Poker Stars vs. Party Poker

[emonrad87]

Just a general opinion question.. which site do you feel is better/more profitable for SNGs ranging from $10 buy in to $30 buy in?

[housenuts]

i voted for stars only because i play there and like it more. i like starting out with more chips. it gets rid of the crapshoot style of party.

[AleoMagus]

ok, ok....

Only 15 votes so far so it probably doesn't mean anything but the results of this poll are just crazy.

I know a lot of you like stars a lot more than party but how players can think it is more profitable is beyond me. I strongly suspect that people are just voting for the site they like more. Even on a tourney by tourney basis, party is better, and if you factor in the longer time it takes to play at stars, party is way better/hr.

The only possible exception I can think of as a possibility to this is stars' turbo tourneys, but I still doubt it.

Regards
Brad S

[housenuts]

maybe i should check out party. i've been playing at stars and doing very well. i played some SNG's at other sites where you only start with 1,000 and found them to be a little riskier. if you lose a couple pots early (eg. raise PF with AK and then don't hit anything) your stack gets almost too low and you're in all-in or fold mode almost right away. at stars you have some leeway to lose a few pots.

let me try to come to a conclusion here.

At Stars a good players ITM% would be higher than at Party. However at Party you would be able to play many more SNGs in the same time frame, and even though your ITM% would be a little less, in the end you'd still be more profitable. Does that sound right? Do you agree that Party is more of a crapshoot with the smaller starting amount?

[ukgazz]

I am not in a position to vote as I play mainly at stars (usually at 55+5 turbo and some 105+9 turbo games now) and have had the odd try on party at the $20 level 'to test' but I do like the number of players on party as when you hit the $55 + on stars there is a hardcore group that are usually there....

With that in mind I intend to play a whole month of $55+5 turbo stars and $50 party tournys (after transfering some cash over) and do a comparison at the end of the month....

Results at the end of the month if anyvody is interested!

UKgazz

[ukgazz]

Edit.. 1st 2 played MANY more to come.....

1st Stars Tourbo a win.....
1st Party a real bad beat out on 4th......

[rachelwxm]

Keep on good work! Since I mainly played at party, I am very interested in hearing anything about poker star.

[ukgazz]

Does anybody want these comparisons?

Played nowhere as much as usual and about to go away on business. for a week and a half (although I should still be able to get some games in )

So far.....

Pokerstars..... 55+5 turbo.
Played = 25... Places 5,1,6 ITM 48% +$480
Party.... $50+5
Played 16 .. Places 5,0,1 ITM 37.50 +$470

All the results and a full analsys of play at the end of the monteh if anybody cares!

?????????

UKgazz

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
All the results and a full analsys of play at the end of the monteh if anybody cares!

[/ QUOTE ]

I do.

[stupidsucker]

be sure to keep track of $$/hour That is the most important stat as far as I am concerned.

[young nut]

[ QUOTE ]
i voted for stars only because i play there and like it more. i like starting out with more chips. it gets rid of the crapshoot style of party.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Party's structure for SNG's is horrible. 800 chips with blinds raising every orbit, that is a gamle imho. I feel that stars structure is more beneficial to the tight aggressive player, rather than the gamble every hand type player. Any structure that allows for more hands to be played with many chips favors the educated poker player.

If it is any indication, a SNG on party usually lasts around 40-50 minutes, but on stars they last usually around an hour to an hour and a half. More hands and more chances to take advantage of weaker opponents.

[Sam T.]

[ QUOTE ]
Just a general opinion question.. which site do you feel is better/more profitable for SNGs ranging from $10 buy in to $30 buy in?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the reason for divergent opinions is the way you phrased the question. In short, does "better"="more profitable". If you're just doing this for fun and the pleasure of competition, Stars might be the better site. Sure your hourly rate is going to suffer, but there are people out there for whom hourly rate is less important than ITM, ROI, and the pleasure of beating tough(er) competition.

Since I have bankroll considerations, I play the $10 SnGs on Party, and the cheap MTTs on Stars.

[rachelwxm]

Thanks for the work, with all these discussions of Party 20+ limit being tigher and if 8 people stay till 50/100 blinds, it just becomes a random all in contest. I am seriously thinking of playing more ps games and would like to know your opinion. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[NotMitch]

Brad,

I play at both and the best thing Stars has going right now is the $35+3 6 handed SnGs. They rule.

