Favourite Online SnGs

[Wyers]

I play 2/4 ring games at a wide variety of sites however have limited my SnGs to Pacific Poker. The site is terrible for rings but their 10+1 NL SnGs have been very profitable for me - very poor players for the most part.

For a number of days now, most of their NL tourneys have been down - (technical glitch?). I moved over to Party but was shocked by how quickly the blinds increased. It was only one game but it freaked me out to the point where I won't (can't) play there.


Long query short...

With Pacific being down, I'm looking for an alternative site to play SnGs. Weak competition/Blinds increase at a reasonable rate.

My style of play is derived from AleoMagus' "Beating Party Poker's 10+1" posting. I took this info, with a few modifications as my experience/confidence increased, and used it profitably at Pacific.


Thanks in advance,

Wyers

[LooseAggressive]

I really like the structure of PokerStar's SNGs. T1500 to start, 9 handed, 10/20 blinds. These blinds allow you to make some moves and the blinds go up every 10 minutes(5 for a turbo). I think it is much better than party's structure, the blinds go up to fast for my liking over there.

[Wyers]

What about the quality of play at PokerStars (10+1)? From what I understand, their players tend to be a little more seasoned than those of most sites. I enjoy Pacific because I know I'm better than most of the players at my table - I'm not so sure that would be the case at PokerStars (well... not yet /images/graemlins/cool.gif )

[Sluss]

I thought Party's SNGs raised the levels every 10 hands?

That's not a bad pace, I just don't like the starting stack of 800 or 1000.

[Wyers]

When Pacific's NL Tourney's went down, I attempted to play over at Party. I found the rate at which their blinds increased (every 10 hands) to be very quick. Pacific was every 15 which I find to be a little more reasonable.

Yeah. I'm not crazy about the T800 stacks either but I find quick blinds more unsettling than the stack size.

[sofere]

I used to play Pacific, but much prefer Stars. You get a much deeper stack (T1500) and the blinds are similar to Pacific.

At the low limits, the competition is generally not that bad.

[TightInn]

I've played at Stars and Party a lot. Party has worse competition, but Stars is still really bad, and the fact that they are slightly better is almost good because you can steal pots and such.

On Party it's difficult for me to win the tournaments. You have to be accummilating chips quickly and most the players are LAG, which means you need the best hand to win. That just doesn't happen a lot of the time and it's really tough to make people lay down their hand when they are beating you I guess.

[viennagreen]

pokerroom.com would probably work for you. the competition is pretty weak and you start out with T1500.

i think that you might be doing yourself a disservice though by avoiding the Party SNGs.

[raptor517]

people complain about the lack of chips and the escalating blinds at party. i actually prefer this. it allows me to play many more sngs per hour, while still maintaining quite an edge on the competition. people play like absolute idiots even in the 50s and 100s. you can play 4 sngs every 45 minutes or so on average, and if your roi is only 10% on the 55s, you can still make a good 25-30 bucks an hour. thats being only a marginal winner. the reason the better players prefer this setup is because they can get so many more games in, even though the stats may not be AS good.

[floppy]

What is the opinion of people here of Paradise? That's where I've been playing, and I feel I've been learning a lot and improving from it. The biggest problem I can see is that you can't multitable (if someone knows otherwise, please let me know!). That, in addition to a slow game (T$1000 to start with, and 5/10 blinds for Level 1), might drop people's opinion of it a notch.

Do people here find it not fishy enough? Just curious.

[harthag12]

I only have an account at the moment at Stars. Playing at the $5.00 +.50 Fixed lvl I find the competition to be easy. There's no reason to not finish top 3. I do seem to be much better at SNG's compared to just regular cash games though. Still working on that aspect. So I don't have much to compare, but Stars seems good. Looks tough to get a game quickly at higher amounts in fixed games though, I never see people enrolling.

[MojoRisin]

Did you change your play at all from AleoMagus's guide?

I've been playing Stars SnG's too, but have had trouble being a smaller stack against tight players at the end.

[stillnotking]

[ QUOTE ]
people complain about the lack of chips and the escalating blinds at party. i actually prefer this. it allows me to play many more sngs per hour, while still maintaining quite an edge on the competition. people play like absolute idiots even in the 50s and 100s. you can play 4 sngs every 45 minutes or so on average, and if your roi is only 10% on the 55s, you can still make a good 25-30 bucks an hour. thats being only a marginal winner. the reason the better players prefer this setup is because they can get so many more games in, even though the stats may not be AS good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%, Raptor. I get tired of people downing the Party SNGs because "the blinds go up too fast", like that is automatically a bad thing. Either extreme is bad (10000 starting chips and blind increases every 3 hours would be just as awful as having the starting BB equal your entire stack). There's an optimal point, and IMO Party SNGs are closer to optimum than Pacific's. Even if you disagree, it's hard to argue that the difference in blind structure overshadows the difference in opponent skill level.

[burningyen]

Just stating the starting blinds doesn't tell you what you need to know, you also need to know how they progress. I like UB's structure:

10-handed w/1000 stacks & 8-minute levels:

5/10
10/20
15/30
20/40
30/60
50/100
75/150
100/200
150/300
200/400 (don't think I've ever gotten any higher)

Has anyone compared UB SnGs to the other sites'?

[Dominic]

I've played over 700 SNgs on UB...mostly at the $50 level...I do prefer them to the others, although I am curious to try Stars after reading this thread...

[popniklas]

why do you prefer UB sng:s? worse plyers? just being curious, i have nerev played on UB. i play $10+1 sng:s at party poker, and find the competition very soft.

[popniklas]

what's wrong with pacific NL ring games? i find them softer than those at party. (comparing the lowest NL limits. perhaps you are talking about NL $100 or so?)

[Vetstadium]

I actually prefer the party and party skins over paradise or ultimate. The blinds do go up fast but on the same token it punishes bad play4s as well. I multi 4 at a time so does stink when forced to go all in but also get in about 5 an hour or so at that rate. Just my preference maybe I am a little biased since I started there too though. I am very comfortable playing SNG's there and knowing in 45 mins or so it will be over.

[dcoles11]

the play at party is awful and I think the blind structures forces quick action, because if you don't get chips early your 800 starting stack gets ate up by the fast approaching 100-200 blinds. My experience with party poker was hot and cold. I'd win and when I say win, come in 1st 5 or 6 times in a row and then not place 5-6 in a row either because I just never got a hand before the blinds forced me to move in with an average hand or because the play is just so bad that bad beats are a norm when you have 6 people calling every flop. The games do get over quick though which allows you to get in alot of action. I'd say give party another shot and don't be discouraged if you get on a losing streak, look at the big picture.

[popniklas]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar till:</font><hr />
I play 2/4 ring games at a wide variety of sites however have limited my SnGs to Pacific Poker. The site is terrible for rings but their 10+1 NL SnGs have been very profitable for me - very poor players for the most part.

[/ QUOTE ]

why do you think pacific poker is terrible for rings? are you talking about any specific limits?

i think the NL$10 cash games at pacific are much easier than Party NL$25. the fixed lowlimit ring games are also very soft. perhaps you are talking about higher limits?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar till:</font><hr />
My style of play is derived from AleoMagus' "Beating Party Poker's 10+1" posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

do you have a link to that post?