How much easier are Party 10 and 20 SNGs than Stars?

[texasrattlers]

I am currently playing the $10 Stars SNGs, hoping to move up to the 20s if I can improve my game from participating in this forum. I have played a few SNGs at Party, but I think the Stars interface and support are SO MUCH better than Party that I prefer playing at Stars. So, I am wondering, are the Stars SNGs really THAT much more difficult at these levels? Any quantifiable results from players who have played both?

[Irieguy]

No, I don't think anybody would argue that PS is more difficult than PP. The skill level is the same, ie: horrible. The issue is time.

My ROI is actually a little higher at UB and PS, and obviously my ITM% is much higher (9 players). But I make more per hour on PP because the tournaments fill up and finish faster. That's really the only benefit.

There are plenty of people making good money on Stars... you should just play where you are comfortable. If you have a long term goal of multi-tabling and maximizing hourly rate, you should play some Party to get used to it, because that's where you'll end up eventually.

Irieguy

[A J Carisse]

I'm just as interested in quantified results as you are, but all I have here is a few things to think about.

My feeling is that this is probably more a matter of style than anything. I've played in some SNG's at PP and I can tell you it doesn't suit mine. It might suit yours better though.

My guess is that hyperaggressive players would tend to do better at Party. Those are the types who are always accumulating chips and are either out early or the big stack.

There are perhaps more prudent methods of doing well, but they are all going to include playing very well at the very big blind levels. Personally, it suits my game better if these levels are incurred heads up or at the most with 2 opponents. With 3 or 4 opponents this had me taking more risks than I cared to, and going out too much.

Stars has 9 seat SNG's as opposed to 10 at PP. This suits my style, because the way I see it there's one less person who has to go out to get in the money, which is worth it to me to take a little less per win. Others may see this differently of course.

Your play earlier in the tourney is going to be more significant at Stars. What I found at PP is that chips became devalued as the blinds escalated, where you could see a good sized stack eaten up pretty quickly later. The opposite of this would be back in my Pacific SNG days where a good stack would pretty much guarantee you the money, as all you had to do was wait for your opponents to take each other out.

Another thing is, maybe it's just me, but my experience with PP overall (couple hundred hrs or so) has been that the cards weren't as kind to me as they should have been. I haven't had that experience at Stars, and the sim may be better. I've seen some strange things at PP as I'm sure many of us have. I just feel more confident with the sim at Stars.

The players at PP are weaker, but this isn't necessarily a good thing. I only play one table at a time (although I'm looking at getting into more), and reads are very important to me. Party players are a lot tougher to get a read on, due to the fact that they are less skilled.

There are more maniacs at Party, in my short experience anyway. I can play against them but too much of this increases risk. This, like everything else, is a personal preference though.

I'd like to hear other people's experiences though (as I'm sure I will hehe).

A.J.

[Klak]

id say that you should play where you are most comfortable. you will always win more when you're familiar with the structure. that being said, everyone knows that party is where the masses of terrible players congregate. the party format also allows you to play more SNGs total because they move so much faster. so stay on PS to learn for a while, but do try to figure out the party structure at some point since it is so profitable.

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]
What I found at PP is that chips became devalued as the blinds escalated

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a quick comment on this statement: it's important to understand that in a fixed payout structure tournament (like a SNG), there are two things that affect the value of a chip: 1)stack size and 2) the number of opponents left.

As your stack size decreases, each chip becomes more valuable because it will represent a bigger piece of relative equity in the prize pool. (See "Gambling Theory and Other Topics" for more on this).

Also, as players get knocked out, each chip increases in value because your chance of making the money increases. (Note that the "first-place value" of each chip never changes... it is always 1/8000 or 1/1000 of first place prize money in a PP SNG regardless).

