Internet Players in Live events.

jimmytheg · #1 10-25-04, 01:52 AM

You do realize that the 2003 World Series was Moneymaker's first live tournament right?

Defendant · #2 10-25-04, 03:00 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

GeoffM · #3 10-25-04, 08:31 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.

eddo31 · #4 10-25-04, 11:27 AM

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.

ChipFish · #5 10-25-04, 11:32 AM

I tend to do just fine in B&M...
I learned my game on-line.

GeoffM · #6 10-25-04, 11:34 AM

In a B&M, just take your time, concentrate on how the others are playing, eg how they bet, what they say, and adjust your mannerism accordingly.

johnbaker · #7 10-25-04, 05:54 PM

you do realize that he'd been playing live cash games with friends for over 3 years, right?

Tuff Luck · #8 10-25-04, 06:42 PM

Granted, there is a difference, but you got a point.

TajaUk · #9 10-25-04, 06:47 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.

bothecorgi · #10 10-25-04, 07:22 PM

I have only played online and I am sure I will be very nervous when, if, I play at a B&M.

Jackass_man · #11 10-26-04, 04:19 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.

eddo31 · #12 10-26-04, 04:28 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.

jimmytheg · #13 10-29-04, 12:54 AM

he also took 3rd in a pot limit tournament in august in tunica

johnbaker · #14 10-30-04, 03:26 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

Tuff Luck · #15 10-30-04, 12:47 PM

Yea, just because he didn't do so hot at this years WSOP doesn't mean he's a one hit wonder.

johnbaker · #16 10-25-04, 08:27 PM

yeah there is, he probably had a lot of online experience in tournaments, so he could adapt to live tournaments pretty easily thanks to his experience in live cash games

-jB

eddo31 · #17 10-25-04, 09:13 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.