Absolutely deflating

I'm really at a loss for words. I was telling Fasso I should hook myself up to shock therapy and if I ever want to play online again it would send 10,000 volts through my body.

I have continued to have poor sessions online where I pick up a big hand, lose a ton of money and then have to fight my way back to break even or just below. Last night/this morning was no different, only this time I didn't recoup my losses nearly enough as I have in the past. And these were just brutal hands. I'm starting to slip back into my R.A.I.S.E. mentality again, only now it's that I'm getting cooler hands instead of getting sucked out on. Don't be surprised if I steer clear of online poker again.

Here is just a sample of what I went through in the past 24 hours playing NLHE:

AQo raise on button with BB calling. Flop is A-Q-5 rainbow. He bets, I raise, he pushes I call. 5-5.

I have a guy to my right who raises EVERY hand that isn't raised ahead of him, and I mean EVERY hand. He's to my right, which is good, and I fold my blinds to him, even folding A-8 once, because I just wanted to wait him out. Finally I get KK. He does his standard raise, I reraise, he pushes and I call: AA. Oh, by the way, this was 4-handed. FOUR-HANDED!!!

I have AA UTG, I raise 3.5X with one caller in the blinds. flop comes A-5-4 rainbow. He bets into me, I raise, he pushes, I call: 2-3. I couldn't make this up if I tried.

I kept rallying to get almost all of my buy-in back and then these hands came up to take it all away again. I just don't know if I have the heart to sit down to try to claw my way back again. I keep having to do this and I really don't think it's the way I'm playing. I'm not playing too many hands, I'm not playing too few hands. I'm just getting coolered and it's like a punch to the gut. When that idiot had AA and I had KK that was it. I can't rely on variance, because I just plain suck lately.

I am taking a break, and it's not a monumental break that is proclaimed by the headline: I AM DONE! I just need to step back from Full Tilt. I have to admit, I have NEVER lost on any other site, EVER. But I have never won on Full Tilt. EVER. And it's not really the limits I'm playing that is bothering me, it's the failing in competition that hurts the most. But if I lose $10 I won't feel THAT bad so ...

... when I return it will be purely microlimits. If anyone catches me playing at limits higher than the lowest limit available in that game, I will transfer $5 to you on the spot. You can count on it. All of my normal limits and higher limits will be played soley LIVE, which is where I have my most success. No more online limits above the minimum for me.

-- Chris

Comments

[engstrok]

Those are threre pretty great coolers - Helmuth would have done his lame High Stakes Poker messy shove all-in on all three.

I'm going to look for you every single time I'm on FT now. It's pretty much a free AIPS entry ;)

[Erwin Blonk]

It might seem like a strange way to look at it but think it of it this way: what bothers you less, losing live or online. I ask it like that because winning is fun no matter where but losing tells you more.
I´d say, play online (if you feel like it) for pocket change and keep your real bankroll for live, certainly now poker in Florida is better than it was.

[AnalScott from Michigan]

ok Chris, I'll take you up on that. Do you want to transfer the $5.00 to me now or later? It's only a matter of time my friend, you'll be back when you get bored with the micro.

[AnalScott from Michigan]

ok Chris, I'll take you up on that. Do you want to transfer the $5.00 to me now or later? It's only a matter of time my friend, you'll be back when you get bored with the micro.

[Chris Cosenza]

Yes, Erwin, you are correct. I enjoy myself when I play LIVE, and online I always feel like I'm going to have a bad session. I will never be convinced that the RCGs are natural. NEVER.

[AnalScott from Michigan]

ok Chris, I'll take you up on that. Do you want to transfer the $5.00 to me now or later? It's only a matter of time my friend, you'll be back when you get bored with the micro.

[loser64]

I am glad I am not the only that cannot win in cash games online. I stick to tourney's and the occasional sit n go.

[Chris Cosenza]

The thing is, I used to win ALL OF THE TIME, but never on FTP. And these are some pretty cold hands. I am patient, and don't get rewarded. I am aggressive and get played back at. I can't win anymore. It's microlimits and AIPS for me, and that's it online. When I went to Vegas, I won nearly $800 in NLHE. And I haven't had a losing cash game live session in months. Online is a whole other animal for me lately. It's a load off my mind now knowing I have this failsafe of microlimit enforcement.

