Differences Between Live and Online Poker - AVP Strategy
AVP resident pro Benton Blakeman discusses some of the crucial differences between live and online poker.
With the excitement surrounding regulated and legalized online poker sites opening or about to open for Las Vegas, I'd like to take some time to write about the differences between live and online cash games.
I should point out that I really enjoy both live and online poker, and I wouldn't want to play only one or the other for a living. I really don't love going to the casino every day, waiting on waiting lists for a seat, and seeing only 30 or 40 hands an hour. I also don't love the idea of sitting in front of the computer every single day, not getting to go to the casino to shuffle chips and converse with other characters at the tables. However, for the last two years I've had no choice but to play exclusively at the casino. Now, with online poker in Nevada, we players have choices and can play both live in the casinos and on the virtual felts!
For me, about an 75% online to 25% live mix is the correct way to go. This is partly due to family obligations and the fact that I love to be home with my two-year-old. Financially, playing online 100% of the time would be best for me, as my hourly rate online when seeing about 500 hands per hour is historically much better than playing live poker and seeing 40 hands per hour, but for sanity's sake, I need to play some live poker. I think the bottom line is that live games are softer in general, but with the increased number of hands per hour, lower rake, and less overhead (tokes, etc.), online poker is more profitable.
In a vacuum, I think online players are more fundamentally sound than live players, which can, unfortunately, lead to tougher games. One of the main reasons I believe this to be true is because, as a whole, online players understand the concept of balancing their ranges better than live players do.
For those that aren't familiar with this concept, balancing has to do with varying your play. A player who is capable of three-betting preflop with A-A, K-K, Q-Q, or A-K, but also can three-bet hands like K-5 suited, 8-7 off-suit, J-7 suited, etc., is going to be much more balanced when he three-bets preflop than a player who only three-bets A-A, K-K, Q-Q, and A-K. Which player would you rather play against? I know I would be much happier having the player who three-bets only the premiums to my left than a player who three-bets a more balanced range, which leaves me guessing at the strength of his hand all the time.
In live, low-limit no-limit hold’em games, I think keeping a balanced range isn't as important as it is online. The reason I believe this to be the case is that I often see players three-bet only the very top of their ranges, yet they still get called by opponents with hands that play terrible against big pairs (for instance, hands that can flop top pair, top kicker and lose a lot of money to an overpair). I think this is partially because the live game is so slow that people hate folding semi-decent hands and would rather just call a three-bet and see a flop. It's much easier to fold and move on when playing online because the hands come out so much faster, and it's very likely another playable hand will be right around the corner.
Another difference between online and live is the frequency of bluffs, and also their effectiveness. I feel like online players bluff/pick off bluffs better than live players. I think the main reason for this is that online players have fewer references to go on when trying to spot a bluff, but their thinking is very in-depth about the ones that they do pick up on. With a lack of physical history and live tells present, online players need to be extra careful about which spots they decide to bluff.
I think that when online players bluff, they tend to pick better spots where they can tell a believable story, which in essence is exactly what a bluff should be. I think live players tend to just bluff because they feel like they need to every now and again, but they don't take into account enough regarding the texture of the board or their opponents tendencies to call down. When it comes to picking off bluffs, online players tend to rely more on betting patterns, which are very reliable, as well as the story their opponent is telling.
Live players often seem to call to "keep people honest." You don't know how many times I've heard at the table: "This kids an Internet player, and all they do is bluff, so I just gotta call him down when I make a pair." That’s not the definition of a "hero call," that’s actually a recipe to donate money to the "Internet kid." A hero call, in my opinion, is when a player has thought through a hand in its entirety, calculated a feasible range of hands for his opponents, and decides to call based on the info he has gathered, not just "to keep him honest."
The next point I'll touch on is value-betting. I think that online players are much better at getting max value out of hands. Online players have learned the art of the thin river value-bet. An instance of this is having top pair, good kicker on a flop in which your opponent can also have top pair and be outkicked. Your opponent calls your turn bet and the river completes a backdoor-straight draw. After your opponent checks, you should be value-betting here in most cases. Internet players have come to master this, yet I still see people checking back hands that make me cringe in live poker, hands that any competent Internet player would be value-betting even at small stakes like $0.50-$1 no-limit hold’em.
Live players miss this bet far too often, meaning they aren't getting nearly the maximum value that their hand affords them. The reverse is that Internet players often "Value Town" themselves by betting too thin for value on the river. "Value-Towning" is simply betting the worst hand on the river for thin value, rather than checking and showing down the hand for free, and getting called by a slightly better hand. I see this as a good thing overall though, because it means that the player who "took himself to Value Town" understands the true value there is in the thin river value-bet, and over a long period of time will see a higher win rate because of it.
Another difference between live and online that players often overlook is bet-sizing. I think Internet players size their bets in a better way to both maximize profits and disguise the strength of their hands. This may be partly due to the "bet pot" button online, as well as the size of the pot always being displayed on the center of the table. Still, this isn't an excuse for bad bet-sizing in live games.
A good player always should know approximately what is in the middle. Far too often I see a $20 raise preflop, three callers ($80 pot), a $50 flop bet — which is fine with one caller — ($180 pot), a $70 turn bet (ummmm ... OK, $320 pot now), then a $75 river bet. OK, I'll agree there are times when this line is appropriate, but in general this isn't good bet-sizing. Would you bet this way with a bluff to make it cheaper? Maybe. Would you bet this small with the nuts? I doubt it. This takes us almost full circle from where we started — balancing our range — to now balancing our bets. If you can't learn to balance your bets, then good players will pick you apart. I think this is one of the huge differences between online and live players, and also a big difference that separates small winners from big winners.
