poker wont always have the same amt of games available? you can sit on multiple tables/sites online waiting for action where as in live play your limited to pretty much waiting for players who are in the same casino looking for a game or constantly moving to and from casinos .

    he can turn a profit live but can he make a living/ get sponsorship that allows him to get around the circuit etc?       
    i have no idea really but they're some of the questions that popped into my mind....
    · Share on Twitter
  • YOUNG_GUNYOUNG_GUN Member Posts: 8,948
    edited July 2011
    In Response to Re: A poker dilemma:
    If online ended all the online pros would play live all the time, all the decent online players/(relatively)low stakes regs would become the 'occasional' fish in the live games, and all the total online fish would stop playing altogether. All the winning live only players atm would fast become losing live players, and then very infrequent/recreational live players. Every live game would consist of 9 sharks, or 8 sharks, 1 fish, and 37 sharks on the waiting list. 
    Posted by DOHHHHHHH
    zzzzz are you still talking that was a mouthful
    · Share on Twitter
  • DOHHHHHHHDOHHHHHHH Member Posts: 17,929
    edited July 2011
    In Response to Re: A poker dilemma:
    In Response to Re: A poker dilemma : zzzzz are you still talking that was a mouthful
    Posted by YOUNG_GUN
    I forgot to add that despite the slower hands per hour and all that BS, Young Gun would lose his bankroll even faster live than he has been doing online.
    · Share on Twitter
  • YOUNG_GUNYOUNG_GUN Member Posts: 8,948
    edited July 2011
    In Response to Re: A poker dilemma:
    In Response to Re: A poker dilemma : I forgot to add that despite the slower hands per hour and all that BS, Young Gun would lose his bankroll even faster live than he has been doing online.
    Posted by DOHHHHHHH
    lol a 1 of online :( #rubdownsftw
    · Share on Twitter
  • scotty77scotty77 Member Posts: 4,970
    edited July 2011
    the biggest hurdle is patience.  to an online player live is very very boring.

    i think that live cash is a gold mine if you can overcome this...something that I struggle with
    · Share on Twitter
  • beanehbeaneh Member Posts: 4,079
    edited July 2011
    Obvious level is obvious.

    Galfond could beat live with 2 paper nakpins
    · Share on Twitter
  • PiAnOpLaYaPiAnOpLaYa Member Posts: 554
    edited July 2011
    galfond had a nice return to online poker winning $90k!
    · Share on Twitter
  • Sky_DaveSky_Dave Member Posts: 3,288
    edited July 2011
    In Response to Re: A poker dilemma:
    Obvious level is obvious. Galfond could beat live with 2 paper nakpins
    Posted by beaneh
    Yes, he is good, but really a level? I mean, wouldn't he rather stay in Vegas with all of the action it has there (especially for HS live games) than head to Canada?

    Nice to see you back on here btw Beaneh. This place is a bit quiet without your one liners ;)
    · Share on Twitter
  • The_Don90The_Don90 Member Posts: 9,818
    edited July 2011
    I think this is a few critical points.

    To play live IMO you need to live in the live area where theres plenty of fish with money, tables and someone willing to run the game. In Britian thats not a common site. Plenty of fish with money in the casinos but the number of them just isnt high enough to sustain higher online players. Obviously in the case you discuss their in Vegas so thats slightly different.

    The second part is, when you win a hand do you jump around your living room like a small ape climbs through a forrrest? If the answer is yes, then stick to online IMO.  

    Are you staked for live poker? Certainly ive never seen a £1 tournament or 2p/4p cash able anywhere.
    · Share on Twitter
  • djblacke04djblacke04 Member Posts: 1,778
    edited July 2011


    Could also be that online players will never be able to develop the 'Tell' skills,that live players build through years of practise.Lets face it no one can see you when you are behind a pc screen.

    Whilst online is a much more,brain intense experience (no waiting for shuffles,multi tabling options) and more suited to hyperactive minds,live will always be the 'Daddy' of poker .

    and i dont think you can buy hand historys live...lol..
    · Share on Twitter
  • DOHHHHHHHDOHHHHHHH Member Posts: 17,929
    edited July 2011
    In Response to Re: A poker dilemma:
    Could also be that online players will never be able to develop the 'Tell' skills,that live players build through years of practise.Lets face it no one can see you when you are behind a pc screen. Whilst online is a much more,brain intense experience (no waiting for shuffles,multi tabling options) and more suited to hyperactive minds,live will always be the 'Daddy' of poker .
    Posted by djblacke04
    And this is why online players crush the live game, and therefore, are the Daddy's, and in some cases, Mummy's of poker! ;)

    You just have to look around the site, all the big winners r online players!
    · Share on Twitter
  • djblacke04djblacke04 Member Posts: 1,778
    edited July 2011
    In Response to Re: A poker dilemma:
    In Response to Re: A poker dilemma : And this is why online players crush the live game, and therefore, are the Daddy's, and in some cases, Mummy's of poker! ;) You just have to look around the site, all the big winners r online players!
    Posted by DOHHHHHHH

    Duhhhhh obviously all the big winners on an online site will be online players,online is a much more accessible form of poker for most adults,and for example if you have a Live tournement that consists of qualification online,it will probably follow the winner plays online..:)


    but if you look at the last 3 years of SPT the winner of the final each year has been?

    no regs on here..
    · Share on Twitter
  • DOHHHHHHHDOHHHHHHH Member Posts: 17,929
    edited July 2011
    In Response to Re: A poker dilemma:
    In Response to Re: A poker dilemma : Duhhhhh obviously all the big winners on an online site will be online players,online is a much more accessible form of poker for most adults,and for example if you have a Live tournement that consists of qualification online,it will probably follow the winner plays online..:) but if you look at the last 3 years of SPT the winner of the final each year has been? no regs on here..
    Posted by djblacke04
    The final?

    You're not using a sample of 3 tournys to prove a point r ya DJ??? :o

    Thanx 4 the bite! ;) lol
    · Share on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.