[Howard]

Why not switch to another site then? If FTP has been the bugaboo to your cash game online, switch to another site still operating and taking US customers and see if that straightens out your results.

[Clever Moniker]

Care to re-evaluate your stance on 'running it twice' now?

I know this is online & you can't do it, but these scenarios are exactly why people do it. You would have (most likely) not been felted in these scenarios.

[bitguru]

Wow, most of those were pretty brutal.

I dunno about the AQo/A-Q-5/55 one, though. There are three hands that beat you there. I would have to think twice about calling all-in unless my stack was fairly low. The problem, of course, is that there are donkeys who raise all-in with top-pair-no-kicker and you don't want to turn down the opportunity to felt them.

What about playing STTs instead of ring games? I've found it's a good way to lower my variance, yet it's still possible to quadruple the buy in.

You may still lose all your chips to a suckout, but then you just plonk down another $24+2 (or whatever buy-in you choose) for another STT. You haven't lost your hundred or two.

(That said, I failed to cash in four consecutive STTs yesterday, then made back by buy-ins with just a few hands at a PL Omaha Hi ring game.)

[Actinolite]

God those are brutal. And the worse thing is you are going broke with every single one of those hands.

I've played NLHE on FTP once, never again. I play on another site and occasionaly live and the amount of huge hand vs huge hand you see on FTP is just sick.

I know what people think of conspiracy theories but it wouldn't take much to tweak your sites decks just enough to ensure a slightly above average frequency of big hand vs big hand. And think of the extra rake that would generate over time. I mean if casinos can operate with a 1% edge, surely an online poker site can. And no-one would ever pick up on it, or would we..?

[Chris Cosenza]

Again, I don't want to start the whole "rigged RCG" thread again, though it would be good for our blog hits ;-). But even Fasso now is on board, telling me the other day that he feels "scenarios" are rigged to occur on FTP, and they occur WAY more often on there. I have played as many hands on FTP as I had on PR and Pacific, and I know I'm not getting worse, so how is it that these sites are so different in my results? Sick.

[Michael Paul]

When I went through my massive "I can't handle the suck out" stretch a while ago, I was losing to absolutely sick hands. Three times in a month I flopped the nut flush and lost twice to quads and once to a boat. it was just insane. On another hand (playing $.10/$.25 NLHE) I got AA and opened the pot for like 15 bucks just so I wouldn't lose. Of course, I got called by QQ and the flop brought a Q so I even lost that one.

I went to Vegas, played live, won, and went home. I promptly lost the rest of my money on FT in slightly better but still sick fashion. I waited for a few weeks and decided I still liked to play online since I don't have as much time to play live with my two children. So, I deposited some money onto Stars. I've been on Stars for about a month now and to be honest, I haven't really seen the sick beats like I was seeing on FT. I've almost tripled my initial buy in and I still get sucked out on, but not in the same fashion. It may just be my perception and I certainly don't have enough hours to be objective but I'm not afraid of the suck out quite like I was before.

I just hear so much about FT but for the time being, I'm sticking with stars. Plus, they have even lower limits to mess around with!

Michael

[Gary]

Chris,

Micro Limits are not that bad. I currently play 01/.02 NL and .02/.04 limit on pokerstars.

A lot people think about it is only .20 raise in NL. if you think about it it is the same as $20 in $1/$2. just people use it for an excuse. Keep the same book keeping you do to see if you are making a profit or not.

to me I like it becuase I cant really lose any money. with how convenint online poker is it can get expensive quickly.

Seeing how upset you get when you have a losing sessions I personally think you are playing too expensive. NOt becuase you cant afford it, but your emotions go out of control.

Remember if you arent enjoying it, then it effects your poker playing ability. So playing the micro-limits might be your ticket.

[Short-Stacked Shamus]

Gary's got a point. You don't mention dollar amounts here, though I have to believe the size of the hit mattered to you. Enough to want to rethink things, anyway.

