HOME

SEARCH

SIGN_IN

JohnnyCoconuts New User 43084389@recpoker.com Sep 16, 2006, 3:55 AM Post #1 of 23(879 views) Shortcut Am I the only one getting sick of online poker? (Not a bad beat whine) Can't Post   It's not the rigged argument, and it's not the BB argument. IMHO, online is almost to the point where it's getting too painful to play.  No matter what limit I've been trying lately (limit - Full Tilt), it's still no-fold 'em.  It's really getting to the point where there is no skill involved.  It's just "everybody in!!!!....wooo hoo".  SAME hand, one person calls four bets with J-8 off, another with 4-7 off, another with K-Q.  One of the raisers had AA, the other had 88. Regardless of whether they win or not, you can't put anyone on hand, and so it's just turned into a game of who gets lucky  (or doesn't get unlucky).  Someone run the math and see how often AA holds up against those four hands - whatever it is, it's probably less than 50% - so odds say your AA is going to lose against that trash. Another hand, on a board of 2-2-5-7-7 (three hearts) it's capped on each of the flop, turn and river with three people in.  One has J-Q, one has 9-10, one has 3-4, not a heart in the group.   These geniuses capped the a double paired and flushed board with that crap???? I mean, it's just a joke. Either these are people with more money than sense, they're playing well below where they should be and the money is meaningless to them, or they're all just morons.  I can't decide which. I'm not sure there's any way to fix it.  It's a free country I guess, they can play how they like, but, for me at least, it's getting close to being no fun at all anymore. Am I the only one who feels this way? _______________________________________________________________ * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com No Karma

JohnnyCoconuts New User 43084389@recpoker.com Sep 16, 2006, 3:56 AM Post #2 of 23(879 views) Shortcut Re: Am I the only one getting sick of online poker? (N [In reply to] Can't Post (and I broke even for the night - so this isn't a whine because I lost ;)) On Sep 16 2006 3:55 AM, JohnnyCoconuts wrote: > > It's not the rigged argument, and it's not the BB argument. > > IMHO, online is almost to the point where it's getting too painful to play.  > No > matter what limit I've been trying lately (limit - Full Tilt), it's still > no-fold 'em.  It's really getting to the point where there is no skill > involved.  It's just "everybody in!!!!....wooo hoo".  > > SAME hand, one person calls four bets with J-8 off, another with 4-7 off, > another with K-Q.  One of the raisers had AA, the other had 88. Regardless of > whether they win or not, you can't put anyone on hand, and so it's just turned > into a game of who gets lucky  (or doesn't get unlucky).  Someone run the math > and see how often AA holds up against those four hands - whatever it is, it's > probably less than 50% - so odds say your AA is going to lose against that > trash. > > Another hand, on a board of 2-2-5-7-7 (three hearts) it's capped on each of > the > flop, turn and river with three people in.  One has J-Q, one has 9-10, one has > 3-4, not a heart in the group.   These geniuses capped the a double paired and > flushed board with that crap???? I mean, it's just a joke. > > Either these are people with more money than sense, they're playing well below > where they should be and the money is meaningless to them, or they're all just > morons.  I can't decide which. > > I'm not sure there's any way to fix it.  It's a free country I guess, they can > play how they like, but, for me at least, it's getting close to being no fun > at > all anymore. > > Am I the only one who feels this way? _______________________________________________________________ Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com No Karma

pokergent New User 43081817@recpoker.com Sep 16, 2006, 4:20 AM Post #3 of 23(879 views) Shortcut Re: Am I the only one getting sick of online poker? (N [In reply to] Can't Post   14 years of playing every day ........ 5 online..........sick of poker?  ya think? its just as bad or worse in the casinos after about five years the flashing lights and bells of the machines drive most players mad plus the added benefit of being hated by all the people that you have caused (in their eyes) to lose their homes, businesses and families. "it aint no fun when the BUNNY's got THE GUN" Romans 8:28 _______________________________________________________________ Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com No Karma

