3/6 ASF% at Party skins has dropped to an alltime low

[SinCityGuy]

30.12% over my last 40,000 tracked hands. Can anyone else verify these numbers?

The moneypits of the old davidross days are almost a forgotten memory now. I was reading some of his 3/6 multitabling posts from last year, and the games typically had 5 or 6 limpers seeing the flop. Now, virtually every blind is raised, and many pots are heads-up or 3-way. Of course, when he was playing, there weren't 500 T/A multitablers to contend with.

[bdk3clash]

Scary--my SF% for this month (around 25,000 hands at $3/6) is exactly 30.12%.

I agree that the games likely aren't as soft as they were when DavidRoss started them about 1.5 years ago. The good news is they're *still* soft as hell, and 15/30 is on the horizon...

[sthief09]

do you mine hands 24 hours a day? I'm wondering if maybe you just get hands during a certain time period that might be tighter. oddly, I've heard that the 5/10 games have softened up. 30% though? that's like 15/30 range

[spydog]

This is from a spreadsheet I am keeping since I started playing 3/6 full. I am tracking every 10k block.

My standard playing hours are 8am-8pm Dublin time (I think that is 2am-2pm EST).

Dates Hands ASF
10/01-11/14 10092 37.78
11/15-11/25 10479 35.56
11/25-12/15 10606 31.95

I have also been leaving from tight tables, as it has been quite common to see 6+ TAGs at a table lately.

[bisonbison]

My stats (these are from 20k+ hands I played each month):

August - ASF 32.38
September -ASF 32.03
December - ASF 29.14


There is a difference caused by the multitabling TAGs, but basically, the games are still very beatable. You just have to work harder at finding them.

I will also say that as I multitable more tables, my ability to escape bad tables is slowed.

[colgin]

I can't verify your numbers, but as someone who has started paying a lot of attention to table selection, I have noticed over the past severl months that the Party $3/6 games have substantially tightened up. The games are still very beatable because, among other things, many of the tight players that are still not that good. However, the number of really loose passive types per table has dropped significantly IMO.

[duk]

[ QUOTE ]
I will also say that as I multitable more tables, my ability to escape bad tables is slowed.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think this is probably a major part of it. Here are my findings for the past months, from about 15k hands per month (these are only tables I've played, as I don't datamine):

September: 34.4
October: 31.8 (only 3k hands, though)
November: 33.1
December: 33.5

[Jonny Melon]

Has anyone considered the impact of the Bad Beat Jackpot tables into this? Have a lot of the fish and "Gambloors" moved over there? Because the 3/6 Bad Beat games are very good.
Jon

[trian1]

[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone considered the impact of the Bad Beat Jackpot tables into this? Have a lot of the fish and "Gambloors" moved over there? Because the 3/6 Bad Beat games are very good.
Jon

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. Are the Bad beat games really that juicy? How much higher is the rake? I usually play Empire but if the games are as god as a lot of people say, I may try it. ...

I wish h I had been on it when I hit Quad Qs over Quad Ts (And best part was the guy on a flush draw who stayed in the whole way with betting capped every round.)

[sthief09]

has your winrate dropped? that is the true test of whether the game has gotten harder. after 20,000 hands you can accurately tell whether the games have gotten tougher


(I can just imagine the steam coming out of your ears after reading that)

[Jonny Melon]

I think they are substantially better, but the rake is .50/pot higher. I haven't done an analysis to see if that would be offset by the quality of games, though. It is also easier to get in on the good games, b/c Party doesn't let you join the waitlist by stake level in the Bad Beat games, so you can sneak in a little easier.

[Bob T.]

I wasn't going to mention this, but now that someone else has, I have noticed that at the 5-10 level, the bad beat games seem to be a lot looser.

Given the extra rake, I usually want avg pot size about a half a big bet bigger, and even though there are fewer games in the bad beat section, there are usually a much higher percentage that are worth investigating.

[Jeff W]

My stats show 29.28% over the last 400k at 3/6. 2% change from a couple months ago.

Last 300k at 2/4 show 34%. Only a 1% change.

The games at all levels I track are rapidly degenerating. ASF at 5/10 6-max has fallen 3% over the last 500k as well. This is a huge change. 37.2% ASF is not far from correct for shorthanded. PFR% has also rose 1.3% from 9.9 to 11.2.

These figures make me wonder how long the viability of online poker will last. I'm always playing at tables full of mediocre to good tight-aggressive-passive multi-tablers. The games are still beatable for now, but I hope I don't have to soon put my physics degree to good use.

[Kevin]

3/6

19,843 hands in December so far for ASF: 29.92%
30,247 hands in November: ASF: 30.18%
26,326 hands in October: ASF: 31.76%
18,117 hands in September: ASF: 32.36%

Heading in the wrong direction (and I need to work on my game selection)

[Shillx]

The 5/10 bad beat tables are much better IMO. I don't think I've ever run into any 2+2ers there...the extra drop is only costing me .3BB/100 (but I play insanely tight).

Since the same crowd tends to play when the jackpot is small, you quickly get a good idea of who you need to avoid. When the jackpot gets big, the games rawk.

[bisonbison]

My win-rate for 8-tabling in December is too close too call vs. my win-rate 4-tabling in August.

I think the games are tougher, but that I'm playing better and that as long as you're in good position on a couple of bad players, most games are very beatable.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Heading in the wrong direction (and I need to work on my game selection)

[/ QUOTE ]

There's an old Southern saying: "You can't drain blood out of a turnip." Table selection is becoming more and more of a treasure hunt.

Next year, there will be even more multitablers with Pokertracker and Playerview. The upper echelon of 2+2'ers will probably continue to do well (at a reduced winrate), but I suspect the players who are just "above average" will really struggle.