Gotta keep it fun. (Whatever it takes to make that happen.)

[ChicagoMike]

Hey buddy,

I think you need to take a Saturday off of poker and go hit a few garage sales to find yourself a cheap PC and get off the mac paltform and on to a bunch more sites.

(Brag coming) - I can track my on line balances back to my excel records and I am a much bigger winner on sites like UB (100 into over 400 playing .10/.25 NHLE) PlayersOnly (200 to over 800 playing .25/.50 NLHE) I think Blaz is cleaning up over on Cake as well.

New accounts will get you sign up bonuses, rake back etc. Plus, and I think the key for you, gives you OPTIONS. If I paly a SnG on FTP it's because I want to, not because it's the only place I can do it.

Remember, good players take more bad beats because our money is always going in better than the average guy.

While I was typing this I was 3 tabling on PlayersOnly and the same idiot stacked me twice in a .25/.50 game calling my raises of 2.50 and 2.75 with 9-10 and Q-7 and my KK was no good either time, but you just gotta tell yourself that I'll take KK vs 9-10 and KK vs Q7 every stinkin day of the week as hands like that make us longterm winners.

Keep your chin up, things will turn.

Cheers

[daedalus]

Major Coolers!

Statisticians would call you the "5 Sigma boy" because you are definitely way out on the bell curve of getting shafted by the RCG.

My recommendation: Bodog ;-)

[Chris Cosenza]

Guys, I really appreciate the comments and support. Thank you so very much. I'd like to address the comments about the limits I play. For the record, the AA-KK hand came in a $.25-.50 table, the AQ-55 hand came in a $10 buy-in table and the last hand came at a $.25-.50 table as well. These are by no means out of my limits. The most I could have lost there (if I didn't win any back) would be $110, and that's just not going to affect me at all. I've lost that at Derby Lane, in the home game and in Foxwoods without even batting an eye. It's nothing. In fact I'm more comfortable playing $1-2 or $2-5 live than I am playing these micro limits online. It is just a sour feeling because now, on top of the bad beats I'm getting dealt coolers. I mean, a guy raising every pot, I wait for KK and he has AA? I flop top two when I'm in the SB and the BB calls with 55 and hits a set? Give me a break. Which is what I am taking. 8-) But I'm still playing plenty of poker. I have a home game Friday night, and the big Poker Weekend at Derby the following week. And I can't wait!!!

[Mark]

Sometimes that just happens. You just tend to remember them more than the ones you win. I play FTP all the time and never see that many ridiculous situations...but regardless, sometimes "it's poker" is all you can say.

[Erwin Blonk]

"I have a home game Friday night, and the big Poker Weekend at Derby the following week. And I can't wait!!!"

QED

[Chris Cosenza]

Not sure what that means Erwin, but coming from you I can only assume it's something IT.

Mark: You have to admit that was a pretty incredible streak of cold decks, no? I can't say "It's poker" this time.

[Erwin Blonk]

:D
Copied from Wikipedia:

Q.E.D. is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase "quod erat demonstrandum" (literally, "which was to be demonstrated", and figuratively, "I rest my case").

It´s my Inner Generic Nerd that came up with it but my Inner IT Nerd likes it.

[Hogwarts]

Chris, There are going to be wild swings when you are cold decked and when you hit your hands over and over. Your Sept. 5th blog was all about a very hot run of hands you hit on FTP. It should all average out over time, but I'm sure the manner in which you lost these hands is the most painful part. It's human nature to remember the bad beats more than the suckouts and lucky flops. If you believe FTP is the problem, then plop down $500 and get a non-Mac laptop and try those other sites mentioned.

[st]

QED=Quod Erat Demonstrandum (it is demonstrated/"I rest my case")

Traditional last line of a successful (usually mathematical/geometrical) proof. In this case, presumably, referring to his earlier comment that you should just play live, considering the renewing options in FL.

[Chris Cosenza]

Ah, ok, thanks on the QED. I speak Italian, not Latin. LOL!