"Howard Beale" New User a1695@webnntp.invalid Sep 16, 2006, 4:54 AM Post #4 of 23(879 views) Shortcut Re: Am I the only one getting sick of online poker? (Not a bad beat whine) [In reply to] Can't Post On Sep 16 2006 1:55 AM, JohnnyCoconuts wrote: > It's not the rigged argument, and it's not the BB argument. > > IMHO, online is almost to the point where it's getting too painful to play. No > matter what limit I've been trying lately (limit - Full Tilt), it's still > no-fold 'em. It's really getting to the point where there is no skill > involved. It's just "everybody in!!!!....wooo hoo". > > SAME hand, one person calls four bets with J-8 off, another with 4-7 off, > another with K-Q. One of the raisers had AA, the other had 88. Regardless of > whether they win or not, you can't put anyone on hand, and so it's just turned > into a game of who gets lucky (or doesn't get unlucky). Someone run the math > and see how often AA holds up against those four hands - whatever it is, it's > probably less than 50% - so odds say your AA is going to lose against that > trash. > > Another hand, on a board of 2-2-5-7-7 (three hearts) it's capped on each of the > flop, turn and river with three people in. One has J-Q, one has 9-10, one has > 3-4, not a heart in the group. These geniuses capped the a double paired and > flushed board with that crap???? I mean, it's just a joke. > > Either these are people with more money than sense, they're playing well below > where they should be and the money is meaningless to them, or they're all just > morons. I can't decide which. > > I'm not sure there's any way to fix it. It's a free country I guess, they can > play how they like, but, for me at least, it's getting close to being no fun at > all anymore. > > Am I the only one who feels this way? I must be the only person who never saw any action when I played online. If the games I played on at Party were like you describe I'd still be playing. I never saw stuff like that. To me, the online games were a bunch of rock gardens. I must be missing something. Howard Beale _____________________________________________________________________  : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com No Karma

KenP New User ngroup.z.frodo@xoxy.net Sep 16, 2006, 9:30 AM Post #5 of 23(879 views) Shortcut Re: Am I the only one getting sick of online poker? (Not a bad beat [In reply to] Can't Post maybe you need to try a different game. limit is a suckout fest and pot odds let a lot of people hang on. it is designed for that. if you can't take the catching, try something else. No Karma

"pokerchimp" New User mixthing@se.rr.com Sep 16, 2006, 10:22 AM Post #6 of 23(879 views) Shortcut Re: Am I the only one getting sick of online poker? (Not a bad beat whine) [In reply to] Can't Post You play limit poker. What limit? Low limit hold em is notorious for the type of play you describe. IF limit is your best game, why not try some sngs. On Sep 16 2006 3:55 AM, JohnnyCoconuts wrote: > It's not the rigged argument, and it's not the BB argument. > > IMHO, online is almost to the point where it's getting too painful to play.  No > matter what limit I've been trying lately (limit - Full Tilt), it's still > no-fold 'em.  It's really getting to the point where there is no skill > involved.  It's just "everybody in!!!!....wooo hoo".  > > SAME hand, one person calls four bets with J-8 off, another with 4-7 off, > another with K-Q.  One of the raisers had AA, the other had 88. Regardless of > whether they win or not, you can't put anyone on hand, and so it's just turned > into a game of who gets lucky  (or doesn't get unlucky).  Someone run the math > and see how often AA holds up against those four hands - whatever it is, it's > probably less than 50% - so odds say your AA is going to lose against that > trash. > > Another hand, on a board of 2-2-5-7-7 (three hearts) it's capped on each of the > flop, turn and river with three people in.  One has J-Q, one has 9-10, one has > 3-4, not a heart in the group.   These geniuses capped the a double paired and > flushed board with that crap???? I mean, it's just a joke. > > Either these are people with more money than sense, they're playing well below > where they should be and the money is meaningless to them, or they're all just > morons.  I can't decide which. > > I'm not sure there's any way to fix it.  It's a free country I guess, they can > play how they like, but, for me at least, it's getting close to being no fun at > all anymore. > > Am I the only one who feels this way? ________________________________________________________________________  * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com No Karma

