Are Party 100s actualy tougher than we think ?

[The once and future king]

I only ask this because I have just read another post by a respected poster about hitting their first major losing streak after moving up to the 100s.

I didnt realy know what it was to take a beating till I moved upto the 1OOs, having worked my way up the SNG ladder from 10s over a year and half.

Im not sure if the 100s are much tougher, its just that I keep reading these horror stories, and cant help thinking if there is some causal factor.

[DalaiLama]

Not really. There's a jump from 50 to 100, but the significant jump is from 100 to 200. I have a theory on this I'll expand on later.

[The once and future king]

Well that is what I thought all ready if you see what I mean. Its just all the I moved upto the hundreds and then got wacked posts have made me wonder if there isnt more to this issue.

[Mez]

I've moved up similarly, from the $5 tourneys to the $50s and now dabbling in the $100s. They are tougher IMO, but - Knock on wood -I've been doing ok in them. Maybe I've just been lucky with the tables I've been on.

[Grivan]

Have you made both of these jumps before you make this comment? The jump between the 50s and the 100s is way bigger then any other jump. In fact the 200s might just be easier then the 100s they aren't all that much harder in any case.

[Hickboy]

I play in the 100s a lot. The games are much tighter than the lower limits in my opinion. Often times towards level 5 and 6, there are 5+ players left, which turns it into a crapshoot.

Good luck /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MrX]

[ QUOTE ]
Not really. There's a jump from 50 to 100, but the significant jump is from 100 to 200. I have a theory on this I'll expand on later.

[/ QUOTE ]

I personally am looking forward to when you decide to expand on this thought.

MRX

[Irieguy]

I don't know, because I can't play enough of them to find out. After a month of rebuilding my bankroll from my last attempt at moving up, I finaly got enough to try again. I played 4 $109's last night and finished OOTM all 4. That's the third time in a row I've tried to move up, and gone either 0 for 4 or 0 for 8.

My ITM/ROI numbers are good enough at the 55's for me to be inclined to think that I just keep getting unlucky. What would be helpful is if somebody could respond to this thread with results from 500+ SNGs at both the 55's and 109's, so I can see an example of the magnitude of difference between the two.

Irieguy

[Gramps]

If you don't have a fat bankroll (like 5k) to play the 100's, and you multi-table, work them in slowly (1 to go along with your 50s). Good way to gain some experience/confidence at a new level without playing above your BR. Heck, if I'm getting my arse beaten up at my current level, I still drop down for a while to lick my wounds, even with a sufficient bankroll to stay where I'm at.

...but if you're taking a stab at 100's only on a short bankroll, you have a very real ROR. That's bad poker, and if things start going against you, it can only further affect one's game for the worse (no matter how determined one is not to tilt, etc.). No shame in working into a new level slowly - minimizing your downside risk is good investing (which is all poker is for a winning player). It's a good long-run exercise in discipline too that can only pay dividends down the road.

If you're crushing the 50's, you will do very well in the 100's in the long run - just always respect the BR requirements and inherent variance of the game.

[eastbay]

I've played 1000+ 55s and 200+ 109s. My long-term ROI in the 55s is about 35%. My ROI in the $109s is 2%. YMMV.

eastbay

[Irieguy]

Are you serious? I haven't heard anything like that before... I need to rethink my whole plan if that's the case.

Irieguy

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you serious? I haven't heard anything like that before... I need to rethink my whole plan if that's the case.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

Deadly serious, however, I should note that almost everyone I've ever told that who has experience in both games has said it must be a fluke, or that I was playing scared, or something. I really don't know how to explain it. It did involve some ridiculous cold streaks, but then again so have the $55s.

eastbay

[Gramps]

200 or so SNGs at that level is way, way, way too few SNGs to make long-run assumptions about. Play 500, or better yet 1,000, before you starting drawing conclusions. Swings (including some "ridiculous" ones) do happen (both up and down). No way around it.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
200 or so SNGs at that level is way, way, way too few SNGs to make long-run assumptions about. Play 500, or better yet 1,000, before you starting drawing conclusions. Swings (including some "ridiculous" ones) do happen (both up and down). No way around it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. You'll notice I said long-term for 55s but not for 109s. I really don't know where I stand in those things. The only thing I know for sure is that I need a much bigger roll before I take them on again.

eastbay

[Gramps]

True dat on the roll. I've had a couple of few thousand $ downswings in the 109s having played over one thousand. Once you replenish up to the 55s level, might be good to mix in one 109 with your 55s.

[Daliman]

players in the 100's suck, period. Their amount of suckitude is of a lesser number than in the $50's and below, but still highly sucky.

scale of 1 to ten in terms of suckitude, with ten being infinitely sucky and 1 being Daliman-like greatness /images/graemlins/cool.gif in all levels of which i have experience, including approximate # played at that level.

$30/~60 played= 10. Moron Country.
$50/~80 played= 9. Moron State.
$100/~200 played= 8. Moron County.
$200/~2700 played= 5. Moron street.

However, if I were able to remove just 20 top players from the $200 player pool, the suckitude jumps back to 8. Your job, should you play that level is figure out who they are, and avoid those top players. I'll give you a hint on one of them..... /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[PBaek]

It also matters at which time of day or night you play, right?

Anyone have an idea on when it is easy or when it´s tough?
(apart from Daliman thinking they all suck all the time:))

Regards, Peter.

[Daliman]

Yes, i should have mentioned nighttime is better(read: extra suckitude) in all situations in my experience. Subtract 1-2 suck points for playing during the day, although weekends seem fully sucky at ALL times.

[DalaiLama]

My theory is that the highest level, in this case 200, will always be the hardest jump because it is simply the stopping point. Party could host 1,000 buy ins and everything still applies because it’s the end point, the only difference is a flatter diminishing return curve. Assume bankroll requirements are met and the player is fully capable and profitable. If the diminishing return is the smallest at the last jump (all players apply, but each individual player curve varies), then why is it the hardest jump, Lama? The intangibles associated with being at “the highest level”, mainly psychological side effects from large swings, smaller ROI, and better competition. The magnitude of each varies depending on a number of variables, mainly player ability. /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[DalaiLama]

Thoughts?