Hogwarts: Yes, thanks for reminding me of that. Of course that was just a case of hitting flops and winning pots with normal hands. These examples I have were much more extreme, and if I need to win little normal pots and lose massive cooler pots to balance out variance I say no thanks. I have been playing on another site and winning so I will let you know if I get cold decked there. Currently I have increased that bankroll by 50% with not one bad beat yet or cooler.

[Alan Stewart]

The best advice I can give -- keeping in mind I've only been playing for two years -- is to stay away from the ring games if you can't handle the wild fluctuations.

My FTP account was almost entirely wiped out thanks to two bad beats in ring games. Using micro-limit SnGs, I'm almost back up to where I was before I started getting involved in ring games.

You can make money hella-quick in cash games, but the flip side of that is that you can lose it hella-quick, too ... which is why I prefer the SnGs and MTTs.

[TiltGolf]

I recently went to a southern Indiana river boat to play a little live holdem. Being from central Ohio not much action around here that I am aware of. Anyway it seemed to me that the play at the 2/4 limit holdem was idential to the .02/.04 limit holdem at Ultimate Bet. Now through that into what you experience live and online it must be similar. Only live you get better reads on the floks your playing with.

Lastly, I have been running very much like what you are describing myself. Unfortunatly its part of poker and hopefully the long run, if my bankroll can last long enough, will create my positive EV.

[Alan Stewart]

Tilt, that little boat you speak of is here in my home county.

How'd you like it down there?

I agree about the play at the 2/4/4/8 limit table. If you can show timely aggression, you can make a killing. Unfortunately, people will also chase like Roscoe P. Coltrane and hit a miracle river from time to time. More often than not, though, aggression is the name of that game.

"I have been playing on another site and winning so I will let you know if I get cold decked there. Currently I have increased that bankroll by 50% with not one bad beat yet or cooler."

You think you'll never hit a bad run at the other site?

"My FTP account was almost entirely wiped out thanks to two bad beats in ring games."

Sounds like you were playing way over what you BR could support if two beats nearly wiped you out.

[Chris Cosenza]

I never think I won't hit a bad beat or bad run on another site, but as I've said, bad beats and cold decks have been much more common on FTP in my experiences. And I'm not alone in this thinking.

[Joker]

Chris, Are you contending that Full Tilt Poker intentionally and knowingly manipulates the outcome of individual hands in order to influence the action or control the outcome?

[Chris Cosenza]

I'm just presenting my hands and experiences, no accusations.

[Alan Stewart]

To whomever it was that chimed in about my two bad beats, I was playing the lowest limits FTP offer (one at a PLHE table and the other a Razz table).

I only bought in for $50 so I could take part in the AIPS events, and at the time I was down a little from that buy-in.

As our newspaper friends can attest, print journalism ain't exactly the highest paid profession out there.

But thanks for caring. :)

FWIW, I'm back up to where I was before I got hosed by the RCGs ... and I've been doing quite well over at Stars.

[HogRyder]

Chris:

I wholeheartedly agree that there is a problem with the RNG at Full Tilt. I am not convinced its "rigged" as rigged implies intent and I find it hard to believe an online site would do anything to affect their cash cows.

But there could easily be a programming error. Like you, I was a huge winning player at other sites (mainly Doyles Room, Hollywood Poker) back before the UIGEA and had played at FT a bt but found myslef there as Doyles Room sold their US clients to FT. I have not been able to win at FT and I am playing the same limits same style.

I tried to do a somewhat scientific analysis and I know the smaple size is not large enough but it is indicitve of a problem. I play mostly 6 handed SnGs and what I found was, when all the money got in and there was at least one more card to come, the behind hand was on average a 33% dog but was winning about 67% of the time. This was a sample of 122 hands. Not a lot I do get that but I had noticed this trend over the year I have been playing there.

Bottom line is I need to find another place to play. I have not played online for almost a month becuase of these bad beats.

[Clever Moniker]

HogRyder - which is it? Is it indicative of a trend or is it too small a sample size to extrapolate some meaning? It is either one of the other, you need to pick one.

