What online stakes is easiest to crush?

Out of curiosity, can you post your graph? You seem like a genuinely delusional person. But I'm unsure to what extent mental illness is incompatible with poker ability.

I am in the USA I don't play on sites where I could have a graph. Ignition is the worst poker site I've ever played on in my life. I have actually proved it to themselves that their site was not dealing as randomly as it could be. It was actually bovada that I proved it on and guess what they did? They banned me for Life. So I cannot play on bovada because I proved they weren't dealing randomly as they should be. And I get it like the first person who comes up with a radical idea he always seems crazy so I understand. I'm not trying to convince you of anything that I already know it's completely up to you. But why don't you give me some of the reasons why you think the win rates are way lower online than they are live

Me, there's some corollary of Godwin's Law, which states that any thread on 2+2/PLO forum will devolve into personal attacks eventually. Happy to name it Wazz's Law

Well if you carefully read the post he's the only one attacking me. I would never attack somebody for their views. I'm just telling you my side of the coin but I don't personally attack anybody. But I understand my ideas might be a little radical and most people can't deal with that they have to resort to name calling and personal attacks and things like that. I'm just trying to help somebody else and trying to explain to him that it doesn't really matter what state you're going to play obviously as you move up the players are a little better but it just isn't going to matter because when is basically have the same win rate at all the limits. Which is another amazing thing about online poker. You're a three big blind per 100 hand winner and then you move up and magically you stay at a three big blind per 100 hands. It's the most incredible thing you've ever witnessed

I carefully read your posts, and saw this:

So I'm not surprised you're being attacked, and I'm not gonna rush to defend you

Yes you don't need to defend me. I don't need defending. I understand when somebody has a point of view that's different than the norm he's going to be ridiculed by most people. That's just the way it goes. But as I'm stating I am not saying any poker site is rigged. I don't believe they rig anything. But they are in it to make money, and the way they make money the most is by people playing. So if winners just keep crushing at high rates losers will keep losing at high rates and the games will dry up everybody that knows anything about poker knows this. So what is the best way to keep the games going? Make sure the winners win rates are lower. And magically they are lower online much lower online than they would be live. I mean if they were a little bit lower I could understand why due to pots being smaller, smaller raises pre-flop things like this. But they are dramatically lower online and most of the people you play stink. They stink just as bad as they do live. I mean if you take the average person playing 1-2 live that same guy is probably playing 100 no limit online or maybe 50 no limit online. So the live player is terrible and you're able to win 30 or $40 an hour vs them, but when they get online you can only beat them for three big blinds per 100 hands. It makes zero sense

If you were tasked with steelmanning your own argument (ie looking for the flaws in your argument in order to work out just how valid the argument is) how would you go about doing so?

Look I understand that is not something everybody is going to believe. I understand most people want to believe that sites are dealing 100% randomly. But I give you a task, email any site and ask him if they deal 100% randomly. You're going to get an answer back that's going to say something like I random number generator has been tested and I shuffle and I deal a fair. They never write back and say yes we deal 100% randomly it's just not a term they use. They always say it's fair. Well as I said if you're supposed to hit a flush draw 35% of the time but everybody hits it 45% of the time then that's fair. As long as everything is happening the same to everybody then that's technically Fair, but I ask you would that be random? And I understand what you're saying you would look at a stat program and I get it but some people's stats very widely and you guys always chalk that up to variance all standard deviation or something. I mean couldn't it be chalked up to the fact that maybe the site's not dealing is randomly as they tell you they are, of which they never actually tell you they are they just say it's fair. So I understand it's a controversial subject and I understand unless somebody can give definitive proof in numbers nobody's ever going to believe it. but I also tell you there's no way to give definitive proof and numbers because whatever sample size you have they always say it's too small. If somebody had 10 million hands they would still say it's too small

And this is why we don't argue with crazy people. Asked to identify any potential flaws in your argument, and you just go full steam ahead with why you're right even though you can't prove it and everyone else says you're wrong.

I mean, if you seriously can't think of any potential reason why online poker would be harder than live poker, I don't think there's much hope for you.

I'm not saying I am right. I'm telling you with my experience in the information I've gathered from sites this is my opinion. I'm not saying it's right or I guarantee you that this is what every site does. If I had to make an assumption I would say some sites a bigger offenders than others. But I'm not waving any flag saying yes I'm 100% right and you guys are wrong. I'm just saying to you these are the logical reasons to me why a win is win rate would be lower online playing basically against the same fools that you would play in a live game. They're no better. I mean as a whole I go maybe as a whole for the entire player pool they're slightly better than as a whole for the entire life playing pool. But in my opinion it's such a small amount that it really shouldn't matter that much over time. But as I said I understand when rates are going to be smaller just due to the fact that the pots are smaller in online games. Most people don't open with a min raise at live poker. So if you would have figured that out what would you say would be the difference in win rate due to the pot being about half the size? Well I would say probably your win rate might be half as big but it isn't. I mean if you are hitting three big blinds per 100 hands online you're considered crushing, so if you were playing one table of 100 PLO you would be making less than $3 per hour. If you were playing one table of 200 PLO you would be making less than $6 per hour but if you played those same people live you might potentially make 40 to $60 an hour. What's the explanation?

