I totally get what you're saying! I've played live before, and I found myself worrying so much about my body language and what people thought. Online, I can just sit back, think about my plays, and not worry about anyone judging me!
Yeah, but I feel like there’s a certain thrill in live poker that you can't replicate online. The adrenaline rush when you bluff someone or when you hit a big hand with everyone watching is unbeatable!
@@MargauxSafiya True, but I think the best players can adapt to both styles. It’s all about finding your comfort zone! Some people thrive in the live setting, while others, like Phil, find their flow in the online game.
Magic is the child of chess and poker. It's a board development game with moving pieces, the goal is to reduce your opponent to zero life (points). Like poker, it uses cards, there's aspects of variance and hidden information. The big difference is that both players have their own individual decks, ranging in size from 40-100 cards.
I always assumed live poker was more fun because of the social interaction. But I can see how the distractions could break your concentration. Do you think online poker is easier to win at because of that?
That’s an interesting perspective! I think online poker can be easier in some ways since you can focus more on the strategy without the social pressure. But live poker has its own advantages too, like reading your opponents.
gotta remember that your opponents will play with the same benefits online, so the overall skill level is higher as a result, also way less drunk ppl/random gamblers. Most people would say that beating online poker is harder, but maybe for people that struggle immensely with some aspects of live play might have an easier time online
Poker is a skill game not gambling. Most poker players don't even gamble any other forms of gambling. Personally I don't get any high from winning money gambling because the house has the edge. I don't play games unless I have the edge like most poker players. Would you play casino games as the house? That's a winning poker player
Poker is a game that implements both skill and luck. It absolutely is gambling, because it is wagering on something with incomplete information, and an unknown result.
@@sethshapiro5973 yes yes I know your right technically but is the casino gambling then against you with your logic. Sure they are because they can lose. It's gambling with positive EV. Life is a gamble my friend. It's a gamble this car stops at the red. A gamble you wake up tommorrow. There's a big difference in degen slots player with a negative EV of 50 bucks per hour to a poker player with positive EV of 8bb/100 over 5k hrs logged. Sure you have ups and downs hence the gambling part is true but its a totally different animal comparing a winning poker player or even sports bettor to some degen losing his house lol now I wouldn't condone any of these sources of income but to say it's not a thing is a lie. I know multiple successful poker players and even a few rich sports gamblers so it's not gambling in my book if you have an edge and a consistent winner. You know ppl don't say you have a problem when you doing better then them lol
Is it gambling if you’re guaranteed to make money every year? If a professional hasn’t had a losing month in 9 years? Where’s the risk for that individual? If you’re losing and don’t have an edge that’s definitely gambling. I’m not saying the term is completely wrong but it doesn’t feel like I’m gambling. If I went to play slots or blackjack Im gambling.
I have a lot of respect for Phil, but he says that he doesn't have games to play but people sit nosebleed tables most days of the week on coinpoker and 1-3 tables run every Sunday. If he wanted to play there certainly are games.
I gst that the interviewer is a little out his depth with the topic, but as a constructive criticism, his constant interjecting with random meaningless exclamations (i.e. 'Wow..', 'Holy crap!', 'Dang'). Not necessarily in an interview.
It's clear that the interviewer has zero point one clue of poker. He maybe played twice at school. So the interview is almost entirely driven by PG because the interviewer has less interesting relevant questions to ask. So still the interview was fun, but that's to PG's credit.
He’s not supposed to know a lot about poker. He’s not a poker player. This is not a poker show or podcast. But at least he does a bit of research before the interview and brings poker players in. And he actually does a decent job. Plus Galfond is goated.
I much prefer live, and find the flow state of live much more enjoyable. All of the things he said he has to think about make him sound like a head case. Dude’s worried about his posture? It honestly sounds like some kind of ocd or social disorder.
![What Makes Phil Ivey The GOAT? [Untold Stories]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/K50K98NMPQE/mqdefault.jpg)
i came here because im a PG fan for life, but as an interviewer who isnt an expert in the subject, you did a great job will this interview, thank you!
PG is the real OG. Well liked by fans and competitors .
I totally get what you're saying! I've played live before, and I found myself worrying so much about my body language and what people thought. Online, I can just sit back, think about my plays, and not worry about anyone judging me!
Yeah, but I feel like there’s a certain thrill in live poker that you can't replicate online. The adrenaline rush when you bluff someone or when you hit a big hand with everyone watching is unbeatable!
@@MargauxSafiya True, but I think the best players can adapt to both styles. It’s all about finding your comfort zone! Some people thrive in the live setting, while others, like Phil, find their flow in the online game.