"Bob" New User bob@synapse-cs.com Sep 16, 2006, 10:26 AM Post #7 of 23(879 views) Shortcut Re: Am I the only one getting sick of online poker? (Not a bad beat whine) [In reply to] Can't Post   Howard Beale wrote: > > I must be the only person who never saw any action when I played online. > If the games I played on at Party were like you describe I'd still be > playing. I never saw stuff like that. To me, the online games were a > bunch of rock gardens. I must be missing something. > I've played a hundred times as much online poker as I have at card clubs. Lately, I've been playing a lot of no-limit ring games, either $.50 - $1 or $1 to $2 blinds. I went out to Lucky Chances (near San Francisco) last night for the first time in a long time. The players at the low-level ($1-$1-$2) no-limit game were much worse and much looser than I'm used to online. There was one guy at my table who must have seen 60% of the flops, then bet almost every hand on the flop. People were calling him down with middle pair and beating him. Hmm... I wish I had thought of moving to a different seat while I was at the table. I was directly to his left, which was bad for me. I would much rather have been on his right, so I could see what the other players did before I had to act. Technically, the Lucky Chances game is "spread-limit", not no-limit. The maximum bet in the low-level game is $200, which is also the maximum buy-in. I believe they will be offering true no-limit again soon. Shortly after I sat down, I saw a player drag a $850 pot, which brought his stack up to $2700. Not bad! They have improved their rake structure since the last time I was there. They now rake up to $5 per pot, plus a $1 jackpot rake. They used to charge each player $6 every half hour. - Bob T. No Karma

_plays_poorly New User 43071998@recpoker.com Sep 16, 2006, 10:45 AM Post #8 of 23(879 views) Shortcut Re: Am I the only one getting sick of online poker? (N [In reply to] Can't Post   The math says more than 50%... http://twodimes.net/h/?z=2079251 pokenum  -h ah as  - js 8c  - 4s 7d  - 8d 8s  - kc qd Holdem Hi: 850668 enumerated boards cards     win   %win    lose  %lose   tie  %tie     EV As Ah  488268  57.40  361504  42.50   896  0.11  0.574 Js 8c   62052   7.29  779200  91.60  9416  1.11  0.078 4s 7d  106227  12.49  743545  87.41   896  0.11  0.125 8s 8d   64211   7.55  777041  91.34  9416  1.11  0.081 Kc Qd  120494  14.16  729278  85.73   896  0.11  0.142 On Sep 16 2006 2:55 AM, JohnnyCoconuts wrote: > SAME hand, one person calls four bets with J-8 off, another with 4-7 off, > another with K-Q.  One of the raisers had AA, the other had 88. Regardless of > whether they win or not, you can't put anyone on hand, and so it's just turned > into a game of who gets lucky  (or doesn't get unlucky).  Someone run the math > and see how often AA holds up against those four hands - whatever it is, it's > probably less than 50% - so odds say your AA is going to lose against that > trash. _______________________________________________________________ Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com No Karma

"Scott/sjakma" New User scott@scottadams.com Sep 16, 2006, 12:31 PM Post #9 of 23(879 views) Shortcut Re: Am I the only one getting sick of online poker? (Not a bad beat whine) [In reply to] Can't Post How often do you get out to a B&M? Limit HE is being played the online and at the B&M.. I am seeing the same exact thing when I play at a B&M.. Scott http://www.get4cheap.com --------  RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com No Karma