(Hint - go for #2)

[Mark]

Sure Chris, they're cooler hands. No debate there. But any sort of thought that it's an FTP thing seems farfetched. And streaks happen...one of my favorite blogs is Shannon Shorr's and if you read his tourney postings over the last year, it's pretty sick how many unfortunate situations that guy's gone through. That contrasts when he ran really well during that stretch last summer. Like the night you hit every hand, some nights the other guy is going to hit every hand or cooler you.

[Rant2112]

1) Online is generally considered to be much tougher than live. It isn't surprising that you win more live.

2) Online has gotten tougher since UIGEA. This could help explain why you used to win at other sites.

3) Expected variance is much, much larger than you'd intuitively expect. Even a good, winning player will see a 20 buy-in downswing in their poker career. At 0.25/0.50 that is $1000.

4) You should get Poker Tracker even if you just use it to track your wins, losses, and playing statistics. This can help you to improve your game and will also give you a real view of your long term results instead of just your tainted memory. You may find that you aren't currently good enough to beat the 0.25/0.50 game online or that you are just getting unlucky and things will work out in the long run.

[Mac Brewer]

Chris,
Good News (or not) - Poker Stars has a beta Mac Client out (email beta@pokerstars.com). Since it's beta it's play money for now - but its fairly close to being released for live play.

Mac Brewer

[Jonas 'Chiberta']

Hey Chris,

Sorry bout' your coolers. They were indeed nasty!

I know you were reluctant to start another 'is online poker rigged/not-random debate'. However it does seem like you have anyway, and here's another hit to your blog on that note. LOL.

This might get a bit long ;-)

I have two points.

One point applies to the question of whether online poker might be rigged on certain sites (which I know you dont claim, Chris, but many do). To decide whether thats likely I think you have to consider the cost-benefit aspects of the issue. It is true that the sites might possibly make more money if they tampered with the RNG to create a slightly higher occurrence of 'high action situations' like the coolers youve experienced. However if you look back on that entire session you played the other day, how much 'extra' money do you think the site raked from you on the hands that seemed to be 'out of the ordinary?' Not much in proportion to what they raked in on all the other insignificant pots combined, I bet. Anyway, its still obvious that rigging the RNG might generate some extra profit.

But consider the risks! If the sites are indeed rigged, certain people have decided that they should be, and certain other people have programmed the software accordingly. That entails a risk (a big risk in my opinion) that somehow, at some point, it would become known to the puplic. As far as I can see, this means that if it got out that some site, Full Tilt for example, had rigged a system that they very emphatically claim to be random, people who lost money on the site could sue them for billions of dollars. Now, when online poker boomed, people realized that they could make millions off people wanting to gamble online, so why jeopordize those profits with a complicated scheme that would probably come to light sooner or later, and which would not increase their profits that much? That just seems extremely unlikely to me, not because Full Tilt or other sites care about their players, which they may or may not, but because it would be bad business!

Now, if we assume that its not purposely rigged, that leaves us with the other notion, that its 'just not random'. And you believe that, right Chris? But this would imply that the RNG, which is just a system designed to pick items out of a pool of 52 (the cards), KNEW what it was picking. How would a computer program know how to stage a 'cooler' if it wasnt designed to do that? An RNG doesnt know that some of the items it has to pick out complete a flush, or makes someone a set. It doesnt know the rules of poker, or even that it is cards that it is picking! So why would it favor certain combinations that happen to constitute coolers or bad beats? If it was not intended the assumed 'un-randomness' might as well favor other combinations, so that for example 3s,7s,Kh flops were more likely than 8c, 10h, Ac flops, or it could mean that there was a greater likelyhood of someone holding 6s, Jh when you have pocket aces, and so on - combinations that we would never notice. The patterns that we recognize as 'coolers' and 'bad beats' because we know poker, HAVE to be invisible to the RNG - unless it was indeed DESIGNED to create action. But that leads us back to the improbable conspiracy theory.

So my firm beliefs are:

1. that online poker is not rigged for action, because it would be terrible business.

2. That the RNGs do not by coincidence favor high action situations, because it just doesnt make sense when you consider what an RNG is - a computer program that doesnt know the game of poker.

As far as I can see, that leaves us with the personal experience that 'something isnt right', which I think is better explained with all the usual explanations, like the many hands one plays, and so on, although that may be hard to accept when you are right in the middle of it. I think it is just the somehow mystical powers of randomness at work, that we know can lead to all kinds of superstitions.

