Only logged-in members can vote!
→ Click here to create a Mob account which gives you access to our forum and all our free bankrolls (no deposit bonuses) → Log in to existing account!
Joined: Jan '10
Location: Indonesia
Age: 60 (M)
Posts: 1875
Luck always needed to win, not just in poker. Live, work also need to success .
Poker is skill game but some people make it screwed up with donk play.
Instinct is part of skill. compare with football : Beckham take free kick. Goal (or not) is skill or luck ? Poker player call with 45 os and win , skill or luck ? Doyle Brunson go all in ( or call ) with 10 2 os and won WSOP. Skill or luck ? Is possible that is instinct ?
Joined: May '08
Location: Lithuania
Age: 39 (M)
Posts: 10090
i truly believe that in these times at online poker luck plays 50% or more to the final result. You can add collusion, bots, super accounts etc. to the mix as well. imho you must use as many "helpers" as you can if you want to even think of surviving- those "helpers" would be- no deposit bonuses, deposit bonuses, kickback bonuses, rakeback, freerolls, gifts etc. take whatever you can and try to play as much as you can using not your money
Joined: Oct '09
Location: Spain
Age: 60 (M)
Posts: 2851
Posted by jessthehuman:
Posted by nsdstefan: Online => 70% luck 30% skill Live =>> 30%luck 70% skill
The pro's made their money in live games/tournaments!!!
Care to elaborate?
FYI: I would argue that in live poker you play less hands (no multi table and a lot less hands per hour on a single table) and therefor far less volume, which means you are subject to greater variance over a given length of time. And for this reason I would credit live play as having a larger luck factor.
However - live play also allows for other skill elements that are not possible online (being able to read visual tells is an obvious one). So I can see the argument for live being more about skill also..
I´ll elaborate, even though I only played live when I started out 2 years + ago.
Not only the tells, but the opportunity to manipulate through actions, expressions, etc. Plus, in a live Tournament everyone is playing one (1) table, it takes a lot of guts to bluff properly and thoroughly, knowing you will be heading home if it doesn´t work out. Online...just play your other open tourneys or start a series of new ones. Volume and opportunity, something which is not a factor in Live Poker.
Online is a hell of a lot more agressive hand per hand than Live IMO.
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Australia
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 6483
Posted by IslandJack:
Posted by jessthehuman:
Posted by nsdstefan: Online => 70% luck 30% skill Live =>> 30%luck 70% skill
The pro's made their money in live games/tournaments!!!
Care to elaborate?
FYI: I would argue that in live poker you play less hands (no multi table and a lot less hands per hour on a single table) and therefor far less volume, which means you are subject to greater variance over a given length of time. And for this reason I would credit live play as having a larger luck factor.
However - live play also allows for other skill elements that are not possible online (being able to read visual tells is an obvious one). So I can see the argument for live being more about skill also..
I'll elaborate, even though I only played live when I started out 2 years + ago.
Not only the tells, but the opportunity to manipulate through actions, expressions, etc. Plus, in a live Tournament everyone is playing one (1) table, it takes a lot of guts to bluff properly and thoroughly, knowing you will be heading home if it doesn't work out. Online...just play your other open tourneys or start a series of new ones. Volume and opportunity, something which is not a factor in Live Poker.
Online is a hell of a lot more agressive hand per hand than Live IMO.
Could be missing something though. Anyone else?
All very good points. I actually started out playing live, for 2-3 years before I ever played online.. I rarely play live now however.
I think in an individual tournament/session there is definitely a LOT more skill involved in live play. I don't think you could even form an argument against that. As you point out, there are just so many more factors in live play.
My whole reasoning though is based on equating luck == variance. If you consider that as a hypothesis, then the logical conclusion is online has a higher skill factor simply because the variance is so much less across the volumes that can be done online. Particularly in reference to multi-table play.. If you play online poker seriously - say 8hrs a day, 5 days a week and play at least 6 tables at a time, the amount of hands you see over the course of a year or a decade just completely smashes the hands you can see playing live.