It would have been really mind-boggling last year to suggest that an above-average player would be struggling in a Party 3/6 game, but the times they are a-changing.

[stonecold]

As for the badbeat question i watched them a cuople of hands around 120... maybe 2 hours. I had 2 tables up while i was playing my 2/4 games. The sawflop was over 40% on both. I know that u need to see like 20k hands to be accurate but i think there are very beatable tables in Badbeat section. Now i must say that 3/6 seeemed alot faster then 2/4, how big diffrence is their between them ?

[Festus22]

I consider this post to be the first warning shot across the online poker bow. There is just too much money being taken off the tables in rake and into winning players pockets that the replenishment rate cannot be sustained by the poor players. Party made $500M last year. $500 million!!! I remember last year carrying the World Series wave well into the new year. This year, it seemed to die off pretty quick. Good grief, I struggled to find 4 decent $2/4 games Saturday and Sunday mornings this past weekend.

Unless something changes, it will be rock garden city after another one or two years. Just look back at David Ross's $3/6 game posts. Those games are gone - probably forever. I don't see anything to stop the trend at this point.

Make hay while the sun shines.

[oscark]

Jesus this thread is depressing.

Oscar

[Perseus]

I too have seen a decline.

I am also hoping that this new show TILT on ESPN will give poker a second boom, which I believe it will if the show is a hit. Also, the games are still much much much better than they were before the boom, just not as crazy.

[Jeff W]

I predict that within a year, a respectable winrate for Party $3/$6 will be >1 BB/100 4-tabling. The trend is that bad from what I've seen from my friends' play at small stakes full ring and my play at $5/$10 6-max. The increase in multi-tablers is unsustainable. Table selection is dead.

[Zetack]

Intuitively I believe that the trend you are noticing is real. However, I would caution that despite the posting of hard numbers the evidence is still anecdotal and otherwise flawed.

First this is far from a scientific sample...it could be that only those players whose numbers support the trend have weighed in. Why wouldn't they way in? Perhaps their numbers bounce around and so they don't actually contradict our thesis, perhaps they feel their sample size is too small or invalid for other reasons. Perhaps they just don't care.

If the numbers are valid, I'd like to see similar numbers from August to December of last year and even previous years--perhaps this is a normal seasonal trend.

Finally, even if the numbers are valid and not part of a yearly pattern, I'd caution against drawing too many conclusions about the future...we may be at a plateau in declining flop rates or about to hit one, for example, we just don't know if that's the case or if the decline is going to continue.

I'd suggest is certainly possible that in november and december many casual recreational players may play much less and perhaps not at all given the time demands of the holiday season both at home and for most people at work as well.

And certainly, when anecdotally, the games sound like they were much better, say, a year and a half ago, remember we had many fewer big multi-tablers then accumualting data and experience for us. And, quite frankly I'd have to go back and read David Ross's posts but I remember thinking from my .5/1.00 perspective that the games he was playing in sounded pretty tight...but I may be misremembering that.

So the sky may indeed be falling...but lets wait awhile to make the official declaration eh?

--Zetack

[stonecold]

[ QUOTE ]
I predict that within a year, a respectable winrate for Party $3/$6 will be >1 BB/100 4-tabling. The trend is that bad from what I've seen from my friends' play at small stakes full ring and my play at $5/$10 6-max. The increase in multi-tablers is unsustainable. Table selection is dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[stonecold]

[ QUOTE ]
Intuitively I believe that the trend you are noticing is real. However, I would caution that despite the posting of hard numbers the evidence is still anecdotal and otherwise flawed.

First this is far from a scientific sample...it could be that only those players whose numbers support the trend have weighed in. Why wouldn't they way in? Perhaps their numbers bounce around and so they don't actually contradict our thesis, perhaps they feel their sample size is too small or invalid for other reasons. Perhaps they just don't care.

If the numbers are valid, I'd like to see similar numbers from August to December of last year and even previous years--perhaps this is a normal seasonal trend.

Finally, even if the numbers are valid and not part of a yearly pattern, I'd caution against drawing too many conclusions about the future...we may be at a plateau in declining flop rates or about to hit one, for example, we just don't know if that's the case or if the decline is going to continue.

I'd suggest is certainly possible that in november and december many casual recreational players may play much less and perhaps not at all given the time demands of the holiday season both at home and for most people at work as well.

And certainly, when anecdotally, the games sound like they were much better, say, a year and a half ago, remember we had many fewer big multi-tablers then accumualting data and experience for us. And, quite frankly I'd have to go back and read David Ross's posts but I remember thinking from my .5/1.00 perspective that the games he was playing in sounded pretty tight...but I may be misremembering that.

So the sky may indeed be falling...but lets wait awhile to make the official declaration eh?

--Zetack

[/ QUOTE ]

THANKS !

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
And, quite frankly I'd have to go back and read David Ross's posts but I remember thinking from my .5/1.00 perspective that the games he was playing in sounded pretty tight...but I may be misremembering that.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is no offense to davidross (he has improved tremendously over the past couple of years and is now multitabling 15/30), but if you go back to his 3/6 posts, he was basically playing a weak/tight Lee Jones LLH strategy and just destroying the games. The games were extremely loose/passive, with five or six limpers and few pre-flop raises.

Now, I rarely see a hand without a preflop raise, and the majority of the pots are contested heads-up or 3-way.

[Gravy (Gravy Smoothie)]

FWIW, the average pot at every Party .5/1 table has dropped about 3BB from 1 year ago when I started playing.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, the average pot at every Party .5/1 table has dropped about 3BB from 1 year ago when I started playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not surprising, either. I've read tons of threads in the past year from people playing more than 8 tables on the microlimits.