"Howard Beale" New User a1695@webnntp.invalid Sep 16, 2006, 12:32 PM Post #10 of 23(879 views) Shortcut Re: Am I the only one getting sick of online poker? (Not a bad beat whine) [In reply to] Can't Post On Sep 16 2006 8:26 AM, Bob wrote: > Howard Beale wrote: > > > > I must be the only person who never saw any action when I played online. > > If the games I played on at Party were like you describe I'd still be > > playing. I never saw stuff like that. To me, the online games were a > > bunch of rock gardens. I must be missing something. > > > I've played a hundred times as much online poker as I have at card > clubs. Lately, I've been playing a lot of no-limit ring games, either > $.50 - $1 or $1 to $2 blinds. I went out to Lucky Chances (near San > Francisco) last night for the first time in a long time. The players > at the low-level ($1-$1-$2) no-limit game were much worse and much > looser than I'm used to online. There was one guy at my table who must > have seen 60% of the flops, then bet almost every hand on the flop. > People were calling him down with middle pair and beating him. Hmm... > I wish I had thought of moving to a different seat while I was at the > table. I was directly to his left, which was bad for me. I would much > rather have been on his right, so I could see what the other players > did before I had to act. > > Technically, the Lucky Chances game is "spread-limit", not no-limit. > The maximum bet in the low-level game is $200, which is also the > maximum buy-in. I believe they will be offering true no-limit again > soon. Shortly after I sat down, I saw a player drag a $850 pot, which > brought his stack up to $2700. Not bad! They have improved their rake > structure since the last time I was there. They now rake up to $5 per > pot, plus a $1 jackpot rake. They used to charge each player $6 every > half hour. > > - Bob T. When I played online (3-6 to 5-10 HE mostly) it was a regular feature for someone to raise, everybody fold to the BB, and he'd decide to defend or not. Over and over and over. Sometimes there would be 3 way action. Last night at Casino Arizona's 8-16, table #24, we played a rollicking, loose slug-fest. 7 way hands w/ raises pre-flop, chasers, nut-jobs, maniacs, cursing and deriding the other players (not by me, of course). I cringe at the derision and giving of lessons but the game and the players were hot and it happens. What a game! It's almost like stealing. I know the arguments about having so many more hands to play online w/ the multi-tabling and poker tracker and all that but the pots are so much bigger live, the players get emotional so much more, the tells are incredible that it's a much better game as far as I'm concerned. I'd go so far as to say that it's a different game entirely. HB -------  : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com No Karma

jam88 New User 43078893@recpoker.com Sep 16, 2006, 1:12 PM Post #11 of 23(879 views) Shortcut Re: Am I the only one getting sick of online poker? (N [In reply to] Can't Post You don't say what limit you are playing at.  So many new players start with low limit hold'em.  What you described is the norm.  If this was happening at the 3/6 or 5/10 tables I would be a little more surprised. On Sep 16 2006 3:55 AM, JohnnyCoconuts wrote: > > It's not the rigged argument, and it's not the BB argument. > > IMHO, online is almost to the point where it's getting too painful to play.  > No > matter what limit I've been trying lately (limit - Full Tilt), it's still > no-fold 'em.  It's really getting to the point where there is no skill > involved.  It's just "everybody in!!!!....wooo hoo".  > > SAME hand, one person calls four bets with J-8 off, another with 4-7 off, > another with K-Q.  One of the raisers had AA, the other had 88. Regardless of > whether they win or not, you can't put anyone on hand, and so it's just turned > into a game of who gets lucky  (or doesn't get unlucky).  Someone run the math > and see how often AA holds up against those four hands - whatever it is, it's > probably less than 50% - so odds say your AA is going to lose against that > trash. > > Another hand, on a board of 2-2-5-7-7 (three hearts) it's capped on each of > the > flop, turn and river with three people in.  One has J-Q, one has 9-10, one has > 3-4, not a heart in the group.   These geniuses capped the a double paired and > flushed board with that crap???? I mean, it's just a joke. > > Either these are people with more money than sense, they're playing well below > where they should be and the money is meaningless to them, or they're all just > morons.  I can't decide which. > > I'm not sure there's any way to fix it.  It's a free country I guess, they can > play how they like, but, for me at least, it's getting close to being no fun > at > all anymore. > > Am I the only one who feels this way? _______________________________________________________________ * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com No Karma