Don't mistake my glorification of online players throughout this article as a sign that I think all live players are bad. There are many live players who can do all of these things that I wrote about, and do them well if not better than many good Internet players. There also are many very bad Internet players, which is why the game is still very profitable if you're willing to put in the volume and game-select well. I'm speaking through my experience as a whole when I make these generalizations. Take them all for what they are worth — my opinion, nothing more, nothing less.
Also keep in mind that when talking about live games I am basing this on many hours at mostly $2-$5 no-limit hold’em, but I think it holds true for some $5-$10 hold’em games, and almost all $1-$2 hold’em games, I'd imagine. When you start talking about live $10-$20 hold’em and above, many of those players play very well and practice the concepts that I wrote about in this article.
This discussion continues in our AVP Forum. Please click HERE to join in and read more!
Damn, dude...you packed a ton of info in compact space. Well done! I got a question, about not getting max value. I'm somewhat guilty of this. Live game example. Me in posistion -- with what I believe is best hand...non nuts -- bet all streets, except I check river. Mostly from fear of getting raised all in. Figuring the V was calling with something, or only a better hand calls, etc. I do this quite often and seems like I leave a lot of $ in V's stacks that coulda been mine. My question, do you think that long term it's better to bet, reevaluate/fold to a reraise,shove? Basically, does giving the V more value for his hands make up for the value I get? Never crunched the numbers.
@RazCue
Essentially you need to evaluate not only his river range, but his river "calling range". That just means that if you assess that you have the best hand 95% of the time, and are correct in that assessment, then how often ate you getting called. Of course the 5% that you're beat you're getting called. If that's the only times you ever get called then you're correct to check it back. If you get called 10% of the time you bet then your bet is a break even proposition. But of he has a hand like top pair or second pair and you figure to get called 40% of the time, and you're only beat 5%, then it's a "must bet!"
As far as worrying about getting check raised or raised on the river, don't give it a second thought. If you do, your hand likely isn't as good as you thought. People just don't bluff raise river or value raise worse often enough for it to matter. The value you miss by not betting is far greater than what you would miss by getting bluffed. Bet your hand!
@BentonBlakeman
Think about how many times in low level NL games a raise or check raise on the river was not the near nuts. One of my biggest leaks I'm working on is exactly this - how often are you good on the river when facing a raise. I am trying a few check raise bluffs on the river against predictable opponents and have been successful. I think low stakes live NL players see the river raise as the nuts and will fold a lot of hands as long as I have a good image. This tells me their river raise range is also narrow.
Benton - what is your thoughts on bluff raising the right opponent in live low stakes? Thanks
Thanks, Benton! I'll incorporate it!
@lopez
Think about how many times in low level NL games a raise or check raise on the river was not the near nuts. One of my biggest leaks I'm working on is exactly this - how often are you good on the river when facing a raise. I am trying a few check raise bluffs on the river against predictable opponents and have been successful. I think low stakes live NL players see the river raise as the nuts and will fold a lot of hands as long as I have a good image. This tells me their river raise range is also narrow.
Benton - what is your thoughts on bluff raising the right opponent in live low stakes? Thanks[/quote]
Exactly my point! It's like always the nuts or near nuts from the majority of players. That's why I never worry about getting check raised bc if I'm value betting thinly and get check raised I just happened to be wrong in my read on my opponents range and will take note and adjust next time. Against a select few opponents I won't go for thin value bc I know they are capable of bluff raising when they think I'm betting light.
To answer your question- I think bluff raising the river is so awesome but needs to be done carefully. Against the right opponent it's money in the bank. Against station-y ones tho it can be costly. The problem with a river bluff is that your opponent has a binary decision of calling or folding. They don't have to fear future streets of aggression. They have a finite amount that it will cost them to see a showdown so they are more prone to call. So, bluffing the river is great and highly profitable, if and only if you choose the correct opponent to employ this powerful play against.
Great article, Benton! Thank you for sharing.
@noWasabi808
No problem! Glad you enjoyed it and hopefully it helps.
This was a pretty sweet article. It was also spot on - on just about every point and comparison. Missing value bets live is sometimes completely cringe-worthy, and in my opinion is the best way to immediately judge someone's skill.
Razcue - I would advise you to ALWAYS bet the river if you think you have a value hand AND someone can have a second best hand to call. Do not fear the check/jam on the river. As others have said it's literally always the nuts. But, I think it's still better to attempt to go for value, then get check/jammed and re-evaluate everything. What you thought was a winning value hand, probably isn't now that a guy has check jammed the river. Also, I'm a huge fan of betting really small on the river when I know the other guy is going to be super weak and I still want a call. Even when you bet like 15-20% of pot, and you think you invite a river check/raise just because of absurd sizing, that's still not the case. When someone doesn't believe you they will call and look you up; they won't make a big move, usually
.
Lopez - I think that's an awesome addition to your game. Just realize how high variance of a play it is, and that a couple times it might just not work. I see a lot of people just still call even when they know they're beat. But, have this in your play-book, and do it on obvious flush river, or obvious river pairs the board rivers - you're gonna be printing money.