So, as a SNG progresses, unless you are gaining chips your chips are increasing in value. I only point this out because it is a tremendously important concept in SNG strategy. What you do with each chip is much more important when you are short-stacked late than when you have a lot of chips early. These situations happen more frequently on PP than at Stars because of the structure. That means that great players who have very good judgement at critical times will do very, very well. But a good player who is apt to make a mistake with a short stack will have a difficult time maintaining a solid ROI. So that may explain why a relatively new, pretty good poker player will find the Stars structure easier to beat... whereas an experienced, expert level SNG player will prefer the Party structure where your results can be greatly impacted by your ability to exploit the end-game mistakes of your opponents.

Irieguy

[A J Carisse]

I agree with all of this. However, I should have explained what I meant by "devalued" a little better.

What we're looking to do in SNG's is to outlast our opponents. Now to what degree this applies depends on one's particular playing style, but this is going to be true to a big extent in all cases.

Chips are more valuable as you go on. This isn't what I'm referring to here. Here's a good way to look at it. Assume you accumulate X extra chips in 2 separate tables - one at slower blind escalation, and 1 at a faster one.

Now there are several types of advantages these extra chips present, but let's just look at it from the perspective of buying you time. The more time that is bought, generally, the greater chance you have to succeed.

Assuming that table 2 escalates significantly faster, X chips will buy you significantly more time. Therefore, on this basis, they are less valuable.

Now you may say, sure this is going to be true for passive players, and I don't play like that. This still will have an effect though, and a significant one, since you'll have to incur more risk at a faster rate at Table 2. A string of bad cards at high blinds will put an end to even the best players' games often times, and thus brings luck into the equation faster and with more magnitide than is desirable.

As well, having more time just doesn't let more players go out, it also gives us more time to apply our sound strategies without being overtly pressured to act on hands we'd prefer not to.

A.J.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with all of this. However, I should have explained what I meant by "devalued" a little better.

What we're looking to do in SNG's is to outlast our opponents. Now to what degree this applies depends on one's particular playing style, but this is going to be true to a big extent in all cases.

Chips are more valuable as you go on. This isn't what I'm referring to here. Here's a good way to look at it. Assume you accumulate X extra chips in 2 separate tables - one at slower blind escalation, and 1 at a faster one.

Now there are several types of advantages these extra chips present, but let's just look at it from the perspective of buying you time. The more time that is bought, generally, the greater chance you have to succeed.

Assuming that table 2 escalates significantly faster, X chips will buy you significantly more time. Therefore, on this basis, they are less valuable.

Now you may say, sure this is going to be true for passive players, and I don't play like that. This still will have an effect though, and a significant one, since you'll have to incur more risk at a faster rate at Table 2. A string of bad cards at high blinds will put an end to even the best players' games often times, and thus brings luck into the equation faster and with more magnitide than is desirable.

As well, having more time just doesn't let more players go out, it also gives us more time to apply our sound strategies without being overtly pressured to act on hands we'd prefer not to.

A.J.

[/ QUOTE ]

love the post A. J. /images/graemlins/grin.gif could'nt agree with you more on the, "a string of bad cards at high blinds will put an end to even the best players' game..." comment.

[Biff M.]

Hmm, well said. I consider myself a new, ok player (who consider themselves bad?)- and I'm doing better with the Stars' structure.

At Party it's very often like this; can't get a hand for the first 30 minutes, down to 4-6 players with 4-500 chips and 50/100 blinds. Have to make a move, and end up either doubling up or or busting out.

[spentrent]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm, well said. I consider myself a new, ok player (who consider themselves bad?)- and I'm doing better with the Stars' structure.

At Party it's very often like this; can't get a hand for the first 30 minutes, down to 4-6 players with 4-500 chips and 50/100 blinds. Have to make a move, and end up either doubling up or or busting out.

[/ QUOTE ]

My experience at PP is almost exactly the same. Especially at the lower levels where players start with only 800 chips.

However, I do tend do play _slightly_ more loosely pre-flop in the early levels... so it would follow that PP's quick level structure hurts me a little bit.