> 5a. Live poker as AP
>
> I'm not really a vp player but I do enjoy reading this
> board.
> I was wondering if any of you ap players have played much
> live poker?
> I have a regular job but poker is my hobby and I have been
> playing profitability for about four years now. I play 1-2,
> 2-5 no limit holdem (NLH). I used to play both live and on
> the internet until the poker sites got shut down.
> You can make some money playing poker if you study and are
> serious about the game.
> I just wanted to find out the consensus of the vp player
> regarding live poker.
>
I play a lot of live poker at the same levels as you, occ. going up a level to 5-10 no limit. Both live poker and VP are recreational for me, but like anyone, I enjoy having good outcomes, and like most on this board, I understand that my disciplined application of a reasonable level of skill is necessary to those good outcomes.
In my experience, one can't consider live poker as an advantage-play game, which in my definition, is one where the player has a mathematical expectation, with correct play, of long-term success at a theoretically predictable rate and with a theoretically predicatable risk -- and IMPORTANTLY, it doesn't matter who else is playing. Blackjack is such a game, where a skilled card counter will have a predictable edge against the house, even if the table is full of other card counters who are even more skilled -- and the same goes with video poker, if one plays correctly and selects games with a positive EV - having other more-skilled players (eg, they know all their penalty card plays, for example) at the same bank of machines doesn't change your own EV.
Somewhat obviously, success at live poker requires skill (and the ubiquitous element of luck), but also is heavily dependent (long-term, thus reducing the element of chance) on the player's skill level relative to the skill level of his/her opponents.
If one is sufficiently honest with oneself as to one's own skill level, and if one is sufficiently adept at assessing the skill level of those against whom one plays, then one can avoid negative-expectation situations, assuming one has the discipline NOT to play in such situations (not always easy, when you came to the poker room to play poker today).
But if you assess your own skills at a higher level than is correct (a very common fault), or assess opponent's skills at a lower level than is correct, or do not exercise the discipline to avoid games where the opposition is superior, or do not exercise the discipline to play as skillfully as you can at all times, then one will have difficulty succeeding in live poker.
I think it is much easier to make correct plays and exercise the discipline not to play or bet based on feelings or hunches when playing VP or blackjack. In live poker, I personally find it more difficult to exercise full discipline in correctly estimating whether I am at a good game (ie, weaker opponents relative to my own skills) and avoiding that game if I'm not, and also occasionally, in the process of "mixing up" my play, sometimes find I play weaker hands with inappropriate frequency -- so my live poker experience is pretty much break-even so far. In particular, you usually need to assess the likelihood of your opponent having a strong hand vs a weak hand or a bluff, and I think that I occasionally do not make that assessment as well as I should, perhaps ignoring key data or just "hoping" - and this happens both with under- and over-assessment of the opponent's strength.
On the days when I am reasonably objective and observatnt and play my best game, I do well, and when I let myself slip below that level, I have the outcome I might well expect.
With all these considerations, one can decide whether to add live poker to their "gambling" activities as a positive EV game, and with the added advantage of having no fear of being "barred" for skillful play.
--BG
=================
