|
|
#1
10-22-04, 08:25 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Internet Players in Live events.
I watch most poker that’s on TV. Here in England we have virtually a channel dedicated to poker and gambling (challenge TV) past 9pm.
Party Poker has a European open running at the moment and it’s been covered on TV every night this past week. The table is made up of invited Pro's and internet qualifiers from around the world. It's so embarrassing watching most of the internet players play in what must be their first live games! Making string bets, wrong calls, out of order actions, not understanding BASIC poker rules, that is very important when dealing with such high prize money. Time and time again players were not declaring bets before putting chips in and having raises made to calls because they have not understood *or bothered to read the rules. Don't you think if you’re a newbie live poker player that just qualified online for a televised event that you would practice allot and read the rules of the games? Instead of making a right twat out of yourself. I know its being picky but wow it’s annoying. Its also a myth that the internet teaches you all you need to know about playing poker, my word some of those players on TV just didn’t know what bluff meant or the meaning of slow playing "especially when hitting nut flushes" hands. Time and time again they pushed all in when as soon as they got a good hand. Live games are a lot different that online button pressing. |
|
#2
10-23-04, 07:18 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
If it was me
I would be nervous as hell. I would read rules and practice, i know, table ettiquette. Those things go a long way. Especially when everyone is watching
|
|
#3
10-23-04, 09:59 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
As far as knowing the rules and etiquette, you have a point and a very good one. The only thing I can think of as being an advantage to the on-line player is that if you have become good at the game it is because you understand the very basics of the game, the odds, the right hands to play etc... I think the added advantage of being able to see your opponents could only help you, at least a little.
|
|
#4
10-23-04, 02:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
So much of the work is done for you online. You can only do what the software lets you do.
|
|
#8
10-25-04, 04:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I guess I just dont get the difference between Mr_Internet_Player_001 and Never_played_poker_before_001 walking into a cardroom for their first time and making common mistakes...
Everyone has to learn sometime, no shame in it IMO Defendant |
|
#9
10-25-04, 09:31 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I believe online play is the best. You see way more hands and as a result get a lot more experience calculating pot odds and counting outs and what not. You encounter many tough decisions online which you can draw from in live play.
__________________
That's how I rolled. |
|
#10
10-25-04, 12:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
although not knowing the rules of the game, or basic table rules is embarassing and obviously makes watching poker much less enjoyable, i think i have seen as much weird stuff from pros, or experienced players, as well.
for example, the final couple of hands at the wpt borgata event was the strangest thing i have seen in televised poker. a string bet, a call before the size of the bet was announced, all sorts of weird stuff. and both of those guys were very experienced players. i think some of the mistakes that you see are fatigue based, as often the stuff we see is very late in a tourney, when players have been going at it hard for days. |
|
#15
10-25-04, 07:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It is also amusing how he was practically skint (no bankroll) until he won the WSOP, I have heard many people from Star's tell me he had lost alot of money on there over a few years.
|
|
#16
10-25-04, 08:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have only played online and I am sure I will be very nervous when, if, I play at a B&M.
|
|
#18
10-25-04, 10:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
granted, moneymaker played very well, and he didnt get nearly as lucky as varkonyi did in 02, but he did get lucky a few very memorable times in the tourney. notice the hand where he pushed brenes all in, was a 4-1 dog, and turned his set. i know that you need luck to win tourneys, and moneymaker has proven that he is a good player since then, but dont forget the luck factor involved.
|
|
#19
10-26-04, 04:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Wow, I wish I had a channel dedicated to Poker. Would sure learn a lot. As for the online player, aikes, go play some BandM before hitting a tourney (live).
__________________
"Know when to hold'em, know when to fold'em" Fill out some surveys and get paid. Made $206 so far! |
|
#20
10-26-04, 05:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I wouldn't doubt it . He made some really bad calls and got very lucky on the river. Look at his success since, he's a one hit wonder and it will just be a matter of time till he's broke.
|
|
#21
10-26-04, 05:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
i would suggest that coming in second in the Bay 101 WPT event qualifies him as not just a one hit wonder. im not among the people who think he is a spectacular player, but he has done ok since the 03 WSOP.
|
|
#23
10-30-04, 04:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
thats a negative... hes a pretty good tournament player, only because he mixes up his play so randomly that no one can put him on anything. After winning in 2003 his poker self-esteem went WAY up, and now he has the confidence to play great even against the top players in the world.
-jB |
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