[brandon]

I remember getting flamed for starting a similar thread a few months ago about how tight 3/6 was becoming.....

Im thinking about giving $10/$20 live play a shot. Im only 20 mins away from a huge poker room. Ive heard that its a loose passive game. If thats the case SSH strategy should crush it.

[MasterShakes]

I think that many of you are overlooking the impact of the bad beat games at Party. Several of you have now said that these games are looser. Average pot sizes do seem bigger over there, whether it's 2/4 or 15/30.

Further, many of you are focusing on this stat alone. There still is clearly value in these games if you play well postflop. Playing well preflop is the easiest part of this game, yet you're focusing on that stat alone as an indicator of how good the games are overall.

Finally, we're probably nearing the end of the greatest poker boom ever (not even at the end of it), and you guys are all treating it like it's the end of the game itself. Cheer up a little bit. The game will still be around. The game will still be beatable, even if it's not beatable for as much.

[Kevin]

I played in a live poker room in Evansville, IN over the thanksgiving holiday. I brought $800 with me and was planning on playing the 10/20. The 10/20 is now the 10/20/30 - so those draws really payoff, but that CR on the end will get expensive. I didn't feel that I had enough big bets to play right and get through the day on 10/20/30, so I just sat in the 5/10 which was the smallest table in the room. It was the day after thanksgiving and there were a ton of recreation gamblers there. Forget micros - this played like play money tables - except no one raised. I asked the dealer how the 10/20/30 was playing and she said the same exact way.

After 500-700 hands a day during the week and 1500-2000 hands a day during the weekend at the 3/6 and 5/10 at party grinding it out heads up and 3 way, I had forgotten just how great live poker could be. I am going to LV Feb 14-21st so I hope that the games are just as good there. I know that I will come with ample bankroll in hand for that.

Since there is no longer television advertising and it is relatively difficult to deposit $, it seems like it is going to be tough to continue to toss more money into the poker economy. I think Party has seen this by upping the reload bonus and I know that Roy Cooke talked about the cost per customer going up in order to keep new money coming in. It is my guess that within the year, they will go as high as 50% and even 100% bonus matches for reload. I don't know if it will just be sent to inactive accounts over x months (so we might not get the same love), but they are going to have to really invest.

No new news, I am sure - JMHO

Kevin

[DMBFan23]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that many of you are overlooking the impact of the bad beat games at Party. Several of you have now said that these games are looser. Average pot sizes do seem bigger over there, whether it's 2/4 or 15/30.

Further, many of you are focusing on this stat alone. There still is clearly value in these games if you play well postflop. Playing well preflop is the easiest part of this game, yet you're focusing on that stat alone as an indicator of how good the games are overall.

Finally, we're probably nearing the end of the greatest poker boom ever (not even at the end of it), and you guys are all treating it like it's the end of the game itself. Cheer up a little bit. The game will still be around. The game will still be beatable, even if it's not beatable for as much.

[/ QUOTE ]

here here. bravo.

[MVicuna]

Hi,

The poker craze *is* in full swing, by the time it gets to QVC pushing merchandise and poker chip sets at COSTCO I don't think anyone can say less people are playing poker in America then last year.

What could be happening is people can now find home games easier and are just arent playing for fun online anymore.

Also remember Party just released the BBJ tables a few months ago, so that is probably thinning out the herd some.

Anyone who plays internet poker badly is just bad and going broke or setting up limits and playing lower limits. Or they are going to start taking the game seriously and start to learn, I mean they do have access to the internet after all.

It also sounds like you can multi-table 3/6 almost mechanically and turn a profit, this is of course going to attract huge numbers of people thus taking even more seats from the producers. Who doesn't want to earn 40+ an hour sitting at home in your underware?

But frankly, Who cares. Just as 7 card stud replaced 5 card stud and was then replaced by hold'em. You can't stay still, you have to find the games where your edge is larger or increase your edge.

To paraphrase a common saying, There are no old 3/6 Pros just broke 3/6 players. Cause either inflation is going to break you or don't have what it takes to move up. i.e. Poor BR management and/or the inability to beat your current game enough to overcome the friction to move up.

Later,
MarkV.

[J.R.]

This has been the case for over a year (thinking of the golden days where 8-15 tables had an average pot size over 60 most nights). Did you lose track of things over the last 5 months and a half months (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=smallholdem&Number=807792& Forum=f3&Words=&Searchpage=0&Limit=400&Main=807792 &Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=4904&daterange=1&n ewerval=1&newertype=y&olderval=&oldertype=&bodypre v=#Post807792)

[bisonbison]

JR, that is the f[/b]ucking nuts.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you lose track of things over the last 5 and a half months

[/ QUOTE ]

No, actually I've been following it fairly closely over the past five months. When I posted that thread, it was the first time I'd played 3/6 in months. One night is hardly a reliable indicator of how it's trending. Now that I've gotten a very large sample size, I wanted to get some more feedback.

Regarding the post from five months ago; only a few people responded. Some thought the games were tighter, while some didn't notice any difference.

[ElSapo]

While I play a fair amount of tighter morning games and less of the prime-time stuff, it's probably a glance at things to come that Party 2/4 has averaged 34.66% over my last 17,000 hands.

ElSapo

[sthief09]

I think the most important thing to realize is that tight doesn't necessarily mean good or tough. I'm not telling this to you. just making a general statement.

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
has your winrate dropped? that is the true test of whether the game has gotten harder. after 20,000 hands you can accurately tell whether the games have gotten tougher


(I can just imagine the steam coming out of your ears after reading that)

[/ QUOTE ]

Scrub laughs maniacally and hopes Josh is kidding.

scrub

[sthief09]

well at least someone got it. the intended target obviously didn't /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
I will also say that as I multitable more tables, my ability to escape bad tables is slowed.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a pretty important point.

scrub

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
as long as you're in good position on a couple of bad players, most games are very beatable.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a much better point. Anyone who is thinking about moving up (or convinced that the world really is ending), ought to remove the understood "most [3/6] games" and tape it on their monitor.


