[Closed] Who really wins online?

Originally posted by andyb43
Bio

Did I ever say I'm better? No I didn't. Only thing I commented on was that what he said was not true, it's not an opinion, it's a fact. There are tons of people who can beat the lower limits, I repeat: TONS of players.

He can say that they can't, but the results show otherwise.

He can be a genious, but I commented on the thing I know about him; the quote you posted on this forum.

He might have written some good stuff about ethics etc, but that's not what this is about. This topic was about players who win or don't win online, and you quoted him saying: "nobody can win at lower than NL200".

That psychologist actually sounds really funny, he is trying to create a famous quote for which he will be remembered for, unfortunately this is not it.

To be perfectly honest, bank roll managements is the most important thing, unless you win when you put all of your cash on the line, you know your gonna lose. You can be the greatest player in the world, but if you don't manage you finances, you will be a losing player.

Funny enough, everytime I have put my full bankroll on the line, I actually win most of the time, but the urge to continue is what finishes people of, if you win and get lucky you stop? Of course not you do the exact thing again but this time with your new winnings.

Originally posted by Zheelvern

Case closed ♦

Unless someone comes up shouting "1M hands is nothing!"

That's NL200, he said NL100 or lower.

The problem is that no winning player tends to stay at the low limits. I have a 20k hand sample at NL10 that is consistantly profitable but would I want to continue to play there when I can make money faster at the next level up?

Hell No.

Originally posted by NickSeraphim
Funny enough, everytime I have put my full bankroll on the line, I actually win most of the time, but the urge to continue is what finishes people of, if you win and get lucky you stop? Of course not you do the exact thing again but this time with your new winnings.

A quote from this site:

"You never win money in casino, the casino just lends it to you..."

The same here - if you're playing with your entire bankroll you're basically gambling and you'll run out of luck sooner or later.

Originally posted by Berkstajger

Originally posted by NickSeraphim
Funny enough, everytime I have put my full bankroll on the line, I actually win most of the time, but the urge to continue is what finishes people of, if you win and get lucky you stop? Of course not you do the exact thing again but this time with your new winnings.

A quote from this site:

"You never win money in casino, the casino just lends it to you..."

The same here - if you're playing with your entire bankroll you're basically gambling and you'll run out of luck sooner or later.

are you quoting me? ♠_o: ♦

Could be, I can't remember the author, so it was probably you.

I really like this quote because I used to be a croupier in a casino and had a few friends quite addicted to roulette after winning couple of hundreds of € and of course lost that and even more on the way. The quote explains it all...

Originally posted by Yoghi

He can be a genious, but I commented on the thing I know about him; the quote you posted on this forum.

no, he's obviously a retard imo otherwise he wouldn't just write something like that. he wouldn't write something that's completely unjustified, and he wouldn't contradict himself like that. he's a f retard.

Originally posted by SalamiandCheese
One theory I have is that the ones who are fairly successful and post a lot here are the ones lucky enough to begin their poker "career" on an upswing.

i'm not sure what you mean when you say ' "career" '. do you mean when i got $50 capital or when i decided i wanted to live off poker? anyway, at both points i struggled horribly and was pretty much breakeven for several months.

Originally posted by Zheelvern
...

wow..... that's 7.7BB/100!? that winrate with that volume is amazing.

.

yeah that graph is just incredible, whos is it?

Well i just looked at the post about "Everyone says Durrr and Ivey but what about PA"

Whether he is actually down or not, it may not surprise me if he was. There is a group of players on Full Tilt who just play each other - A mix of Online made pros and real life made Pros.

Now imo, Online poker is a different game to real life. Most of these real life pros could play online and crush NL5k and below but i think that unless they have real expeirence of online poker, play at the top stakes is gonna be hard.

So, PA is a very good player - but look at the table he sits down with. Durrrr, Ziigmund, etc. These are very good online players and imo some real life pros will struggle to beat them ONLINE.

Anyway just my view.

And 1m hands isnt a big enough sample imo ♦

-Jack

Originally posted by kingdippy2008
Well i just looked at the post about "Everyone says Durrr and Ivey but what about PA"

Whether he is actually down or not, it may not surprise me if he was. There is a group of players on Full Tilt who just play each other - A mix of Online made pros and real life made Pros.

Now imo, Online poker is a different game to real life. Most of these real life pros could play online and crush NL5k and below but i think that unless they have real expeirence of online poker, play at the top stakes is gonna be hard.

So, PA is a very good player - but look at the table he sits down with. Durrrr, Ziigmund, etc. These are very good online players and imo some real life pros will struggle to beat them ONLINE.

Anyway just my view.

And 1m hands isnt a big enough sample imo ♦

-Jack

Yea, this is a good point, I play both online and offline and tbh, if you go to a regular casino in London that offers poker you will be suprized how ridicilous they play, I played this cash game recently blinds 1/2 pounds, and everything was really scattered around, there was no real betting pattern everyone would do there own thing, online we learn that the standard raise is 3/4 big blinds, these guys where crazy betting like 3 times that amount as there standard raise, I joined the table with 80 pounds and left with 340 so I can't really complain. I beleive the competition in real life at a regular casino is a lot easier than online, and I also beleive that online is actually a good preperation for real life poker also, because you learn things better such as positioning and basic knowledge of odds and percentages. Alot of online poker players are starting to dominate the poker scene.

PA is God. Phil Ivey is probably the only player who's better than PA in the whole world

PA started as an internet player aswell, so that point doesn't make sense.

Originally posted by Yoghi
PA is God. Phil Ivey is probably the only player who's better than PA in the whole world

PA started as an internet player aswell, so that point doesn't make sense.

+1

But i was just saying that it can be a different game, just using PA as the example because someone mentioned him ^^, maybe i shoulda used Gus Hansen ♦

Ye, don't you EVER dare say something bad about PA again ♠_evil:

Originally posted by Yoghi
Ye, don't you EVER dare say something bad about PA again ♠_evil:

hehe, i wont!

But saying stuff about Hansen is cool with you?

Ye sure

Cool cus i just checked his NL HE graph

It's only 9k hands... just a bit of a downswing. However at my limits it would be 80$ in Hansen's it's... well, 800.000$... ♦