You are an excellent interviewer and a great conversationalist. This watched like a very natural and interesting discussion between friends. Subbed
Thank you!
Yes he is!😊
Outstanding interview!
This Was Awesome!!
Thank you!
PG is the nuts.
Great interview
Magic is the child of chess and poker. It's a board development game with moving pieces, the goal is to reduce your opponent to zero life (points). Like poker, it uses cards, there's aspects of variance and hidden information. The big difference is that both players have their own individual decks, ranging in size from 40-100 cards.
Someone please explain how a host of a private game backing multiple players in his game is not cheating, is not a collusion ring? @ 21:40 WatF
44:10 yes but with that logic, you can also lose that amount. Like your boy Isildur1
I always assumed live poker was more fun because of the social interaction. But I can see how the distractions could break your concentration. Do you think online poker is easier to win at because of that?
That’s an interesting perspective! I think online poker can be easier in some ways since you can focus more on the strategy without the social pressure. But live poker has its own advantages too, like reading your opponents.
gotta remember that your opponents will play with the same benefits online, so the overall skill level is higher as a result, also way less drunk ppl/random gamblers. Most people would say that beating online poker is harder, but maybe for people that struggle immensely with some aspects of live play might have an easier time online
Live poker is waaaaayyyy easier.
when gambling is discussed here, many people comment, why is that?
lol! thats the reality most of them are fan if these so mind ur own business🥴
I really don't like gambling as many people get addicted and ruin their lives with gambling.😢
Poker is a skill game not gambling. Most poker players don't even gamble any other forms of gambling. Personally I don't get any high from winning money gambling because the house has the edge. I don't play games unless I have the edge like most poker players. Would you play casino games as the house? That's a winning poker player
Poker is a game that implements both skill and luck. It absolutely is gambling, because it is wagering on something with incomplete information, and an unknown result.
@@sethshapiro5973 yes yes I know your right technically but is the casino gambling then against you with your logic. Sure they are because they can lose. It's gambling with positive EV. Life is a gamble my friend. It's a gamble this car stops at the red. A gamble you wake up tommorrow. There's a big difference in degen slots player with a negative EV of 50 bucks per hour to a poker player with positive EV of 8bb/100 over 5k hrs logged. Sure you have ups and downs hence the gambling part is true but its a totally different animal comparing a winning poker player or even sports bettor to some degen losing his house lol now I wouldn't condone any of these sources of income but to say it's not a thing is a lie. I know multiple successful poker players and even a few rich sports gamblers so it's not gambling in my book if you have an edge and a consistent winner. You know ppl don't say you have a problem when you doing better then them lol
Is it gambling if you’re guaranteed to make money every year? If a professional hasn’t had a losing month in 9 years? Where’s the risk for that individual? If you’re losing and don’t have an edge that’s definitely gambling. I’m not saying the term is completely wrong but it doesn’t feel like I’m gambling. If I went to play slots or blackjack Im gambling.
I have a lot of respect for Phil, but he says that he doesn't have games to play but people sit nosebleed tables most days of the week on coinpoker and 1-3 tables run every Sunday. If he wanted to play there certainly are games.
Online poker is not recommended in today’s society. Too many hackers and cheaters to comprehend
20:20 I make sure to someone’s apartment where the chances of getting cheated or worse for exponentially increase. Yeah no thanks 😂
Crypto taxes are only on realized gains/losses, use this to your advantage across tax years
I gst that the interviewer is a little out his depth with the topic, but as a constructive criticism, his constant interjecting with random meaningless exclamations (i.e. 'Wow..', 'Holy crap!', 'Dang'). Not necessarily in an interview.
It's clear that the interviewer has zero point one clue of poker. He maybe played twice at school. So the interview is almost entirely driven by PG because the interviewer has less interesting relevant questions to ask. So still the interview was fun, but that's to PG's credit.
He’s not supposed to know a lot about poker. He’s not a poker player. This is not a poker show or podcast. But at least he does a bit of research before the interview and brings poker players in. And he actually does a decent job. Plus Galfond is goated.
I came here just to write that PG completely drove the interview. He's a goat in the community.
100% agree. This interview could be so much better. As a reg myself, the interviewer is beyond tilting...
First :)
I much prefer live, and find the flow state of live much more enjoyable. All of the things he said he has to think about make him sound like a head case. Dude’s worried about his posture? It honestly sounds like some kind of ocd or social disorder.
you pay taxes on poker winnings in the states?? xDDDDDDD
Great interview.