During the 2p2 AC trip, most of the SS guys who were just starting to play red chip games thought it was strange that I kept changing seats in my 20 game. Seat assignment makes a HUGE difference in WR once the games are populated by players of substantially different skill level and tightness.

Edit: added the seat change stuff.

scrub

[vanHelsing]

[ QUOTE ]
the extra drop is only costing me .3BB/100

[/ QUOTE ]

how do you calculate that?
Since I am playing a lot of BB JP (but not exclusively), I can't find a way to calculate my generated rake. I would need to get that number to calculate my rake rebate.
The $ 0.5 extra rake isn't rebated, right?
So again, if you found a method to do this calculation, please let me know.

[cov47]

Although I have no statistics to support this, I think Stars is feeling looser to me these days while Party is tightening up. Thoughts? Better yet, anyone who's tracked similar info for Stars?

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
how do you calculate that?

[/ QUOTE ]
The general method (which I have not done):

1. Determine the number of pots you win per 100 hands using PT.

2. Reduce for any pots you win that aren't subject to jackpot drop (need to read the rules if you don't know which those are--I haven't bothered).

3. Multiply by $0.50 to get jackpot drop cost per 100 hands.

Note that your win rate now includes a contribution due to hitting the jackpot. You may not like the variance. Also note that TAGs get far less than their fair share of the drop because they play few hands and drive out chasing draws before they can hit.

7/8 of the jackpot drop funds the jackpot. It isn't Party's money so they can hardly give a share to the affiliates. The other 1/8 is fee (rake) which they could share with affiliates. But I'm sure they feel they don't need to so don't hold your breath.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
The other 1/8 is fee (rake) which they could share with affiliates. But I'm sure they feel they don't need to so don't hold your breath.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I'm betting they call that an administrative fee to cover their massive costs in running the jackpot and so stiff the affiliates.

--Zetack

[vanHelsing]

[ QUOTE ]
To paraphrase a common saying, There are no old 3/6 Pros just broke 3/6 players. Cause either inflation is going to break you or don't have what it takes to move up.

[/ QUOTE ]

good point.
If you follow this forum, you see so many players having some K of posts here, they seem to be very skilled as one can tell from their analysis, but are still playing for minimum wager - 3/6, 2/4 and lower. They can even afford to stay at these levels and play for a living, because the games are soft and online gaming gives you the ability to play 4, 6, 8 or whatever tables.
Now we observe a decreasing Nr. of fish and notice more sharks or at least rocky players. Isn't that a consequence of too many skilled players staying at peanuts-level, not willing to improve and take the step up?
Aren't we overfishing?
Like in real live the biggest ocean will get a desert at one time, if out of ballance.
How can a relative small biotop as online poker regenerate, if the fish in the micro and small limits are confronted to hundreds of players, ready to compete at 15/30 or higher?
So shouldn't we all work on our ability to play a stronger poker - headed for the higher limits, instead of finding new ways of datamining, 8-tabling and tableselecting? In the long run, isn't this the safer, more reputable and propably more profitable way?

BTW, I am from Europe. If I go on vacation to the Mediterranean Sea, I leave my diving goggles at home. There are no fish left to observe. But they invented terrific methods of industrial fishing some decades ago... /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[vanHelsing]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Determine the number of pots you win per 100 hands using PT.

2. Reduce for any pots you win that aren't subject to jackpot drop (need to read the rules if you don't know which those are--I haven't bothered).

3. Multiply by $0.50 to get jackpot drop cost per 100 hands.


[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks, but I think I've been so far. The problem is that I play a mix of normal games and BBJP ones. And there is no way to seperate them in PT, right?

[Noodles]

Does ASF include the blinds?and is this for a full table?
if so then this means that the 2 blinds and one other are playing,that is super tight.

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the most important thing to realize is that tight doesn't necessarily mean good or tough. I'm not telling this to you. just making a general statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the most important point in the thread.

Chill out, guys. It's not like Party (or the SS forum) is suddenly filled with people who can play after the flop.

scrub

[StellarWind]

I'm not sure what your end objective is. Are you trying to estimate the impact of jackpot drop on your winnings? Or are you tracking rakeback?

My procedure is primarily good for the first objective.

You could establish an extra PT DB and populate it solely with hands from jackpot tables to track rakeback.

[Tosh]

[ QUOTE ]

Chill out, guys. It's not like Party (or the SS forum) is suddenly filled with people who can play after the flop.


[/ QUOTE ]

Tighter = closer to correct = less profit. Its an easy formula.

[BusterStacks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Chill out, guys. It's not like Party (or the SS forum) is suddenly filled with people who can play after the flop.


[/ QUOTE ]

Tighter = closer to correct = less profit. Its an easy formula.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still, the road to tightening up pre-flop is a LOT shorter than the road to becoming good postflop, which is where your money is made. I'm sure playing tight at 2/4 or whatever may have allowed some people to move up to 3/6, but many of those people are still bad players once the cards are out. The change in beatability of the games is not proportionate to the %sf.

[sublime]

The change in beatability of the games is not proportionate to the %sf.

its not the only factor, but its the biggest one and easiest to gauge.

[mosch]

First of all, my 3/6 numbers from long ago had an average saw flop of 31.59%. 30.12% isn't massively tighter than that, and seems close to sampling error. (It comes to mind that things like large deposit bonuses could bring more of the tight multi-tablers to the table)

Secondly, even if they all learn how to play pre-flop, they still have the flop, turn and river to deal with.