[chill888]

[ QUOTE ]
Brad,

I play at both and the best thing Stars has going right now is the $35+3 6 handed SnGs. They rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Notmitch.... SHHHHHHH!

gl

[hurlyburly]

Great thread!

I like Stars better. My style of play works better at Stars. Working my way up the structure as I build BR, but the $20+2 have been really good to me (unfortunately I keep tossing money at the MTTs which I need to stop doing). The games seem balanced and never quite as loose as at party, but some games get to 3 handed within the first 30 minutes, a rare treat.

I think Stars has more to offer as far as building experience and getting value out of each tourny. The players are better and the games are tougher, so I see fewer suckouts.

I played at Party for 8 months before making the jump to Stars, and I'm really glad I did.

[LinusKS]

Yes.

Also, the PS Turbos give you some of the benefit of the Party games (they're almost as short, rarely lasting more than an hour), but still leave more room for skill, because you start with more chips, and it takes longer to reach the all-in or fold stage.

At Party, unless you've already doubled, you're pretty much pot-committed any time you make a raise, once you get to the 50/100 level.

[bygmesterf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i voted for stars only because i play there and like it more. i like starting out with more chips. it gets rid of the crapshoot style of party.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Party's structure for SNG's is horrible. 800 chips with blinds raising every orbit, that is a gamle imho. I feel that stars structure is more beneficial to the tight aggressive player, rather than the gamble every hand type player. Any structure that allows for more hands to be played with many chips favors the educated poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker is a game of adaptation. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and just because the common 2+2 style (Tight/Agressive) doesn't work well in Party SNGs doesn't mean that party SNGs are worse. If you are an educated "book player" and can't adapt to a structure where you do have to gamble every hand. Does that reflect poorly on the structure or the book player?

There are basicly three trajectories in a party SNG.

1. Win a decent pot in the first three rounds, and coast into short handed play.

2. Win a giant pot during crunch time and and come into short handed play with both guns blazing.

3. Win a few small pots, and coast into short handed play.

Now if your skills are building a big pot (And then winning it), then party SNGs are the way to go. With less chips in play at the equivalent limits, winning a big pot is more advantageious in Party SNGs since the pot you do win is a larger percentage of the chips in play.

That means that if you can do well in the 1 or 2 critical pots, then you are in the money. Personally Im happy to take a one/two shot gamble where I have a heavy +EV. And that is what Party SNGs are about. Cranking a big edge once/twice.

Just for the sake of provoking controversy, Im going to claim that Party SNGs are more profitable than the equivelent PS sngs even if the players where equal in caliber. And that is becuase the party structure requires more high level skill since it involves more complex, non automatic and critical decisions. (Read Sklansky on poker)

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Party's structure for SNG's is horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

The ability of your opponents is much more important than the structure, as long as it's not a complete crap shoot. Party's SNGs, short as they are, are still very very far from a crap shoot.

[ QUOTE ]
Any structure that allows for more hands to be played with many chips favors the educated poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what you mean by "educated player", but mistakes made by others (or rather - exploitable strategies) are what you are looking for. "Shorter" structures leave of course place for "less" mistakes, HOWEVER, players who play "shorter" structures are usually looking for more gambles, and by that making more mistakes against you, than "equally bad" players at a more "favorable" structure.

These arguments repeat again and again, and they simply don't make sense, IMO. All that matters is how your opponents play a specific structure, not the structure itself. I'd much rather play a game that is very close to a crap shoot against horrible players (it will also be very good in terms of $/H), than play against rocks in a structure that benefits the "educated player".These matters were discussed here many times.

P.S: I like stars, but that's because there are simply a lot of fish there too.

[NotMitch]

[ QUOTE ]

I agree. Party's structure for SNG's is horrible. 800 chips with blinds raising every orbit, that is a gamle imho. I feel that stars structure is more beneficial to the tight aggressive player, rather than the gamble every hand type player. Any structure that allows for more hands to be played with many chips favors the educated poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I strongly disagree with this statement. The two huge difference IMHO is that on Party 95% or more of the choices you make are preflop or on the flop and there is more play to the river at Stars.

