SNGs at UB better than Party?

[wadea]

I started out playing SNGs at UB. You start with 1000 chips and the blinds are like 5/10. I think level 5 is 50/100. After reading here about how fishy party is, I opened an account there and started playing their SNGs. I found them to be much more of a crapshoot. You get fewer starting chips and the blinds start higher and escalate faster. I'm pretty sure I'm correct in thinking that this format takes some advantage away from the skilled player compared to the UB format.

The only redeeming quality I've found about Party SNGs over UB is that they're a bit faster to finish. What do you guys think?

-wadea

[deedbr]

I have also experimented with both formats.
I am doing far better at UB because of the extra time provided.

The party format feels that if you play tight the first few rounds and do not accumalate chips then it is just an all in fest.

However the fact that you can play an event in 40 minutes on Party compared to around 80 minutes for UB you can see why I want to learn how to play on Party. Those numbers are just aproximations but I have recorded wins that have taken longer than 90 minutes on UB.

The problem is I have been unable to make the adjustment from UB to Party. It feels that with so few chips that a smaller stack does not want to lay a hand down after the 4th round.

I'm still trying to adjust and figure out what I can do differently. I think I need to look again at my short hand starting hands.

Deedbr

[SpeakEasy]

I completely agree about the difference between Party and UB SNGs. There was a thread on here months ago in which someone compared the blind levels and starting stacks in more detail, and concluded that the smaller starting stack on Party creates little significant difference. I don't buy it.

If you're playing tight-aggressive on Party, you won't get involved in many hands (if any) until about the 3rd or 4th round. On Party, getting involved in a hand in the 4th round takes 1/3 to 1/2 of your stack, unless you have accumulated significant chips in the first 1-3 rounds. Much less skill, much more luck.

On UB or PStars, try the 6-player tables. Payout to the top 2 spots. 4 fewer starting players, with only one less payout, and significantly less time investment. I've found that at least one or two of the players on the 6-player SNG table usually busts out just like the first 1-3 players on a normal 9-10 player table -- getting involved in too many hands early, taking hands too far, etc.

[Dominic]

I agree with the last poster...I play UB 6-handed SNGs almost exclusively now....I've tried Party a few times and it really does seem like a total crap shoot - either double up early in order to be able to play strategically sound poker in the later rounds, or sit tight, choose a hand when it gets to level 4 or 5, push and get lucky.

UB (especially the 6-handed games) puts a premium on 3-handed and HU play. A lot of the times you're down to 2 or 3 people and the blinds are still relatively small - now you can play poker!

As I don't play more than 4 tables at one time, I'm usually done with a SNG I win in under an hour.

[Xhiggy]

faster structure = faster turnover. while some of the advantage is taken away, the players on party and the fast turnover make party much more profitable.

[deedbr]

I do agree that the party players are fishy. I also see the advantage of the faster structure in my overall profit.

However I have not been able to adapt to the structure. I know that it is possible, but I am missing something. It is something that I am working on and I am trusting that I will make the change.

It is just frustrating that when I quit a session at Party where I make almost no headway and I go over to UB and continue to win.

I am not one to blame it on card conspiracies. I know the fault is my own.

However that knowledge alone is not enough to make my sessions at Party profitable yet.

Deedbr

[Pepsquad]

I like UB much better. And I agree with previous posters regarding the 6-person SNG's. It isn't uncommon to be 3 handed at the 50-100 blind level. The only thing I have against the 6 man structure is that 2nd place doesn't even double up their entry fee! That's pretty rough. However I find it is uber-easy to finish in the top two of these games. IMHO.

[flyingmoose]

In my experience, Party has been a lot more profitable, but a lot less fulfilling. I don't feel like I'm playing poker when I'm playing a Party SnG; the format just leads to strategies that are far too formulaic for my tastes.

If you need money, I'd advise you learn to win in the Party format, because you can achieve an unreal ROI at the <30+3 levels when you become comfortable with the format. If you want to learn to become a better poker player, I'd stick to UB.

[MasterShake]

SpeakEasy and Dominic (or any other experienced player) what are your ROI and ITM numbers for UB 6 player STT? At which buy in?

Thanks - MasterShake

[revots33]

IMO Stars has the best SNG format of all - however their players are considered better. But, I think their format rewards skill much more than Party, and that outweighs any other advantages Party might have. I've played both, and personally I've done better and had more consistency at Stars.

I'd imagine that if you did this for a living, and hourly win rate was your biggest concern, then Party's shorter structure might be a big advantage. I play mainly for entertainment, so I'm willing to spend a little longer on each tournament if I feel it improves my overall chances.

[Laughingboy]

I have a similar problem. I've been very successful at Stars, but I can't seem to make the adjustments necessary to win at Party, and have never seen a satisfying explanation of what I need to do differently, despite having posted several times on different forums. If someone has some info on this, please fill me in.

Since I get rakeback at Party, profit potential is even higher. I'd really love to figure this out.

Cheers,
Sean

[burningyen]

(UB level 5 is 30/60.)

[SpeakEasy]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO Stars has the best SNG format of all - however their players are considered better. But, I think their format rewards skill much more than Party, and that outweighs any other advantages Party might have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shhhh.... I'll let you in on a secret... FullTilt SNG structures are virtually identical to PStars (1500 starting chips), but the competition is MUCH easier than PStars. The only down-side is that you may wait a while for a FullTilt SNG to start, and a game above the $20 level may never start. The traffic on FullTilt has about doubled since the holidays, with a new load of fresh fish...

And the heads-up SNGs on FullTilt are even easier than the full table SNGs...

