People's thoughts on the Mini-Steps

[theordinaryboy]

A lot of talk has been going on about the higher steps (which i hate the structure of) but what about the mini steps???

In particular,

1. The structure from level 2-4 of top 2 go thru 3rd-5th/6th gets a try again.

2. The prize structure in step 5 of 2000, 1000, 500, 300, 200

This seems bad if buying in from a high level. My original thoughts are that this extra place would make play a little looser than the original step 5 as bubble play would be sooner and people wouldnt be as bothered about 200 as they would 1200

3. The level of competition

Should surely be very nice with many poor players due to the 5 buy-in in step 1.

4. Less collusion

Colluders would leave the mini steps alone because they can earn more in the original steps and these ridiculous higher ones.

thats about it off the top of my head

I reckon i might take $500 and blitz the step 2's when my workload lightens up a bit.

Also citanul i saw you in a step 5 mini, your thoughts on them would be greatly appreciated as ever.

[dfscott]

I was toying with this as well. I 4-table, so I was thinking about swapping out my 4th 22 for a Step 2 mini-step. Sort of like buying a lottery ticket. I haven't done the math yet to see what the opportunity cost is, though, particularly if I looped back to step 1 (probably be worth just dumping the step 1)

[Newt_Buggs]

link? I can never seem to find these things on PP website.

I canceled my PP account because i didn't have rakeback on it. Maybe i'll open up a new PP acount with rakeback just to mess around on these steps for fun

[MowrMowr]

[ QUOTE ]
link? I can never seem to find these things on PP website.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.partypoker.com/news/events/steps-challenge-04.html

[Newt_Buggs]

[ QUOTE ]
I was toying with this as well. I 4-table, so I was thinking about swapping out my 4th 22 for a Step 2 mini-step. Sort of like buying a lottery ticket. I haven't done the math yet to see what the opportunity cost is, though, particularly if I looped back to step 1 (probably be worth just dumping the step 1)

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, looks fun. If I get a party account open maybe i'll buy into the 2nd step as well. If you try it let me know how it goes.

[adanthar]

The 400's right now are a mix of $200 and Step 5 regulars, guys like GambleAB (pro from Full Tilt) and maybe the occasional semi-fish. I like this pond a lot more than the other ones.

Bad news is, the Step 5 2 tables may as well be dead now...sigh.

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
Bad news is, the Step 5 2 tables may as well be dead now...sigh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe all the hardcore pros won't play the 2 table ones as much and the field will be easier, consisting of those who advance from lvl 1 (although it won't run as much). That is my wishful thinking.

[dfscott]

Has anyone played enough of these to judge the relative softness? I played 2 or 3 Step 2s and they seemed softer than the 22s. Unfortunately, I quit before I made it to step 3.

[Apathy]

[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone played enough of these to judge the relative softness? I played 2 or 3 Step 2s and they seemed softer than the 22s. Unfortunately, I quit before I made it to step 3.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still maintain that STEPs are not profitable for just about anyone unless you buyin direct to STEP 5 and can beatthat game. The rake is too insane, I've been rambling about this for days though and noone seems to care so maybe I should just stop.

[microbet]

I don't know who cares, but I'm sure there are a lot of people who agree and aren't at all interested in playing the steps.

[dfscott]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone played enough of these to judge the relative softness? I played 2 or 3 Step 2s and they seemed softer than the 22s. Unfortunately, I quit before I made it to step 3.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still maintain that STEPs are not profitable for just about anyone unless you buyin direct to STEP 5 and can beatthat game. The rake is too insane, I've been rambling about this for days though and noone seems to care so maybe I should just stop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen some of these posts, but I have to admit that I haven't taken the time to wade through the math yet.

Is the basic idea that if you can beat the Mini Step5's, you'd be better off playing a traditional SnG at a similar buy-in? Maybe the misleading thing is that I was thinking, "hey, I can buy in at the cost of the 22s (which I can beat) and maybe win a few thousand bucks." And the real problem is that by the time I get to the Step 5, the game has become a lot harder?

I don't see how rake is an issue, since if I buy in at 22, I freeroll my way to the top, possibly bouncing around a bit. Opportunity cost seems like the biggest expense.

[stupidsucker]

Apathy is right.

I had this discussion with Irie when original steps came out. At first I thought they looked like a goldmine.

to simpify the math problems without using math think of it this way. The flat flat payout structure makes it easier for fish to keep their money longer. Therefor harder for the winning player to extract $$$$. By giving the winners a payout in the form of a freeroll party wins wins wins, because that freeroll isnt worth anything more thn what you can win from it.

Now to use some tiny math without getting to complicated.

Most people go mmmm I won $55.. but you didnt. You won a $55 freeroll and $5 of it isnt even yours. It is already spent. To make matters worse you have to do well to collect your prize. Lets say your roi is 40%.. So your $55 freeroll is really only worth $22 in hand. This means that 1st and 2nd prize for a ministep 2 buyin are both only $22.

Yikes. I will stick to regular SnGs.. I almost fell into this trap. The math is more complicated, but steps do suck unless you can beat the 5th step.

A new strategy is needed to beat these. You need to develop a strategy that has you taking 1st and 2nd at least 30% of the time and hardly winning a freeroll lower then ministep 3. Good luck with that.

[dfscott]

I guess you're right -- you have to get lucky enough to get three 2nd place finishes in a row in order to even have a shot at cashing.

I think I was looking at it like playing an MTT -- I might lose a lot, but if I win, I win big.

[Freudian]

It's not a huge problem if you treat it as a 22$ shot. If it fails it fails (which is by far the most likely outcome). You will have lost 22$ at most.

But trying it once will most likely fail, and if you are unlucky you will have spent countless hours on that failure.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
Bad news is, the Step 5 2 tables may as well be dead now...sigh.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmm... i've been sitting on a step 5 2-table for a while working up the sack to play in it. are they really not running now? has party said anything about it?