Third, most multi-tablers suck. They suck less than the fish, but most multi-tablers seem to use it as an excuse to not improve their games. After all, if they want to make more money, they can just play eight tables.

[JoshuaD]

I don't play 3/6.

That said, has anyone considered that you're just seeing a natural trend in the season? Between christmas, and the WSOP on TV being 9 months ago, it only makes sense less people are playing.

[kamelion44]

At least I'm still making a good hourly wage with my rakeback. Don't forget about that guys!

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]

its not the only factor, but its the biggest one

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

I'd much rather play in a game where people played by the book preflop and extremely poorly postflop than a game where people played with typical Party looseness preflop and then extremely well postflop.

I've played in some live mid limit games where the players are too loose preflop but play extremely well post flop, and they are not easy games. I've also played in games where people play sort of OK preflop and crappily postflop, and those games are much better games.

Compare the Party 10/20 (6max) and 5/10 (6max) games as an example. The 10/20 is tighter, but it's the improved turn play of your opponents that makes them tougher (and it's additional postflop mistakes specific to 10/20 that still makes them worth playing).

scrub

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
Third, most multi-tablers suck. They suck less than the fish, but most multi-tablers seem to use it as an excuse to not improve their games. After all, if they want to make more money, they can just play eight tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hearty scrubgreement...

scrub

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the most important thing to realize is that tight doesn't necessarily mean good or tough.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think the point is that tight players are automatically better and thus the games getting tighter must mean they are getting worse. I think preflop tightness is a useful indicatator of the kinds of players in the game. People who see almost every flop tend to either not be trying to play well (i.e., they are playing for fun and to gamble) or are trying to play well but have no discipline or have not read any books and have no idea how. People who play tight tend to be people who are trying to learn how to play well. Which of these pools of people would you rather have in your game?

Of course you are right that preflop play can be misleading. Some "self-taught" type players might play way too loose preflop but expertly postflop. Some people might play tight preflop because they have someone's tight preflop recommendations on a post-it note next to their monitor, but have no idea how to play postflop. Still, the fact is that, on average, people who play reasonably preflop are overwhelmingly more likely to play decently postflop than people who have no idea how to play preflop. On a case-by-case basis, it can be misleading, but it is still generally a useful indicator and it is likely that if you see a massive trend towards tighter play it will be correlated with tougher games.

[party36master]

10,538 hands since 11/11 (date I bought PokerTracker)

ASF: 32.90
BB/100: 5.06

[sublime]

I'd much rather play in a game where people played by the book preflop and extremely poorly postflop than a game where people played with typical Party looseness preflop and then extremely well postflop.

if people played by the book preflop you would be heads up most hands. its going to take a pretty bad post flop player to make up for the missed preflop overlay, and if they are smart enough to play tight they wont be *horrible* post flop. i wasnt trying to downplay the importance of postflop play, nor thr profit potential of postflop mistakes.

if i can rephrase my statement i will say:

preflop mistakes are the easiest to notice, and best way to gauge the the profitabilty of a game.

[surfdoc]

I have about 30% as well for 35K hands. Games still seem soft and beatable though. No real change from aug/sept until now as far as ASF but I can't speak to 18 months ago as I wasn't playing Party then.

[mrgoodshot]

Fine, deleted.

[josh1122]

This thread has absolutely nothing to do with 2/4. No one is argueing that that game is not loose/passive and hasn't gotten progressively tighter in the last few months.

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
preflop mistakes are the easiest to notice

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
and best way to gauge the the profitabilty of a game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not agree.

I should have not used "by the book preflop."

I still think that a game where people played horrendously postflop and extremely tight preflop would be worth a lot of money, but it's a hypothetical that has little bearing on the discussion.

I think that over the ranges of preflop suck that are being reported here (from suck to slightly less suck), table ASF has substantially less of an impact on WR than the pre and postflop skill of the opponents on your right.

I don't have time to type more, but I've been thinking about this yesterday and will try to provide some justification later on today.

scrub

[Equal]

[ QUOTE ]
I predict that within a year, a respectable winrate for Party $3/$6 will be >1 BB/100 4-tabling. The trend is that bad from what I've seen from my friends' play at small stakes full ring and my play at $5/$10 6-max. The increase in multi-tablers is unsustainable. Table selection is dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

The online sky is falling. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[JinX11]

I haven't (but shortly will) read through this entire thread, but in light of some statistical measures worsening in 3/6, are (m)any of you seeing a drop in your winrates?? I am not. That's when you'll know things are getting tougher.

The easy tables are harder and less to find at 3/6, but even at off-peak hours, 2-3 are usually there; on the weekends, it is definitely like old times.

[SCfuji]

a bit off the post topic but...

i don't know how many of you do this, but i like to search all the players names at my tables and see how many tables they play at once. pokertracker/gt+ cannot tell you this information and i think it tells you a bit more about your opponents.

[Tosh]

Look, the hands they shouldn't be playing are the ones they play worst postflop; any idiot can play aces and kings reasonably.

If everyone played correctly preflop there would not be anywhere near as much profit to be had, it really is that simple. Don't forget rake either.

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that over the ranges of preflop suck that are being reported here (from suck to slightly less suck), table ASF has substantially less of an impact on WR than the pre and postflop skill of the opponents on your right.

[/ QUOTE ]

scrub

[Michael Davis]

I don't agree that most multitablers suck. Maybe if they're playing two or three, perhaps. But those hardcore eight-tablers are just crushing the games. You pretty much don't start playing an insane number of tables until you're certain you can beat the games.

Do not underestimate the importance of 4+tabling 2+2ers in the decline of the games. There's probably an average of 1-2 of these bastards per table now and their games have only small holes.