And no, I am not a shill for any site. Just some friendly advice.

[SpeakEasy]

[ QUOTE ]
SpeakEasy and Dominic (or any other experienced player) what are your ROI and ITM numbers for UB 6 player STT? At which buy in?

Thanks - MasterShake

[/ QUOTE ]

Alas, my hard drive crashed late last year and all data was lost. And, my 6-player tables were mixed in with overall results, so I simply don't know about 6p tables alone. I've started again with the stats. Note: print your results occasionally, in case your data is erased...

[SpeakEasy]

[ QUOTE ]
However I have not been able to adapt to the structure. I know that it is possible, but I am missing something. It is something that I am working on and I am trusting that I will make the change.

It is just frustrating that when I quit a session at Party where I make almost no headway and I go over to UB and continue to win.

I am not one to blame it on card conspiracies. I know the fault is my own.

However that knowledge alone is not enough to make my sessions at Party profitable yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

This raises another interesting point -- I've learned to just go with the flow when it comes to winning trends. For example, it may seem like you should be winning at Party, what with the high-fish population, but if you're doing better on another site, then keep playing on the other site!

I can't explain all the dynamics of why I win more on some sites (level of competition, starting chip counts, blind escalation structures, creepy avatars, sound effects, etc. -- who knows), but I've past the point of trying to figure this out. I just keep playing where I'm winning, slowly rising in levels.

[slydeni]

lotsa good points in this thread. Seems to come down to a matter of taste here.

I am a Party player with 33-36% ROI and 40-43% ITM% at the 30+3's. I make about $10-$12 a tourney. This taken over a few hundred tourneys (3-400 maybe).

I can not comment intelligently on UB set up, as I have not played them. I can, however, say that Party is beatable for the intelligent, thinking player. Yes, I agree, that with more chips, and more time, you have more opportunity to play more poker and make more moves. The point arrives,however, in every sit and go where you get to a "all-in or fold" mode. It may arrive sooner for the Party players (at least below 50+5) than others, but I would not use this as a reason to choose UB yet. UB may be more skill intensive; but in the end it is about the money. If you are not in this game for the money -Read no more. If you are - learn how to make 33-36% of your investment every 40 minutes or so (and then multi-table it to double and triple that).

I would be curious to see some numbers for successful UB players and compare their earnings to those successful at Party. I think Party is gonna get the edge because of the time factor.

I want to be clear, however, on one point. A poster earlier said something like "if you want more money - go to Party. If you want to get better - go to UB." The skillful player WILL WIN at Party as well as UB - maybe slightly more often at UB, but not enough to make it more profitable. Granted, it does often get to crapshoot situations - but those good players who are getting involved in pots are gonna win most of the time. And there is plenty of opportunity to enhance your skills at Party, as well.

My conclusion: I am in it for the money. I enjoy making $30-$36 per 40 minutes, and not working. Party is too sweet! Crapshoot or not... and sometimes you even win the crapshoots! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

be well...
sly

[Dominic]

I play the UB 6-handed at $50 and $100 levels...

after 556 SNGs, my ROI is 26.77 and my ITM is 43.44

[flyingmoose]

[ QUOTE ]

I want to be clear, however, on one point. A poster earlier said something like "if you want more money - go to Party. If you want to get better - go to UB." The skillful player WILL WIN at Party as well as UB - maybe slightly more often at UB, but not enough to make it more profitable. Granted, it does often get to crapshoot situations - but those good players who are getting involved in pots are gonna win most of the time. And there is plenty of opportunity to enhance your skills at Party, as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

In no way did I mean to imply that skill is a non-factor in party SnGs. There are many players who profit greatly in this environment -- this obviously wouldn't happen if skill wasn't a factor.

What I was trying to say was that, at the lower levels when the chipstacks are small (I never had the courage to play the 50s), the game you are playing is far different than most other poker. The Party structure encourages very specific forms of play and general underlying strategies.

This is why bots have been known to do well in Party. It's also why players, such as yourself, can play many games at once without much of a dip in ROI. It's also why I don't consider it as fun.

In no way did I want to say that Party doesn't require skill. It does. What I meant was that the skill you develop to beat Party games does not always apply to deeper chip stacked tournaments where your strategy needs to depend on who's at your table.

If someone wants to tell me that the higher stakes are different -- that's fine; I've never tried them. But you will have a hard time convincing me that there's much of a chess match in a 20+2 party game.

[Pepsquad]

The most glaring difference I see is in the early stage play. I have read threads in this forum by very respected posters that possibly the most effective strategy for Party is to stagger SNG's every 20 minutes and auto-fold EVERYTHING other than AA until the blinds reach 50-100.
Not so at UB. I find I have much more maneuverability in the early stages at UB.
For example, if you get involved in a significant pot early at Party and lose - you're then sitting on a t400 stack waiting for that one hand that will double you up. On UB, there's more room to "play poker" early without jeapordizing your stack. This fits my style better. I can see how Party would fit the styles of others better.

[rachelwxm]

Nice post. I have never play at UB SNGs (play alot ps both regular and turbo games as well as plenty of party games) but I cannot imagine for 10 people SNG you can ever reach bubble time with aveage stack >20bb (make it 10 if you want). This does not include any 6 person game of course.

So for a regular 10 person game at UB, it's just like 30 minutes of NL play + 30 minutes of party style. Some people like NL part of SNGs and somepeople like to play short stack game.

One should play SNGs that fits their style. I think it's probably more fun play at UB style but somewhat more rewarding play at party style especially you can multitabling. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

ps, i have play some 6 handed SNGs and although my ROI is higher than party, hourly rate is not close for the same limit.