Hi, Pete. It actually sounds like you’ve got a pretty solid understanding of what to expect from live poker. Yes, it tends to be considerably easier than online games at comparable stakes, but it’s also much slower, and you can only play one table at a time. If you play online poker seriously, ie at stakes that are significant to you and on 4+ tables at once, then it’s unlikely that you could have a better hourly rate in a brick and mortar casino, particularly when you factor in stuff like commuting and waiting for a seat.

There are still reasons to play live. Some people enjoy the social aspect of it. Others, usually those who already have a lot of live experience, benefit from skills like reading live tells that they can’t apply online. For my own part, I enjoy it as an occasional break from online play and an opportunity to play what is usually a much lower-stress game. You just don’t get bluff-raised, 4-bet light, etc. in a live game anywhere near as often as you have to deal with such nuisances online.

Even though they tend to be much easier on-balance, live games aren’t just easy version of online games. There are some differences in how the games play:

-live games are almost always 10-handed

-live games, especially at higher stakes, play deep. It’s not unheard of for players to sit 1000 BBs deep, and this can create situations that just don’t arise online.

-there’s less folding and more multi-way pots

All of these differences require skills that you aren’t going to have automatically just because you play online poker. So don’t assume that just because you can multi-table 1/2 NL online, you can go crush a 10/25 NL live game. You very well might be the best all-around player at the table, but it will take some practice in a live setting before you have all the skills you need to beat the game.

I am a young player who had never been to a casino let alone played in any live poker game that’s remotely competitive. I definitely see myself in the future to be attending it though. From what I understand, the live games are extremely slow compared to online. So how profitable are the live games in comparison to online games? I heard the games are much softer in comparison to online. But is that enough of an edge for one to be more profitable live than online? I would think online would be ultimately more profitable, but seeing as how there are plenty of pros who’d prefer to play live over online, I am a little bit confused.

I hope I have delivered everything that I wish to communicate without confusing you.
Cheers!

Absolutely not. A week of live poker every 6 months or so is all I can stand. I look at it as a challenge to myself to see how well I can keep my composure despite the boredom and the scumbags. PCA actually wasn’t too bad in that regard, more similar to the interesting and ecclectic crowd at the WSOP than to the band of degenerates who frequent Foxwoods on Wednesday afternoons.

And those are 1K chips. Definitely not $2, but definitely not 5K’s either. Sorry, I did try to make the picture large enough that that was visible.

are you ammending your goals to play more live poker in 2010?

are those yellows $5k? at foxwoods yellows = $2 but given the bright color i’m guessing they’re $5k???

well done.

Oh whoops! Didn’t realize you made the boat on the river. Ok that makes everything a lot clearer now 🙂

That’s a bummer that you’re not in Boston anymore, it was always a pleasure to run into you at BDL events. You should come visit for the City Championships or something. Rachita says hi, by the way. It was really funny, when I saw your blog on cardplayer.com I sent it to her and she was like, “No Way!!”. You neglected to mention to us that you finished 39th at the WSOP main event!

I have been playing poker since around ninth grade, but it’s much more of a hobby than a revenue-generating avenue. I really like the theoretical/analytical aspect of the game though, and I can definitely see how debate has influenced your approach to poker (and your online screen name as well).

Nitin! Of course I remember, and awesome to hear from you. Sounds like you play some poker yourself?

I’m not in Boston any longer, so I can’t stay as involved as I like, but I try to spend a few hours a week writing grant applications or otherwise helping with fundraising.

As Tom pointed out, I did fill up on the river here. I think my check-raise ought to look extremely strong to him, and he should probably fold hands worse than the Ace-high flush, though I certainly didn’t expect him to. It’s weird, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a river check-raise bluff in a live poker game, but I’ve also never seen anyone fold to a river check-raise, even when a bluff is all they could beat.

Thanks for writing! Hope you’re well.

Nitin, our hero makes a house on the river. I *think* a house > flush…

This is Nitin, you might remember me as a volunteer judge from the Boston debate league (are you still affiliated with that by the way?) Anyway, just wanted to say that I recently stumbled upon your site and it has quickly become one of my favorites for reading good poker analysis.

I have one question about your thought process on the river check-raise though – what is your motivation for raising the river? Do think that the first limper probably hits a king on the flop with something like K8 or K9? In that case, what makes you so sure his low card is not a diamond that he thinks is too low to bet out when the fourth diamond hits the turn? My gut instinct might have been to just call the river bet since I’m not playing a diamond, but obviously your check-raise was very succesful.