If anyone is still reading at this point, I apologize for this longwinded speech, I can't help it, I'm a philosophy major...

keep up the great work, guys!

Jonas, Copenhagen, Denmark

[Chris Cosenza]

Nicely put Jonas, and yes I read all the way to the end. 8-)

You're right, I don't believe FTP is rigged, but what I do know is I haven't won on there consistently in ages, yet I have never lost consistently on other sites. I have been one-outted on FTP more than anywhere else and I have been dealt cooler hands more than ever on FTP than anywhere else, live or online. I'm not making accusations here at all, just stating facts as they happen to me.

As for your argument that programmers and site owners wouldn't risk losing business or worry about being sued. That's a whole ball of wax I'd rather not talk about. I think I could make a case for either, so I'll let it rest. But could FTP have an inferior RCG? Is it possible? And what about hackers? If it's possible for someone to say, hack into Absolute, then how do we know it's not possible to hack into FTP? Or for that matter, how do we know that if a system is vulnerable enough to get into Absolute, then how do we know the RCG isn't vulnerable too? Is it possible? If it is, and you KNOW it is, then all of the above arguments are moot since computer vulnerability opens you up to much scrutiny. If the RCGs are imperfect then there's no defending it.

As for you saying the amount of rake it got from me on the cooler hands, indeed it was much more than it would have gotten had he not had AA in that one spot. I would have reraised and he would have folded preflop and FTP would have gotten ZERO. Multiply this by the million of hands it deals a day and that adds up to billions. One slight tweak, means billions!

Again, I'm not accusing anyone, but the last thing a rogue online gambling site is worried about is being sued by someone over bad beats. How could they prove it? And, imagine me going to the police and saying I am gambling online and want to sue the company for cheating me. LOL!

[Chris Cosenza]

Rant2112: "Online is generally considered to be much tougher than live." And who says this? I used to KILL online poker on PokerRoom and Pacific. Absolutely kill it. What stat are you using to back this claim up?

"Online has gotten tougher since UIGEA." Again, who says this? Show me some data that says this. And for the record, I had the same problems on FTP WAY before the UIGEA.

"You may find that you aren't currently good enough to beat the 0.25/0.50 game online or that you are just getting unlucky and things will work out in the long run." Maybe you're right, maybe all I can do is beat the $1-2 or $2-5 games in Vegas in Foxwoods. But again, I used to kill the $1-2 game on PokerRoom and the $.50-$1 on Pacific. So I'm not sure if I have the bankroll or patience for FTP's variance to catch up with my bad beats.

MAC: I've used the PokerStars beta for Macs and it was slow as hell and terrible. When it gets perfected I might consider it.

[Clever Moniker]

CC - Dr. Al Schoonmaker I know is one who has made the claim that online is tougher than live. He also asks that of all his podcast guests, & so far all have agreed w/ him. The comments can be summarized as 'it isn't even close'.

Granted, this is purely anecdotal (& fairly small sample sized) evidence, but I have noticed that online has been much tougher on me since the UIGEA. Even slightly before it. I surmised that most of the major donks had either lost their rolls & weren't re-loading and/or the fad had died off for them, so the 'median level of competition' rose. But I could be wrong there, too.

[Jonas 'Chiberta']

Hey Chris,

Thanks for your response to my post! I do see some of your points. Still...

I'm not convinced that a site rigged for action would make significantly more than an honest one, but thats a very technical discussion. Anyway, it would actually be fairly easy to disclose if one site was raking significantly more than others, in relation to the number of hands played.

About the hacking point. Why would hackers break into a site, and use their acces to slightly tweak the software and create more coolers and bad beats? How would they benefit from that? Unless youre saying that specifically the people you've played against have been hackers, using their powers to cheat you, which is maybe a bit paranoid... ;-)

About the lawsuit thing. What I meant was not suing over bad beats (though that might be tempting sometimes. Lol.) but rather if it got out 'scandal-style', say if someone in the company went public about the scam, or if some computer nerd found a way to prove it. Then I do believe that they would be in serious trouble, and the big online sites are not exactly small rogue companies...