-Michael

[vanHelsing]

Some certified fishes do multitabling as well.

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
But those hardcore eight-tablers are just crushing the games.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've talked to a bunch of the players who are supposedly "crushing" these games while playing a ton of tables, and many of them aren't. I'm sure that many of them beat the games and take a decent amount of money per hour out of them, but the idea that there are tons of these guys are playing leak-free poker for high winrates over realistic sample sizes is crap.

I can think of a few posters who fancied themselves 3/6 megatablers who ended up realizing that they were barely beating the games with so many tables once they stopped running hot.

I'm not saying that there aren't some very rare players who are doing very well multitabling at 3/6, and that they aren't slightly more common at 10/20 short and the 15, but saying that there is a plague of excellent playing 3/6 multitablers destroying the party games is silly.

scrub

[DMBFan23]

dude, let's get to the final verdict...should I just switch to triple draw lowball now? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Tosh]

Not really as you will not be involved in many pots with the player on your right.

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
Not really as you will not be involved in many pots with the player on your right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, you're right--I never try to play pots while I'm in position.

scrub

[Tosh]

Yeah good plan, get involved everytime a TAG on your right enters a pot, 'cos we have position!'.

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah good plan, get involved everytime a TAG on your right enters a pot, 'cos we have position!'.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't sit with TAGs on my right unless there are compelling reasons to.

I'm surprised that you think that you don't play most of your pots with the players on your right. If I'm playing in a game where I'm playing most of my pots with the players on my left, it's usually a good sign that I'm either in a bad game or a seat that's making a good game significantly less good.

Like I tried to clarify in the earlier post that I quoted, we're not talking about games filled with TAGs here. We're talking about games that are filled with plenty of crappy players that have slowly picked up a few more tight players (many of whom play excessively tight preflop and poorly postflop).

scrub

[Tosh]

You're not saying anything that isn't obvious, its just now clear we were talking about something different.

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
You're not saying anything that isn't obvious, its just now clear we were talking about something different.

[/ QUOTE ]

What were you talking about?

scrub

[Tosh]

That no matter how much of the classic, 'they still play badly postflop', spin you put on it. A trend towards tighter games inevitably leads to less profit.

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
That no matter how much of the classic, 'they still play badly postflop', spin you put on it. A trend towards tighter games inevitably leads to less profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that a slight reduction in ASF caused by players who are pretty easy not to give action to playing tons and tons of tables should not cause games to become substantially less beatable.

I just don't think tracking small changes in ASF is a good way to monitor game quality. I think ASF is too sensitive to changes in the play of the marginal players at the table to get very worried about fluctuations over ranges of ASF typical of very beatable games.

I was wrong to stray into hypotheticals about games with good preflop play and horrendous postflop play--that's not the situation here and speculating about them just confused things.

If these changes in ASF are real and are the beginning of a sustained, substantial downturn, that's a bad thing. I certainly haven't seen enough evidence of that yet, though.

scrub

[sublime]

I still think that a game where people played horrendously postflop and extremely tight preflop would be worth a lot of money, but it's a hypothetical that has little bearing on the discussion.

scrub-

i totally understand what you saying and agree with all your points. i guess i just think that loose and bad and usually synonymous, as are tight and decent. if a player is playing tight preflop, you probably will not be in many hands with him to begin with and hence have very little profit potential over him anyways.

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
if a player is playing tight preflop, you probably will not be in many hands with him to begin with and hence have very little profit potential over him anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

In such a hypothetical game, I think a player who adjusted to the game conditions would make a lot of money stealing blinds and stealing on the flop.

I think you're right, though--you don't make that much money off of one of these guys when they're seated in an otherwise typical game. But, if they're taking the seat of someone who was slightly worse than them, I don't think they interfere too much with the amount of money you take from the guys who are losing a lot and making the game good.

scrub

[Tosh]

Really I'm only saying that IF the trend is a long term one, the games will get gradually less and less profitable. Tight games can be beaten too of course but not by as much, tight player's mistakes are less punishable than those that are too loose. I also still maintain that someone who plays tighter preflop is typically going to play better postflop than a loose player anyway, so if one is changing the other probably is to some extent as well. I guess am more referring to the overall longterm profitability of the game, rather than if the change given by these stats is all that damaging.

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess am more referring to the overall longterm profitability of the game, rather than if the change given by these stats is all that damaging.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also think that online games are unlikely to stay close to as good as they are now in the long term.

I'd be way more worried about the 15 on party and the 2/4 and up NL games on other sites in the short term, though. Losing in those games is a much harder habit to support.

scrub

[sublime]

I also think that online games are unlikely to stay close to as good as they are now in the long term.

if the major sites can keep the bot problem (or potential one) in hand, the games should be fine. thats the only thing that really concerns me.

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
I also think that online games are unlikely to stay close to as good as they are now in the long term.

if the major sites can keep the bot problem (or potential one) in hand, the games should be fine. thats the only thing that really concerns me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bots, people finding a new hobby, hostile legislation, millions of dollars in rake, and the losers in the bigger games going broke or cutting back on their play all make me nervous.

But it's been a fun ride and it will [hopefully] last for a while longer.

scrub

[tolbiny]

"I predict that within a year, a respectable winrate for Party $3/$6 will be >1 BB/100 4-tabling. The trend is that bad from what I've seen from my friends' play at small stakes full ring and my play at $5/$10 6-max. The increase in multi-tablers is unsustainable. Table selection is dead."

BullDinky.
It is extrodinaryily unlikely that game selection will continue to fall in this manner. What you are seeing is a large influx of people who have heard about all the "riches" of online play, picked up a few books and waded in. At some pint they will be utterly frustrated with squeaking by at .5 bb/100 and start to clear out.

