20/2 vs. 30/3 on Stars

[Shorty35]

My ROI in the 20+2's on Stars is over 40% (just shy of 100 sample size). But in the 30/3's (only about 50) I am -8% (two bad streaks and one good one).

I "feel" like I have been playing well, but the results speak for themselves. I know the sample is small, but still....

Do you notice any signficant jump in the quality of play at 30 vs. 20? Or do I just need to let it play out over a larger number of games? (Bankroll is not an issue at these levels)

[rjb03]

You already answered one of your questions. Sample size is too small to accurately gauge ROI. If bankroll is no issue, go for the best hourly rate.

[FishBurger]

Dude, I typically play the $16 turbos at Stars. However, every once in a while I'll jump up to the $27 turbos. I notice a huge difference between the 2 -- a much greater difference than the $11s and $22s at Party.

The players in the $27s are able to make the big laydowns. The players in the $16s hardly ever lay down their hand to a big raise. If they bet, they're seeing the river.

I think the main difference is that in the $16s, there may be 0-2 players that are strong. However, in the $27s, there will usually be 3 or 4 players that are strong and that do not make bad mistakes -- especially on the bubble. I was in a $27 last night, and when it got down to 4 every player seemed to be playing correctly.

I made the first mistake when I pushed with A2 on the button and was taken out by 88. Anyhoo, I think the difference in skill between levels at Stars is much more significant than the skill difference in levels at Party.

I would play more at Party because the players are definitely worse over there, but, with the 800-chip starting stacks at Party I always seemed to get knocked out on a coin flip on the bubble. At Stars, with the 1500-chip starting stacks, it seems like it's much easier to build a stack and avoid having to push coin flips on the bubble.