Max Coin New User 43082465@recpoker.com Sep 16, 2006, 1:18 PM Post #12 of 23(879 views) Shortcut Re: Am I the only one getting sick of online poker? (Not a bad beat whine) [In reply to] Can't Post   On Sep 16 2006 1:54 AM, Howard Beale wrote: > On Sep 16 2006 1:55 AM, JohnnyCoconuts wrote: > > > It's not the rigged argument, and it's not the BB argument. > > > > IMHO, online is almost to the point where it's getting too painful to play. > No > > matter what limit I've been trying lately (limit - Full Tilt), it's still > > no-fold 'em. It's really getting to the point where there is no skill > > involved. It's just "everybody in!!!!....wooo hoo". > > > > SAME hand, one person calls four bets with J-8 off, another with 4-7 off, > > another with K-Q. One of the raisers had AA, the other had 88. Regardless > > of > > whether they win or not, you can't put anyone on hand, and so it's just > turned > > into a game of who gets lucky (or doesn't get unlucky). Someone run the > math > > and see how often AA holds up against those four hands - whatever it is, > > it's > > probably less than 50% - so odds say your AA is going to lose against that > > trash. > > > > Another hand, on a board of 2-2-5-7-7 (three hearts) it's capped on each of > the > > flop, turn and river with three people in. One has J-Q, one has 9-10, one > has > > 3-4, not a heart in the group. These geniuses capped the a double paired > and > > flushed board with that crap???? I mean, it's just a joke. > > > > Either these are people with more money than sense, they're playing well > below > > where they should be and the money is meaningless to them, or they're all > just > > morons. I can't decide which. > > > > I'm not sure there's any way to fix it. It's a free country I guess, they > can > > play how they like, but, for me at least, it's getting close to being no fun > at > > all anymore. > > > > Am I the only one who feels this way? > > > I must be the only person who never saw any action when I played online. > If the games I played on at Party were like you describe I'd still be > playing. I never saw stuff like that. To me, the online games were a > bunch of rock gardens. I must be missing something. > > > > > Howard Beale I agree, the .50-$1.00 games  I play online make the 3-6 games at the casino seem like the game is being played with Monopoly money. _______________________________________________________________ Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com No Karma

A Man Beaten by Jacks New User nobody@fool.foo Sep 16, 2006, 1:24 PM Post #13 of 23(879 views) Shortcut Re: Am I the only one getting sick of online poker? (N [In reply to] Can't Post On Sat, 16 Sep 06 17:12:19 GMT, jam88 <43078893@recpoker.com> wrote: [JohnnyCoconuts reports demented online poker] >You don't say what limit you are playing at.  So many new players start with low >limit hold'em.  What you described is the norm.  If this was happening at the >3/6 or 5/10 tables I would be a little more surprised. If this was happening at the 3/6 or 5/10 tables please, please, please tell me where this is happening. No Karma

"Howard Beale" New User a1695@webnntp.invalid Sep 16, 2006, 1:54 PM Post #14 of 23(879 views) Shortcut Re: Am I the only one getting sick of online poker? (N [In reply to] Can't Post On Sep 16 2006 11:24 AM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote: > On Sat, 16 Sep 06 17:12:19 GMT, jam88 <43078893@recpoker.com> wrote: > > [JohnnyCoconuts reports demented online poker] > > >You don't say what limit you are playing at. So many new players start with low > >limit hold'em. What you described is the norm. If this was happening at the > >3/6 or 5/10 tables I would be a little more surprised. > > If this was happening at the 3/6 or 5/10 tables please, please, please tell > me where this is happening. Exactly! Sign me up too. HB -----  : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com No Karma