The long term winrates will rebound for those who stick it out in a year or two. They wont hit thier previous levels naturally, but most 2+2 online pros should be able to weather it if they wish to.

[tolbiny]

But people who play well preflop are much more likely to attempt to play well post- you can't get around the association of poor preflopplay with poor post flop play. Plus the number of flops seen=the number of potential mistakes. mOre people seeing flops inevitably leads to a more profitable game.

[MyssGuy]

As I've just moved to 3/6, what is considered a good winrate? What about when multi-tabling? ??BB/100

[mistrpug]

[ QUOTE ]
As I've just moved to 3/6, what is considered a good winrate? What about when multi-tabling? ??BB/100

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh-oh.

[dfscott]

[ QUOTE ]
As I've just moved to 3/6, what is considered a good winrate? What about when multi-tabling? ??BB/100

[/ QUOTE ]

42

[LaggyLou]

[ QUOTE ]
As I've just moved to 3/6, what is considered a good winrate? What about when multi-tabling? ??BB/100

[/ QUOTE ]

From the posts on here, one can deduce that a trained monkey can easily achieve 2BB/100 over 8 tables and a "skilled player" can expect 4-5BB/100. Any less and you just aren't that good.

[MAxx]

seems like it is way to early to wory about this. let's assume that 3/6 has tightened up a tad... is it really that much, does not seem like a ton?

Do we have any real reason to believe that party 3/6 will not be profitable at a point near in the future? What is our basis? I don't think there is reason to worry.

[wuarhg]

we will all die! and merry christmas! remember what I said!

[bisonbison]

I agree with Maxx. The games are tighter, but the bad players are still there, even though the economy is middling. I'll start worrying if the economy implodes, laws get passed or bridge becomes the hot new thing.

[Evan]

Dude, the small stakes bridge forum would rule!!

[thatpfunk]

Has anyone ever looked at this seasonally before? I was thinking about this in early november, never got to posting it...

It would make a lot of sense if the games slowed down some as purely recreational players will have less time and $$ this time of year...

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with Maxx. The games are tighter, but the bad players are still there, even though the economy is middling. I'll start worrying if the economy implodes, laws get passed or bridge becomes the hot new thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I bought a book on Bridge during a particularly severe bout of thesis-procrastination last spring. It's complicated as all hell...

scrub

[wuwei]

[ QUOTE ]
...or bridge becomes the hot new thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dare to dream, my friend... dare to dream.

[MyssGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I've just moved to 3/6, what is considered a good winrate? What about when multi-tabling? ??BB/100


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



42

[/ QUOTE ]

phew, I thought my numbers were low.....

[ghostface]

I'd say 2BB/100 is good for a multitabler at 3/6 if you want a serious number.

The best around here is astroglides 2.9/100 right? over like >100k hands?

[Michael Davis]

Don't forget East Asia. When those countries finally reduce their anti-gambling legislation (whenever this happens), the games will be reinvigorated for like five years no matter how many sharks are waiting for the smallest drop of blood.

-Michael

[partygirluk]

Bridge is really simple!

[cpk]

[ QUOTE ]
During the 2p2 AC trip, most of the SS guys who were just starting to play red chip games thought it was strange that I kept changing seats in my 20 game. Seat assignment makes a HUGE difference in WR once the games are populated by players of substantially different skill level and tightness.

[/ QUOTE ]

My criteria:

(1) Sit left of people better than me.
(2) Sit left of people with more money than me.
(3) Close all open gaps to my immediate left.
(4) Choose a seat on the end (I can observe the entire table without moving my body).

[Awesemo]

One thing that strikes me about this figure is that right now the WPT and WSOP are both not producing new episodes, I believe WPT's season ended in June and WSOP's ended in early September. I presume that many of the fish at partypoker's tables are attracted by watching poker television. Of course there is not enough data to show a connection between these two yet. Do other people think that this could be an explanation for this small drop in looseness, or am I being too optimistic?

[ThePenguin]

I think the emergence of WSOP and WPT televised events initially caused an influx of online players, but now it does more to sustain interest than to create new players online. That being said, there are generally more players on party poker during peak time now than there were a year ago, and i think that looking at the number of people logged in is an easy way to observe these trends. Personally, I think that hold'ems popularity is a fad that will not last forever, and i worry that when media interest dies out, the games will dry up too. How many seasons of TILT can ESPN get out of Mike Madsen (best. actor. ever.)? I have faith that for the next three or four years the games will stay consistent, but I'm hoping that the popularity spreads further worldwide, that would be the key to maintaining the status of the "good" online game longterm

[SinCityGuy]

It appears as if the 2/4 tables are getting tighter also, based on this post by StellarWind, and the responses.

StellarWind's post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1428419&page=1&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1#Post1428510)

[bobbyi]

In the past, these shows included commercials for the major online sites. I think that they don't show television commercials for internet cardrooms anymore. So I wouldn't expect future broadcasts to contribute nearly as heavily to the growth of online poker as previous ones, although any publicitly for poker in general will obviously provide some help.

[Richard Berg]

I played 3/6 last night for the first time in a few months and frankly have no idea what you guys are talking about. I fold for 3 orbits, raise UTG+1, 3 coldcalls. Several 6-way pots for 3+ bets. Calling my value bets with 10 high; capping bottom two pair after it's counterfeited. The loose players were very loose (at least 3, often 5+ vpip>40 at my one table for several hours); the tighties were few in number and played weak.

[STLantny]

If the games are so damn tight, why is it that everyone still bitches about bad beats.

