Stars and higher NL sngs

[Meatmaw]

What are people's general opinions on how Star's $55 NL SNGs compare to Party's? I could have sworn attendance on the site was around 18-20k until after the tsunami where it jumped to upper 20s and 30s (possibly due to the donation on tv)? Anyhow, whether they did jump in popularity is one thing. What do you all think of playing $55 on Stars v. Party and the difference in level or return? I've been sticking with Stars to try to improve my play against tougher players but moving up to the $55s has me wondering.

Thanks.

[curtains]

If you are a good player you will win at either site. Probably a bit less at Stars, but I don't know this for certain. I do know they generally take longer though?

[e_fermat]

Peak evening players has been in the mid to high 20's since at least last summer/fall. Now it is almost always in the low to mid 30's at peak. ROI is the same for me with minor adjustments for deeper stacks.

[ QUOTE ]
I do know they generally take longer though?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true at all. Average is also around 45 min. One instance where I always play Stars over Party is when I know I have to leave my house in say an hour. With the timed blind levels I know it will be 300-600 after 45 min and 400-800 after 50 min so game will end quickly regardless of # of players left and speed of play. I find some Party sngs drag on FOREVER when you have a couple of slow players/connections.

[UMTerp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do know they generally take longer though?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true at all. Average is also around 45 min. One instance where I always play Stars over Party is when I know I have to leave my house in say an hour. With the timed blind levels I know it will be 300-600 after 45 min and 400-800 after 50 min so game will end quickly regardless of # of players left and speed of play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the original poster was talking about the "normal" SNGs, but you are dead-on in your assessment of the Turbos. They're my SNG of choice (and I started 12-tabling them this week - so far, so good!). I haven't played much Party, but from what I can gather, the same concepts apply to Stars' Turbos as Party's SNGs after about 10 minutes of play.

[Bigwig]

Trust me on the following -- the Stars players are better. At least, the % of good players is higher.

What's great about Stars, IMO, is their multi-player tournamnets. Much better than Party.

[J-Lo]

[ QUOTE ]


What's great about Stars, IMO, is their multi-player tournamnets.

[/ QUOTE ]

.VS their single player tournaments?

Terp what is your name on stars? I just moved up to the $25+2 from the $15+1 and i want to see how the higher level, good players play

[UMTerp]

[ QUOTE ]
Terp what is your name on stars? I just moved up to the $25+2 from the $15+1 and i want to see how the higher level, good players play

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm UMTerp on Stars as well. I'm actually playing a mix of the $27's and $60's at the moment, as I try to work in a few more tables, so you may run into me. In the next week or so, I plan to work the $27's out of the rotation though.

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]


.VS their single player tournaments?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Their MTT format is superior to Party.

[Hickboy]

The blind structure for the normal sit and gos is much slower on stars than party's structure.

I actually do much better on stars than on partypoker for the $50 sit and gos. Even though the players are better, the blind structure is much slower, which allows for much more creative play. The blind structure on party is way too fast for the higher buyins in my opinion.

Needless to say, the $50 sit and gos on both sites are definitely beatable. I am a fan of the slower structure on stars, and do much better in them than party's. Your mileage may vary though.

Any other thoughts/comments on this would be appreciated.

[J-Lo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


.VS their single player tournaments?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Their MTT format is superior to Party.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't get it, go back and re-read carefully. and if u can't figure it out, answer in white below

<font color="white"> You said multi PLAYER tourney, all tourneys are multiplayer tourneys.. you meant multi-table, i was just busting your balls /images/graemlins/grin.gif</font>

[solody]

Is there a big difference between $27's and $60's, terp ?

I was 3 tabling the $27's and now just began to play $60's. The $27's are easily beatable but I had a bad streak at the beginning of the $60's, hopefully it is better since.

Also do you know a player named sverre on stars ? He claimed to be a swedish pro 3 tabling the $60's with a return of $35/tourney (58% roi).

[UMTerp]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there a big difference between $27's and $60's, terp ?

I was 3 tabling the $27's and now just began to play $60's. The $27's are easily beatable but I had a bad streak at the beginning of the $60's, hopefully it is better since.

Also do you know a player named sverre on stars ? He claimed to be a swedish pro 3 tabling the $60's with a return of $35/tourney (58% roi).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, there's a difference there, but I don't see any reason why a studious player should have any difficulty beating the $60's with a bit of experience either. Anything higher is a different story.

Yes, I know who sverre is. He's a good player, and I run into him occasionally at the higher buy-in SNGs and MTTs. I still have a hard time believing that anybody could have that high an ROI at that level though. I think the max theoretical ROI for the $60 Turbos would be somewhere in the low to mid 30's. I'm right around 20 myself (sometimes a bit above, sometimes a bit below), but I play more than three tables.