"James Hoffmann" New User jhoffmannhome@juno.com Sep 16, 2006, 2:04 PM Post #15 of 23(879 views) Shortcut Re: Am I the only one getting sick of online poker? (Not a bad beat whine) [In reply to] Can't Post Bob, thanks for the report on Lucky Chances,I agree that the play is much looser and poorer in a B+M casino than online for a given limit, but how is a $5+$1 drop better than $6 per half hour seat charge? That's pretty steep. It's been awhile since I have played at Lucky Chances, so I forget if they play 9 or 10 handed. If it is a 10 handed game, $120 per hour comes off the table in seat charge ($108 if 9 handed). For the $6 drop to be equal, you must play exactly 20 hands per hour. If you play more hands than that (and that will be the case more often than not, especially with automatic shufflers), more money will be coming off the table each hour that goes to the casino. If you play 30 hands per hour, that is 50% more drop ($180 vs. $120). Of course if the play is less than 20 hands per hour the drop would be better than a seat charge in a 10 handed game. "Bob" <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message news:1158416812.953678.256600@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > > Howard Beale wrote: >> >> I must be the only person who never saw any action when I played online. >> If the games I played on at Party were like you describe I'd still be >> playing. I never saw stuff like that. To me, the online games were a >> bunch of rock gardens. I must be missing something. >> > I've played a hundred times as much online poker as I have at card > clubs. Lately, I've been playing a lot of no-limit ring games, either > $.50 - $1 or $1 to $2 blinds. I went out to Lucky Chances (near San > Francisco) last night for the first time in a long time. The players > at the low-level ($1-$1-$2) no-limit game were much worse and much > looser than I'm used to online. There was one guy at my table who must > have seen 60% of the flops, then bet almost every hand on the flop. > People were calling him down with middle pair and beating him. Hmm... > I wish I had thought of moving to a different seat while I was at the > table. I was directly to his left, which was bad for me. I would much > rather have been on his right, so I could see what the other players > did before I had to act. > > Technically, the Lucky Chances game is "spread-limit", not no-limit. > The maximum bet in the low-level game is $200, which is also the > maximum buy-in. I believe they will be offering true no-limit again > soon. Shortly after I sat down, I saw a player drag a $850 pot, which > brought his stack up to $2700. Not bad! They have improved their rake > structure since the last time I was there. They now rake up to $5 per > pot, plus a $1 jackpot rake. They used to charge each player $6 every > half hour. > > - Bob T. > No Karma

A Man Beaten by Jacks New User nobody@fool.foo Sep 16, 2006, 2:39 PM Post #16 of 23(879 views) Shortcut Re: Am I the only one getting sick of online poker? (Not a bad beat whine) [In reply to] Can't Post On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 18:04:09 GMT, "James Hoffmann" <jhoffmannhome@juno.com> wrote: >Bob, thanks for the report on Lucky Chances,I agree that the play is much >looser and poorer in a B+M casino than online for a given limit, but how is >a $5+$1 drop better than $6 per half hour seat charge? That's pretty steep. >It's been awhile since I have played at Lucky Chances, so I forget if they >play 9 or 10 handed. If it is a 10 handed game, $120 per hour comes off the >table in seat charge ($108 if 9 handed). For the $6 drop to be equal, you >must play exactly 20 hands per hour. If you play more hands than that (and >that will be the case more often than not, especially with automatic >shufflers), more money will be coming off the table each hour that goes to >the casino. If you play 30 hands per hour, that is 50% more drop ($180 vs. >$120). Of course if the play is less than 20 hands per hour the drop would >be better than a seat charge in a 10 handed game. I haven't done the math on this, but what comes off the table isn't what is important, it is what you personally pay as a winning player. It still doesn't sound like that rake could be less than the seat charge, but I may be wrong. No Karma

"Tad Perry" New User tadperry@comcast.net Sep 16, 2006, 3:30 PM Post #17 of 23(879 views) Shortcut Re: Am I the only one getting sick of online poker? (Not a bad beat whine) [In reply to] Can't Post Sounds like you're a one-note player that doesn't know how to adapt to game conditions. You are in very juicy games, and yet you lose. The only way it makes sense is to admit that you're the one that needs to change things. tvp "JohnnyCoconuts" <43084389@recpoker.com> wrote in message news:1158393316$871145@recpoker.com... > > It's not the rigged argument, and it's not the BB argument. > > IMHO, online is almost to the point where it's getting too painful to play. No > matter what limit I've been trying lately (limit - Full Tilt), it's still > no-fold 'em. It's really getting to the point where there is no skill > involved. It's just "everybody in!!!!....wooo hoo". > > SAME hand, one person calls four bets with J-8 off, another with 4-7 off, > another with K-Q. One of the raisers had AA, the other had 88. Regardless of > whether they win or not, you can't put anyone on hand, and so it's just turned > into a game of who gets lucky (or doesn't get unlucky). Someone run the math > and see how often AA holds up against those four hands - whatever it is, it's > probably less than 50% - so odds say your AA is going to lose against that > trash. > > Another hand, on a board of 2-2-5-7-7 (three hearts) it's capped on each of the > flop, turn and river with three people in. One has J-Q, one has 9-10, one has > 3-4, not a heart in the group. These geniuses capped the a double paired and > flushed board with that crap???? I mean, it's just a joke. > > Either these are people with more money than sense, they're playing well below > where they should be and the money is meaningless to them, or they're all just > morons. I can't decide which. > > I'm not sure there's any way to fix it. It's a free country I guess, they can > play how they like, but, for me at least, it's getting close to being no fun at > all anymore. > > Am I the only one who feels this way? > > _______________________________________________________________ > * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com No Karma

