Why is 1/2 poker considered "low stakes" live but "medium stakes" online?
March 25th, 2014 at 8:40:26 PM
permalink
Why is 1/2 poker considered "low stakes" live but "medium stakes" online?
Isn't money still money either way?
This makes no sense to me
Isn't money still money either way?
This makes no sense to me
March 25th, 2014 at 8:42:29 PM
permalink
It's the lowest stakes available live and in the middle online... Right?
March 25th, 2014 at 8:47:59 PM
permalink
right but that's "relative" to the situation.
In my opinion should be absolute instead of relative
In my opinion should be absolute instead of relative
March 25th, 2014 at 9:10:44 PM
permalink
Money is always relative
March 25th, 2014 at 9:29:31 PM
permalink
Quote: NeutrinoWhy is 1/2 poker considered "low stakes" live but "medium stakes" online? Isn't money still money either way?
This makes no sense to me
Live 1/2 and 2/5 NLH are actually referred to as "small blind NLH."
"Quit trying your luck and start trying your skill." Mickey Crimm
March 25th, 2014 at 10:04:57 PM
permalink
Quote: FinsRuleIt's the lowest stakes available live and in the middle online... Right?
I think the Quad in Vegas has .50/1 and I know for a fact Golden Nugget and Ballys have 1/1(but it's really 1/2)
10 eyes for an eye. 10 teeth for a tooth. 10 bucks for a buck?! Hit the bad guys where it hurts the most: the face and the wallet.
March 25th, 2014 at 10:24:14 PM
permalink
Quote: NeutrinoWhy is 1/2 poker considered "low stakes" live but "medium stakes" online?
Isn't money still money either way?
This makes no sense to me
the reason for this is because NL online has about 4x as many hands per hour. the completion level as you rise online vs brick and mortar is 2 to 3 fold as well. there are of course exceptions to the rule, but if you are a winning 5-10 player online then you can comfortably compete in 25-50 or 50-100 live.
March 25th, 2014 at 10:30:36 PM
permalink
Mainly because it's the lowest stake that is usually available, but also largely because the skill level tends to be way softer, and the bankroll limits therefore expand.
You might be able to make 5bb per 100 hands online, 50+bb per 100 live (the skill gap IS that huge if you play in the right Poker rooms) but you also get significantly less hands per hour. (I'm not saying that it's easy to win 50+bb per hundred hands, but someone with the skills to beat 1/2 online at any decent rate is going to be good enough to destroy live games if they have the patience to transition to live play from online.
Anyway, if you do some rough calculations, you can see why the bankroll requirements change so drastically.
If you're making like 5bb per 100 hands and have a std. dev. of like 50bb, you're going to through a lot of swings. A LOT.
But if you're playing at 40bb per 100 hands with a std dev. of 120bb, you're going to go through swings, but far less. You could probably get away with a 15 buy in bankroll - which is really bad for online play. Heck the Kelly Criterion may even say to do 8-10 buy ins for live play, but there's a ton of reasons that's not practical. Online you should be looking at 40-60 buy ins at least.
You might be able to make 5bb per 100 hands online, 50+bb per 100 live (the skill gap IS that huge if you play in the right Poker rooms) but you also get significantly less hands per hour. (I'm not saying that it's easy to win 50+bb per hundred hands, but someone with the skills to beat 1/2 online at any decent rate is going to be good enough to destroy live games if they have the patience to transition to live play from online.
Anyway, if you do some rough calculations, you can see why the bankroll requirements change so drastically.
If you're making like 5bb per 100 hands and have a std. dev. of like 50bb, you're going to through a lot of swings. A LOT.
But if you're playing at 40bb per 100 hands with a std dev. of 120bb, you're going to go through swings, but far less. You could probably get away with a 15 buy in bankroll - which is really bad for online play. Heck the Kelly Criterion may even say to do 8-10 buy ins for live play, but there's a ton of reasons that's not practical. Online you should be looking at 40-60 buy ins at least.
March 27th, 2014 at 1:01:21 AM
permalink
Quote: Boney526
You might be able to make 5bb per 100 hands online, 50+bb per 100 live (the skill gap IS that huge if you play in the right Poker rooms) but you also get significantly less hands per hour. (I'm not saying that it's easy to win 50+bb per hundred hands, but someone with the skills to beat 1/2 online at any decent rate is going to be good enough to destroy live games if they have the patience to transition to live play from online.
i'm really interested in the "right poker room" idea. Can you elaborate?
March 31st, 2014 at 1:00:26 PM
permalink
Quote: Neutrinoi'm really interested in the "right poker room" idea. Can you elaborate?
Some poker rooms just tend to be tougher than others. Mainly it depends on income in the surrounding area, competing rooms, ability of the room to get fish into the games, popularity of NLHE in the area, etc. I could go into more details, the thing is, I'm not a live player. I have a really small sample size of different rooms I've played in, but one stands out as quite a bit weaker than the rest (at least at the times I went.) I've been thinking of transitioning to Live play, since it's more profitable when considering risk levels and the ability to move up to games that are a bit higher, but still soft, but I feel like the negatives outweigh the positives. I'd have to drive anytime I wanted to play, I'm limited to 1/2 by my bankroll, and I wouldn't be bankrolled for any decent tournaments. Aside from that, I'm much tougher as a tournament player and I'd rather play a bunch of medium stakes tournaments online and mix in super aggro cash games when I can rather than go play Live.
If I can earn around 30bb per 100 hands live, I'm still only getting like 7.5-10bb per hour, which is like 15-20 dollars. At least online I don't have to drive, and I can start and stop whenever I want.