Secondly stacks are deeper heads up at Stars which is a big plus for a good heads up player. I would guess I win more when it gets heads up at Stars than at Party. With the blinds the way they are at Party pushing preflop everytime heads up is probably closer to correct than most people would think. (I mean once they get to 200/400 or so). It is a much more mechanical game at Party but saying that it doesn't favor a tight agressive style is flat wrong.

[chill888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Party's structure for SNG's is horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

The ability of your opponents is much more important than the structure, as long as it's not a complete crap shoot. Party's SNGs, short as they are, are still very very far from a crap shoot.

[ QUOTE ]
Any structure that allows for more hands to be played with many chips favors the educated poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what you mean by "educated player", but mistakes made by others (or rather - exploitable strategies) are what you are looking for. "Shorter" structures leave of course place for "less" mistakes, HOWEVER, players who play "shorter" structures are usually looking for more gambles, and by that making more mistakes against you, than "equally bad" players at a more "favorable" structure.

These arguments repeat again and again, and they simply don't make sense, IMO. All that matters is how your opponents play a specific structure, not the structure itself. I'd much rather play a game that is very close to a crap shoot against horrible players (it will also be very good in terms of $/H), than play against rocks in a structure that benefits the "educated player".These matters were discussed here many times.

P.S: I like stars, but that's because there are simply a lot of fish there too.

[/ QUOTE ]

PM your points are well taken .. it is also a matter of taste. I hate Party as it gives me a bad taste (especially their support) due to the luck involved.....does that mean it isn't super soft? No, of course not but i don't enjoy it (and enjoyment DOES help your game).

I am a stat geek and have found a site where I kill the $50s over 250 games I am 52% ITM with a skew to 1st. I HATE the structure although it's far better than at Party .... but my results draw me back. But Stars just feels more satisfyiing so i play there most.

winning is most important but enjoying the game / structure helps the win rate.

GL

[PrayingMantis]

Chill, I agree of course that enjoyment and level of support (and software) could be very important, and could actually contribute to better results, if you simply feel better playing at a specific site. Sure thing.

[B00T]

If you get a rakeback on Party, you are looking at saving hundreds or even thousands a month in buyin fees.

Stars turbos are more like Party S+G's but have a reduced rake.

Stars you get some FPP which can be used for stuff, so the fringe benefits are a tossup I imagine.

Just wanted to bring up that semi important fact.

[ukgazz]

Back again to reply to this.......

Please note that my findings are in no way conclusive but are my month to date on the agreed levels (and yes I play others and cash games as well )

Party : $50+5 - Played - 81 - Results - 15,6,5 Total Entrys $4,455 Total Winnings $5,150 ITM %32.10 Total Net $695

Stars : $55+5(turbo) - Played - 105 - Results - 21,21,18 Total Entrys $6,420 Total winnings $8761.50 ITM %48.57 Total Net : $2521.50

I have also a load of comments to make about the difference between the party and stars play and if anyone cares I can make ;-)

UKGazz

[dogsballs]

[ QUOTE ]
Back again to reply to this.......

Please note that my findings are in no way conclusive but are my month to date on the agreed levels (and yes I play others and cash games as well )

Party : $50+5 - Played - 81 - Results - 15,6,5 Total Entrys $4,455 Total Winnings $5,150 ITM %32.10 Total Net $695

Stars : $55+5(turbo) - Played - 105 - Results - 21,21,18 Total Entrys $6,420 Total winnings $8761.50 ITM %48.57 Total Net : $2521.50

I have also a load of comments to make about the difference between the party and stars play and if anyone cares I can make ;-)

UKGazz

[/ QUOTE ]


Don't ask, do... I'm curious

[MaGi]

I don't play that low except for at Stars 6 handed tournaments, but I love those. I just started playing stars, I only bought in $200 so far but I really like it there.

[FishBurger]

Until tonight, I have been playing at PartyPoker for over a year. I have done OK there, winning over $4000 in that time while playing the $10 + 1 and $20 + 2 tables.

However, tonight I tried Poker Stars for the first time and I really like the blind structure there. It's so nice to be able to take more than one bad beat and still be in the tourney. Typically, what will happen to me at PP, is that I will have, say, around 800 chips when the blinds are 100/200, and then I will go allin with A,4 and someone with a much bigger stack will call with K,8 and hit their hand and knock me out.