I realize this is likely an exercise in futility, but I'll try anyway. Online, the games play about 3 times faster and you can multitable. That means that, if all else were equal, you could make a lot more money playing online at the same stakes as live. A person who might make $15/hr playing 1/2 live could easily make $100/hr playing 4 tables of 1/2 online. But this is exactly why all things aren't equal! The ability to make a much higher hourly rate online draws in more and more pros. A 1/2 live table is almost all recreational players, precisely because you can't make enough money at those stakes to make it worthwhile. But online, you could (if all else were equal), so you have pros playing 1/2. But when the table becomes all pros except for 1-2 fish, win rates drop dramatically. On the other side of the coin, fish notice that they're losing much faster online at the same stakes, for exactly this reason. So the fish who normally plays 1/2 live and loses about 30-50 an hour sees that he's losing 200 an hour at the same stakes online, so he drops down to playing much lower stakes. So now the 1/2 online games are even tougher. It's a vicious cycle.

That's the major reason. Other reasons include:

1) Foreign players. In some countries, $10/hr is a great salary, so even the microstakes are infested with grinders from Uzbekistan or wherever.
2) Online poker is tougher to get into. You have to actively seek it out. In a casino, you'll find guys who barely know how to play who wandered over from the craps table after a big win. I once played against a guy who literally did not know how to play--every time the dealer pointed to him and said the action was on him, he'd put out a bet, because he figured that's what he was supposed to do now. He had no idea that he didn't have to bet. You won't get that online. Live poker also has lots of drunk players, tourists just looking to have fun, etc.
3) Live poker is very slow, leading to boredom tilt, with people playing crappy hands just because they've been card dead for an hour. Online, you can be binge watching Netflix in the background so you don't notice that you haven't gotten a playable hand in five orbits.

The fact that you can't come up with any of these explanations yourself is baffling.

I didn't say I've never played PLO25. I have played many stakes and I have no issue playing lower stakes if I feel like it. I think that the pool is weaker in lower stakes yes, but mostly because the stronger players are not as strong. Also the play seems more logical when you move up.

Of course it's only a guess, but I'm saying that 10bb/100 is a lot, probably more than most people realise.

Any thread where people are invited to talk about what stakes they play and what their winrate is will always be infested with bragging and ego attacks pretty much out the gate:shocked:

You'll find that you can have more confidence in your own positions if you can pretend you're wrong and work out why. That's the value of steelmanning. If you're right, then you've nothing to lose by trying to tear down your own arguments. You've only got something to lose if you might be right. The worst thing that can happen is you find out that you were wrong, and you have the opportunity to improve your positions. Capish?

So, I'll ask again. If you were to try to construct arguments against your position, what might they be?

He's not crazy, he's just wrong / misinformed, and I'd wager that I could root out similarly wrong or misinformed positions on your part if we sat and chatted for a while. No one is helped by you calling him crazy. We all need to be given a chance to improve our positions. He's not being an a$$hole, so give him some grace.

I already mentioned the things that I believe will bring the win rate down a little bit. I just don't know what would bring the win rates down as much as they are down. Because they're not even close to what a live game would be. You keep mentioning grinders online people get bored live. I'm saying great people get bored online and play Garbage I consistently lose to garbage hands day in and day out. The grinders online are not good players overall because they're mostly playing for rake back. So I would be lost to what other thing would cause the wind rate to drop that low

What would u say I am wrong about?
1. Win rates being lower online?
2. Players being just as bad online as live?

I'm asking you to poke holes in your own argument. Just as a theoretical exercise.

I have been doing that for years. I can't think of any other reasons for such a huge drop in win rate. I certainly don't think most of the players I play against from 50-200 PLO are very good. They definitely don't seem much better than any live players I play with. As I said pots being smaller on average would contribute to smaller win rates but it shouldn't be 1/10th of live. So I guess I am stumped.

Think bigger. Get imaginative.

And btw that's how you do science, and life in general. Find the weak points in your position so you can plug them. Find the crazy queen sacrifice your opponent might make in chess, or a defensive resource they can find. Politicians preparing for a debate, lawyers prepping their arguments. A good scientist comes up with a theory and instead of trying to prove it, they try to disprove it.

So try to disprove your own argument. Imagine what it is we might see or know that you don't.

Well this is my point. I don't think you guys know or see something that I don't. I think you guys just believe that this is just what poker is. And I'm saying I don't believe that this is what poker is. I always said if I became a famous well-known poker player I was going to play some guy heads up online for a like 200 heads up sit n goes then I was going to play the same guy for 200 games live under the same blind structure same chip level and everything and then record the results. And I would be willing to lay a massive sum of money that exact same guy would have better results online. I've said this for years. And years ago whether you believe me or not we used to have a live game every week for years with the same guys. During the time of covid we had a home game going at PokerStars online. We always kept a point race to reward people that had the highest point totals at the end of say 13 weeks. So we did this on PokerStars and just like clockwork you know the guys that had the biggest point totals? They will the guys that mostly lost in our live game. That was where I said I think the things I'm believing are actually true that they make the game more even online. Now I'm saying how do they do this? I have no idea but that was like some of the proof I needed to say most of the guys that got killed in our live game weekly somehow magically did better online. Was just crazy

PLOhMyGod wrote an extremely lengthy post outlining a multitude of reasons why winrates are higher live than online.

The fact that jungmit isn't able to copy and paste what PLOhMyGod already wrote is proof enough that he lacks critical thinking abilities, open-mindedness, and mental stability.

Based on his rambling and conspiracy-oriented thinking, I would not he surprised if he has actual mental illnesses that can be clinically diagnosed.

It is a waste of time to engage him further! His arguments have been debunked. He is unwilling or unable to constructively engage on this topic.

Have you ever been to a psychiatrist before? Regardless of whether or not you agree, what did they diagnose you with?

Not sure why this sounds crazy ? Am I the first guy to have a theory that casinos or online gaming sites could be doing things to make more money?
Remember the party poker fast fold poker thing? One guy was like I get less buttons then I should. They called him crazy. Come to find out they were giving the all the biggest winners less buttons.