My point is just that they dont really need to be crooked to make serious money on online gambling, so why risk it?

Anyway, what I'm saying is not that it's IMPOSSIBLE for the software to be corrupted or for a scam to be taking place, just that it is an unlikely explanation for your experiences with bad beats and coolers. I think you have been fooled by randomness rather than scammers or bad computers.

Great debating with you!

- Jonas

[Mac Brewer]

Chris -
I just loaded the beta last night and I thought the exact same thing, this is slow as hell. But not having played the windows client (yet) I didn't have a comparison to draw from and considered chalking it up to "that's how it is". I am glad to hear that it perhaps is not the norm - I felt like I was playing a live game, so I broke out a book in between mouse clicks.

[Chris Cosenza]

This is great, and I love the back and forth. I'm not as naive as to think the system is rigged, but I also am not so naive to believe nothing is above corruption. I'll leave it at that.

[Jay]

Chris - My experience at FTP is somewhat similar to yours. There clearly was a big change when the gaming act forced many sites to close to Americans. I had to adjust my strategy and again became a consistent winner but I have had to do this over and over. My theory is that there are many players, and maybe some bots, with programs that track playing patterns, so that a succesful strategy soon becomes pigeon play. I have formulated several styles of play and discipline myself to change styles on an irregular basis, or anytime I think it has been tracked. I have found that to be very important and helpful. So, my conclusion is: Maybe no one is cheating (though it is hard to believe there are not people connected up or in the same room) but you must not only play well but beat the pattern tracking programs. I am interested in your thoughts. By the way, to beat those programs requires great discipline. It is very difficult to play other than what is natural.

[Jonas 'Chiberta']

Hey Chris,

Yeah let's leave it at that. And when you put it that way, I have to agree with you!

See you at the felt (i mean the microlimits ;-))

- Jonas

[Chris Cosenza]

Jay, you make an excellent point and I believe everyone should do this with their game regardless of Internet play or live play. I'm glad you found a solution that works for you during this time. And I want it to be clear that I never said that I was being cheated, just that the bad beats and coolers come SO often for me on Full Tilt that it feels gutwrenching and suspicious. I've always tried to mix my game up depending on the complexion of the table, etc. but no matter how much I change it, nothing is going to help KK v a maniac with AA or top two vs. a set in the blinds. But I know what you mean, and I think I may start experimenting, but again, only in the microlimits, which is my solution to this problem.

Thanks for the thoughts.

[Rant2112]

I got the idea that online is generally considered tougher probably mostly from the 2+2 forums but I read quite a bit of poker stuff online so it is from many sources - all undocumented of course. 8)
Seriously though I think that, at a given limit, it is widely accepted that online is tougher. Do people disagree with this? In my own limited experience playing 2/4 limit live this has been totally obvious. I don't think I can beat 2/4 online right now. I beat 2/4 live in Vegas with ease.

There is a big difference between different sites. I think you'd find that PokerRoom and Pacific are considered easier than Full Tilt. I've played at Party (very easy), Stars (hardest), and Full Tilt (middle). I'm sure it varies by game too - I've mostly played limit.

I've also seen the idea that things have gotten tougher since UIGEA all over the place and definitely on 2+2. I've seen it myself playing low limit on Stars and Full Tilt. It is also common sense. It raised the barrier for playing poker which has knocked out more casual players than serious ones. It makes it harder to re-deposit so after losers go bust they have a harder time reloading.

You really should get Poker Tracker - even if you just use it to learn from and review your sessions it is well worth it. It has improved my game a ton. It has helped show me leaks (over-valuing overpairs for example), and helped me feel better after bad sessions when I can go back and see that I was just getting sucked out on - not playing badly.

[Larry S]

FULL TILT is totally CROOKED. The majority of poker sites are. I played poker for a living for 12 years before Internet gambling even existed. The greed of Full Tilt is only surpassed by the stupidity in making it so obvious. They collude with banks and dummy companies to violate The Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, Sections 5363 and 5366. Do you think the games are honest???