However, in the Poker Stars tourney I played tonight, I didn't have to go allin until I was heads up with another player. That was great! It's terribly hard on my psyche to play tight at PP until the bubble, and then have to go allin on the bubble because the blinds are so big and lose when I'm about a 10% favorite. It seems like that happens quite a bit.

However, I admit that I am probably playing the Party SNGs incorrectly. I have only recently arrived here, but I plan on paying close attention to Gigabet's posts, which will hopefully improve my game.

I do like Party's software much better. Poker Stars would be much better if they put a number next to a bet so you could tell what it is without having to know what was in the pot before the bet. That is very annoying.

For now, I am voting for Poker Stars, even though I have only played there once. I believe that a good poker player can put more moves on at PS and you don't have to worry about getting knocked out of a tourney by a single bad beat.

[ukgazz]

[ QUOTE ]
I do like Party's software much better. Poker Stars would be much better if they put a number next to a bet so you could tell what it is without having to know what was in the pot before the bet. That is very annoying.


[/ QUOTE ]

Options > Display Bet Amounts on Stars.....

Stars sw rocks.

[housenuts]

i just deposited some into party and am giving it a go.

so far i have 2 2nds, and 3 out of the money. the heads up play was ridiculous. the blinds were at 500/1000 in one of them. suffice to say i'm not having the best of times at party. it seems like such a bloody crapshoot.

[FishBurger]

[ QUOTE ]
Options > Display Bet Amounts on Stars.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for that. That helps me immensely. Is there anyway to add chairs to a table so that you know immediately by looking at the table how many people have been knocked out of a SNG? How about changing the little token things to the little people like Party has?

Thanks, again.

[ukgazz]

Unfortunately not but the little token things (with pics if people use them) do dissapear when people are knocked out so it is quite easy to tell how many players are left.

I must admit one of the 1st things I did on party was turn the people off!

[Cheno5]

I play exclusively at PokerRoom, and have never played Party or Stars. Can anyone compare those sites to PRoom, and let me know if I'm missing out? I see that everyone seems to talk about one of those two sites (or the other). Are they really that much better?

[Cleveland Guy]

It is generally assumed that party poker has the most fish. They also have the most total players far and away. I feel pokerrom has it's fair share of fish, and plenty of players. It seems to be around 10 - 12,000 on most nights.

I tend to like pokerroom for the following reasons

1. 1500 starting chips, with a 20BB to start. I think the extra 5 in the BB is worth it for about double the starting chips. When you start with 800 chips, you can't lose that first hand - even for 300 chips. If I have 1200 chips left I'm still in good shape

2. Plenty of room for notes. you have lots of space avaialable to take notes, and can even color code players for quick reference

3. There tend to be plenty of fish, and a lot less 2+2ers. Lets me have the pond more to myself.

4. less varience. With the deeper stacks, a SnG might take longer, but the deeper stacks reduce your varience.

[FishBurger]

This is my second day on Poker Stars after over a year of playing $5, $10, $20 (and a few $30) single-table NL SNGs at Party. I absolutely love the $15 +1 NL Turbo SNGs at Poker Stars! I love the 700 extra starting chips and I love the 33% decrease in vig!

You can do so many more things with those extra chips at PS that you can't do at Party. And, I also think the blind structure on the Turbos is just about perfect. I haven't timed the games, but it doesn't seem like the Turbos last much longer than the regular SNGs at Party.

At Party, with the 800 starting chips, it seemed like my whole tourney would come down to one hand on the bubble. If I happened to get good cards at the right time on the bubble, I would win. At PS, with the 1500 starting chips, you can vary your play more and actually build a nice-sized stack by the time you get to the bubble. It seems like skill is more of a factor on PS than it is at Party. However, the $50+ SNGs at Party with their 1000 starting chips may be more like the PS tourneys.

Anyhoo, I think Party will be seeing much less of me in the future. The tourneys at PS are more fun and seem like they will be more profitable.

Oh, I almost forgot: I have played over 4000 SNGs at Party and have likely paid Party around $6000 in tourney entry fees. If I had played those same tourneys at Stars, I would have likely paid around 33% less, increasing my earnings by $2,000!

[Cheno5]

That was going to be my next question.....any 2+2ers play on PokerRoom? Would love not only to hear the comparative feedback, but also to see some friendly faces once in a while.