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
In the past, these shows included commercials for the major online sites. I think that they don't show television commercials for internet cardrooms anymore. So I wouldn't expect future broadcasts to contribute nearly as heavily to the growth of online poker as previous ones, although any publicitly for poker in general will obviously provide some help.

[/ QUOTE ]

Party runs commercials on one local station every night here ALL NIGHT LONG. Except tonight... All the Commercials were for The Gaming Club... In some states TV advertising is alive and well...

[kendal14]

I am overjoyed to see this thread. I thought I was the only one noticing this. To be fair, I just moved to 3/6 from a successful 35k hands at 2/4 at 3BB/100 (sorry couldn't wait to get to the statistically significant 100k hands). But, the game selection was nothing like I expected! I 4 table and 3 of my tables last night had 2-4 TAG's per, 1-3 Rocks, and only 3 fishies across all 4 tables! There was one maniac, but almost every pot was 3 way at most. I have only played 5k hands so far at 3/6.

However I do agree that just because table selection is harder, the game is still beatable... but not I will wait for another 10k-15k hands at least (unless I have a major downswing) to make a decision on whether I should stay or move back to the plentiful ponds of 2/4. FWIW my BB/100 at 3/6 is a depressing 1.2 or so.

To be honest... I'm also thinking of checking out the 10/20 full games and see what table selection is like there.

[MaxPower]

Mosch is right. I haven't played 3/6 in at least 6 months and the table averages then were around 30-31%. The 3/6 games were not particularly tight, but they were very good. All you need is 1 or 2 donators and 4 or 5 mediocre players and you have a very profitable game. It does seem like they are tightening up some due to the bad beat games and other factors, but you should be able to beat the game with good play. However, I do think it takes a very good player to beat these games for a good rate. A weak-tight style won't do it.

When I first started playing online poker Paradise Poker was dominant and Party was a tiny little site with only a few hundred players. The Paradise 2/4 games were very tight aggressive. At first I couldn't beat them but after working on my game I was able to grind my way back to a making a small profit. Then I downloaded Party Poker. At the time, there were only 2 3/6 games going at most times and it would be the same 10 players in each game. The games were incredibly loose/passive. I cashed so much money out of there that Paypal called me up to verify my identity (Yes, you could use Paypal for online sites in those days). It was about a year before 2+2ers discovered Party. There is a lesson in this story, but I will let you figure it out for yourself.

[profpeebody]

I'm a strictly live player small stakes player (3/6, 4/8) and I probably will always play live.

I was thinking about starting to play online in addition to playing live, mainly for convenience. Should I re-consider?

[prayformojo]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a strictly live player small stakes player (3/6, 4/8) and I probably will always play live.

I was thinking about starting to play online in addition to playing live, mainly for convenience. Should I re-consider?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're playing these limits live, it will probably be more profitable to play online for two reasons. First, you pay out less of your winnings: the rake is lower than in most casinos (or so I am told), and you don't have to tip anyone. Second, multitabling allows you to increase your hourly rate considerably. I play 3/6 on-line, but live I usually play 10/20 to make it worthwhile.

[Festus22]

I think the online game is and will be profitable for a good player several years into the future. I just think it will become a situation of diminishing returns. If you're planning on doing it for a living, then I think you're building your future on a house of cards (no pun intended but it's a pretty awesome one /images/graemlins/wink.gif).

[profpeebody]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're planning on doing it for a living, then I think you're building your future on a house of cards (no pun intended but it's a pretty awesome one /images/graemlins/wink.gif).

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not planning on doing it for a living; I just want to be a fat lazy anti-social american and sit at home playing poker while watching tv. I wouldn't have to deal with the scumbags at the cards rooms and I could watch whatever I want on tv instead of just sports.

Plus I could play if I have just two hours, I don't have to drive to the card room and I would get double the hands due to the speed of online poker.

[profpeebody]

[ QUOTE ]

If you're playing these limits live, it will probably be more profitable to play online for two reasons. First, you pay out less of your winnings: the rake is lower than in most casinos (or so I am told), and you don't have to tip anyone. Second, multitabling allows you to increase your hourly rate considerably. I play 3/6 on-line, but live I usually play 10/20 to make it worthwhile.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although online poker is probably more profitable, low-limit games live are still quite profitable because I think players are a lot more loose.

Online poker offers the advantage of lower rake, no tip, faster games and multi-tabling. That is all very tempting for me.

[MAxx]

[ QUOTE ]
Mosch is right. I haven't played 3/6 in at least 6 months and the table averages then were around 30-31%. The 3/6 games were not particularly tight, but they were very good. All you need is 1 or 2 donators and 4 or 5 mediocre players and you have a very profitable game. It does seem like they are tightening up some due to the bad beat games and other factors, but you should be able to beat the game with good play. However, I do think it takes a very good player to beat these games for a good rate. A weak-tight style won't do it.

When I first started playing online poker Paradise Poker was dominant and Party was a tiny little site with only a few hundred players. The Paradise 2/4 games were very tight aggressive. At first I couldn't beat them but after working on my game I was able to grind my way back to a making a small profit. Then I downloaded Party Poker. At the time, there were only 2 3/6 games going at most times and it would be the same 10 players in each game. The games were incredibly loose/passive. I cashed so much money out of there that Paypal called me up to verify my identity (Yes, you could use Paypal for online sites in those days). It was about a year before 2+2ers discovered Party. There is a lesson in this story, but I will let you figure it out for yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

r u saying that "site selection" is (or will be) the new "table selection"? will too many sharks break up the party? there will be a juicy game elsewhere maybe? enquiring minds want to know. damn i am silly.

[J.R.]

I thinks it has something to do with the line that a sucker is born everyday. He may never see the games as good as the were during the party/wpt/moneymaker wsop/poker rebirth days, but they will always beatable, just perhaps not a party.