I think online, you talk of a win rates and having a ROI % (in tournament play). Where as in live play, well - not so much cash game, but in live tournament play, people talk about 'hitting'. That is to say - in live play, people kind of chase that one big score, rather than some kind of solid ROI. And in that context, that has a lot to do with luck, if you only play 1 live tournament a week then realistically, you're not going to make much from your "ROI" but you *may* hit big one day and run-good through to the final table and get a big pay day.
My final conclusion is that online play put simply suffers from less variance/luck if you can put in the hours/hands. And as such, online ROI/Win-rate (bb/100) means a LOT more than the figures to for live players. Online people might say 10,000 hands is a tiny sample and you cannot tell if you're a winner/loser. If somebody puts in 10,000 hands live - they will use that to define whether or not they're a winner.
However - that live play takes more skill, is also a stone cold fact.
I think you could argue either way, for completely different reasons.
Joined: Aug '10
Location: Germany
Age: 52 (M)
Posts: 2219
I have noticed in the last years, that the luck is the biggest part in online poker. More than odds and outs and position play etc. I think in heads up situations you have a lot of time a coinflip situation and so the luck is verry important.
Joined: May '11
Location: Trinidad and Tobago
Age: 38 (M)
Posts: 1
Ever wonder why sometimes the guys sitting around you are getting great cards n you aint. I have a friend that i dare not bet against...i'd say it like 50% luck..or greater..
Joined: Oct '09
Location: Spain
Age: 60 (M)
Posts: 2851
Posted by jessthehuman:
Posted by IslandJack:
Posted by jessthehuman:
Posted by nsdstefan: Online => 70% luck 30% skill Live =>> 30%luck 70% skill
The pro's made their money in live games/tournaments!!!
Care to elaborate?
FYI: I would argue that in live poker you play less hands (no multi table and a lot less hands per hour on a single table) and therefor far less volume, which means you are subject to greater variance over a given length of time. And for this reason I would credit live play as having a larger luck factor.
However - live play also allows for other skill elements that are not possible online (being able to read visual tells is an obvious one). So I can see the argument for live being more about skill also..
I'll elaborate, even though I only played live when I started out 2 years + ago.
Not only the tells, but the opportunity to manipulate through actions, expressions, etc. Plus, in a live Tournament everyone is playing one (1) table, it takes a lot of guts to bluff properly and thoroughly, knowing you will be heading home if it doesn't work out. Online...just play your other open tourneys or start a series of new ones. Volume and opportunity, something which is not a factor in Live Poker.
Online is a hell of a lot more agressive hand per hand than Live IMO.
Could be missing something though. Anyone else?
All very good points. I actually started out playing live, for 2-3 years before I ever played online.. I rarely play live now however.
I think in an individual tournament/session there is definitely a LOT more skill involved in live play. I don't think you could even form an argument against that. As you point out, there are just so many more factors in live play.
My whole reasoning though is based on equating luck == variance. If you consider that as a hypothesis, then the logical conclusion is online has a higher skill factor simply because the variance is so much less across the volumes that can be done online. Particularly in reference to multi-table play.. If you play online poker seriously - say 8hrs a day, 5 days a week and play at least 6 tables at a time, the amount of hands you see over the course of a year or a decade just completely smashes the hands you can see playing live.
I think online, you talk of a win rates and having a ROI % (in tournament play). Where as in live play, well - not so much cash game, but in live tournament play, people talk about 'hitting'. That is to say - in live play, people kind of chase that one big score, rather than some kind of solid ROI. And in that context, that has a lot to do with luck, if you only play 1 live tournament a week then realistically, you're not going to make much from your "ROI" but you *may* hit big one day and run-good through to the final table and get a big pay day.
My final conclusion is that online play put simply suffers from less variance/luck if you can put in the hours/hands. And as such, online ROI/Win-rate (bb/100) means a LOT more than the figures to for live players. Online people might say 10,000 hands is a tiny sample and you cannot tell if you're a winner/loser. If somebody puts in 10,000 hands live - they will use that to define whether or not they're a winner.
However - that live play takes more skill, is also a stone cold fact.
I think you could argue either way, for completely different reasons.