"Bob" New User bob@synapse-cs.com Sep 16, 2006, 3:45 PM Post #18 of 23(879 views) Shortcut Re: Am I the only one getting sick of online poker? (Not a bad beat whine) [In reply to] Can't Post   James Hoffmann wrote: > Bob, thanks for the report on Lucky Chances,I agree that the play is much > looser and poorer in a B+M casino than online for a given limit, but how is > a $5+$1 drop better than $6 per half hour seat charge? That's pretty steep. > It's been awhile since I have played at Lucky Chances, so I forget if they > play 9 or 10 handed. If it is a 10 handed game, $120 per hour comes off the > table in seat charge ($108 if 9 handed). For the $6 drop to be equal, you > must play exactly 20 hands per hour. If you play more hands than that (and > that will be the case more often than not, especially with automatic > shufflers), more money will be coming off the table each hour that goes to > the casino. If you play 30 hands per hour, that is 50% more drop ($180 vs. > $120). Of course if the play is less than 20 hands per hour the drop would > be better than a seat charge in a 10 handed game. I play a pretty tight game, so I'm usually better off with a rake than a time charge. This was magnified last night because of the maniac at the table - he won a whole lot of pots in the process of losing hundreds of dollars. Let's see... I broke almost even for the evening even though I only won four pots in four hours. I paid $20 or so in rake instead of $48 in time charges. - Bob No Karma

pokergent New User 43081817@recpoker.com Sep 16, 2006, 5:04 PM Post #19 of 23(879 views) Shortcut Re: Am I the only one getting sick of online poker? (Not a bad beat whine) [In reply to] Can't Post   I agree online games and players are tougher. Probably because many people that use computers tend to me more analytical. Plus figure the the vast resources available for computer users to educate themselves online. Plus the odds calculating software and data bases of information available regarding the individual players styles of play. The average joe that walks of the street into a poker room is not quite so prepared. For many years the percentage of brick and mortar players that had even read a poker book was miniscule. Patience is a big factor also. The "waiting for a hand" portion of poker is severely diminished in online poker by the fact that you can play 8 tables at once. So now players dont have to have discipline of patience (which can be huge depending on the blind structure or antes). Therefore the players that want to be in action do not get punished as severely. I have played in top section games at the mirage and bellagio easier that some of the low limit online games. Probably because in the high limit games the players had deep pockets and the stakes seemed trivial to them, compared to low limit players grinding their way up the ladder. When I get my kids raised I am heading back to Scottsdale. Best spot in the country in my opinion. Worst place to play poker? Easy.........Las Vegas "it aint no fun when the BUNNY's got THE GUN" Romans 8:28 _______________________________________________________________ Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com No Karma

"Howard Beale" New User a1695@webnntp.invalid Sep 16, 2006, 6:34 PM Post #20 of 23(879 views) Shortcut Re: Am I the only one getting sick of online poker? (Not a bad beat whine) [In reply to] Can't Post On Sep 16 2006 3:04 PM, pokergent wrote: > When I get my kids raised I am heading back to Scottsdale. Best spot in the > country in my opinion. It's pretty nice here. I live in Fountain Hills which is like living in a vacation spot postcard. If you come for a visit let me know. HB ----  looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com No Karma

JohnnyCoconuts New User 43084389@recpoker.com Sep 16, 2006, 7:44 PM Post #21 of 23(879 views) Shortcut Re: Am I the only one getting sick of online poker? (Not a bad beat whine) [In reply to] Can't Post   I don't think I'm a "one-note" player, but it's probably at least partly true to say that maybe it's due to too many years of playing a tight game live, and obviously finding it hard to adjust to online and the "new style".  For those who asked, this was mostly 2/4 on FT, and a little bit at 3/6.  (One factor that probably helped was that it was 2 a.m., so probably had some well lubricated people playing.) For the person who suggested the limit SNGs, I have been playing those over at party and I'm cashing 48%, so not doing too bad there. But in the cash games, I guess I need to stop getting enamored with my KK, QQ etc., and start playing the suited 4-gappers. ;)  On Sep 16 2006 3:30 PM, Tad Perry wrote: > Sounds like you're a one-note player that doesn't know how to adapt to game > conditions. > You are in very juicy games, and yet you lose. The only way it makes sense > is to admit > that you're the one that needs to change things. > > tvp > _______________________________________________________________ Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com No Karma

"James Hoffmann" New User jhoffmannhome@juno.com Sep 16, 2006, 11:46 PM Post #22 of 23(879 views) Shortcut Re: Am I the only one getting sick of online poker? (Not a bad beat whine) [In reply to] Can't Post I agree, but the total amount of money that comes off the table probably should not be ignored. The players who are winning more pots have less money than they would would if they were paying time charge, which means the stacks are not as deep as they would be. For instance, imagine that you finally get the loose aggressive player heads up with the nuts, but you win $50 less because of the rake (i.e. he has won more pots so he has paid a greater percentage of the rake, so he has less money).. I'm just not sure how much of an impact this really has. Bottom line is that I could not argue with someone who wins an average of less than 2 hands per hour and claims they are personally better off with the $5+1 rake. However, if you average more than 2 wins per hour, it is probably costing you money. Perhaps for a player who is very "frugal" about their hand selection, this may be a better system, but it still seems to be an awfully big rake. The other argument that is hard to put a specific weight to is that some of the more "knowledgeable" players may go to a different casino because the rake is less there, thereby making the higher raked game easier to beat and perhaps more profitable in the long run despite the higher rake. . "A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nobody@fool.foo> wrote in message news:14hog2peh021ecjeio7m6gp7sbasdrnki8@4ax.com... > On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 18:04:09 GMT, "James Hoffmann" > <jhoffmannhome@juno.com> > wrote: > >>Bob, thanks for the report on Lucky Chances,I agree that the play is much >>looser and poorer in a B+M casino than online for a given limit, but how >>is >>a $5+$1 drop better than $6 per half hour seat charge? That's pretty >>steep. >>It's been awhile since I have played at Lucky Chances, so I forget if they >>play 9 or 10 handed. If it is a 10 handed game, $120 per hour comes off >>the >>table in seat charge ($108 if 9 handed). For the $6 drop to be equal, you >>must play exactly 20 hands per hour. If you play more hands than that >>(and >>that will be the case more often than not, especially with automatic >>shufflers), more money will be coming off the table each hour that goes to >>the casino. If you play 30 hands per hour, that is 50% more drop ($180 >>vs. >>$120). Of course if the play is less than 20 hands per hour the drop >>would >>be better than a seat charge in a 10 handed game. > > I haven't done the math on this, but what comes off the table isn't what > is > important, it is what you personally pay as a winning player. It still > doesn't > sound like that rake could be less than the seat charge, but I may be > wrong. No Karma

"Douglas Dunn" New User jack.dunn.ctr@mscrtc.ang.af.mil Sep 17, 2006, 2:24 AM Post #23 of 23(879 views) Shortcut Re: Am I the only one getting sick of online poker? (Not a bad beat whine) [In reply to] Can't Post Bob wrote: <cut> They have improved their rake structure since the last time I was there. They now rake up to $5 per pot, plus a $1 jackpot rake. They used to charge each player $6 every half hour. I'm not sure how slow that game plays, but I'd assume they have to get at least more then 10 hands a down. The time charge is a much better deal. Even if you are a rock and only win a pot every 3-4 downs, the extra money not being taken from the looser players that will be in play should make up the difference. The time charge is almost always the better deal. Doug No Karma

Home: Poker: rec.gambling.poker: