Would you say there is a correlation.....

[Rojosox]

between the higher dollar tournaments having a lower ROI? Initially, this makes perfect sense. But I was thinking about it. A lot of people are not rich and therefore can only afford the 30 and 50 games. You might have a lot of rich people just spending tons of $$$ at the 100/200 games (probably not the 1k games)... so theoretically, some of the 30 dollar tourneys may be harder than the 200s. Am I crazy or does this make any sense? - Jared

[Apathy]

In some ways it does make sense. Irieguy has written a few great posts all explaining his theory that in difficulty level:

5<10<20<30<50<100<200...

I too have had toughts similar to yours, that there are certain levels where the 'grind it out' small stakes pros are forced to stick around for longer then usual (like the 33s for example) while the rich fish have no problem playing at the highest level.


I think that type your talking about has more possibility of being true live then it does online.

Obviously you can find a 200 game that would be easier then a 50 game. It would be rare though, and doesn't change the fact that on average the difficulty level goes up as the money does in online SNGs.

[Misfire]

I don't know about SNGs, but there's a paradox I've heard from several places that the 1/2 games on Party are tougher than the 2/4...

You'd think, however, that the good players starting with smaller bankrolls would still move up eventually...

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
between the higher dollar tournaments having a lower ROI? Initially, this makes perfect sense. But I was thinking about it. A lot of people are not rich and therefore can only afford the 30 and 50 games. You might have a lot of rich people just spending tons of $$$ at the 100/200 games (probably not the 1k games)... so theoretically, some of the 30 dollar tourneys may be harder than the 200s. Am I crazy or does this make any sense? - Jared

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you're not crazy, but I don't think the theory is correct. Unless every rich fish is also crazy. They will start to realize that they can get enjoyment at a $50, and not piss every cent away at the higher levels.

The levels play out a lot like a free market. In the end, the average tournament difficulty will be related directly to the buy-in. But there are adjustment levels, and not every tourney would be the same. Just like every business owner does not make optimal business decisions. Still, as a whole, business owners make logical decisions designed to further their own needs. Same thing here.

[lorinda]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about SNGs, but there's a paradox I've heard from several places that the 1/2 games on Party are tougher than the 2/4...

[/ QUOTE ]

Definition of Paradox

A paradox is an apparently true statement or group of statements that seems to lead to a contradiction or to a situation that defies intuition, such as "This statement is false".

Definition of Bullshit

Bullshit (or bull) is a common English expletive meaning "humbug" or "nonsense." It implies that the purveyor of alleged nonsense is willfully lying, or that he/she is speaking boldly from ignorance. It is also the verb meaning to talk bullshit.

Source: Wikipedia


Lori

[Maulik]

my friend plays 15/30 as a college student and can't beat the 2/4 tables, he games for excitement. He's about to quit because he's down maybe $8gs.

some people are degenerate or can afford to lose. I'm sure you'd be lucky to run into some Wall Street/lawyer types, who will never play a $100 tournament.

[skipperbob]

1.) Yes, you are crazy
2.) However, your theory is true
3.) We both had better hope that Irieguy & Citanul are in a good mood when they read this /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[gumpzilla]

It's surely not a paradox, but I think that I could get behind the avg. skill(1/2) > avg. skill(2/4) more easily than the similar situation in SNGs. Wouldn't the argument be that a lot of unusually strong players might use 1/2 to clear bonuses? Is the rake structure the same in both games? I could imagine that 2/4 might have a gentler rake structure such that even though the game was harder, one had to do less well to beat it for similar amounts of money. These arguments don't apply to SNGs; maybe they don't apply to ring games either, but that's not clear.

I'm not saying that 1/2 > 2/4 is definitely true, but with this one I can at least see my way to how it could be.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
between the higher dollar tournaments having a lower ROI? Initially, this makes perfect sense. But I was thinking about it. A lot of people are not rich and therefore can only afford the 30 and 50 games. You might have a lot of rich people just spending tons of $$$ at the 100/200 games (probably not the 1k games)... so theoretically, some of the 30 dollar tourneys may be harder than the 200s. Am I crazy or does this make any sense? - Jared

[/ QUOTE ]

You're crazy. It just doesn't work that way in practice, at least the way I play.

30 is easier than 50 is easier than 100. I just can't image 200 gets any easier. I've never heard anyone say it does.

eastbay

[p0t_Commit3d]

I cant say anything about 1t yet, but speaking for limit games I can say that sometimes its a factor, but more often at lower limits then the higher limits.

This is because the rake is a huge factor in limit games moreso then at 1t. This causes the 1-2 game to be tougher then the 2-4 sometimes simply because of the rake factor. The skill levels of the players is so close that rake>skill.

At the higher limits I have played there may be the occasion big fish, and sometimes he will stay in the game for a long long long time, but all in all losing is just no fun. They will eventualy quit even if they have money to blow. If they have a ton of money and they still want to play, then they often try to find the higher then what they are playing now. Chasing their losses.

Anyways. Quantity fish> quality of fish . I cant prove it, but I know from experiance that in limit games it just doesnt make a difference at the higher limits. Each game is progressivly tougher~in the long run~. As for the lower limits rake is the factor.

[tjh]

Just to muddy the waters...

I would say that some players may be naturally predisposed to play a better game at a certain level. Assuming that each level plays different and each person has different strengths then one person may find the 100's easier than the 11's.

For example, I can naturally beat the UB 11's, no stunning ROI or anything but my bankroll does grow. I can not naturally beat the party SNG's. Sure I could learn, sure the fish are all as fishy at either site. The play is different though.. deep stacks vs small stacks fast escalation vs slow escalation.

My point is that I am naturally suited to the UB structure. As you move up the buy-ins different skills come into play and different styles of play are rewarded. Stealing the blinds is an advanced play to some $5 fish, I have seen some aggressive noobies temporarilly rule an expensive table. The wild play put the sharks on edge, they simply had forgotten how to handle a foolish maniac, or they were biding there time to take him down, who knows.

Same goes for the higher buy-ins. Some folks may find a higher buyin easier than a lower buy in. In general though I think the rule is higher==harder, ther are of course exceptions.

--
tjh

[FieryJustice]

Well, I must be honest with you people...I have not played many $33 sngs, but from what I have played, I know I am no good at them. I also know that I can kill the $215's. I dont know why this is but it really doensnt matter much to me as I never plan to play a $33 sng for the rest of my life.
I DO however think that once you hit a certain level, the differenct in difficulty of the games does not change all that much. If you look at the mini step 5's and compare them to the regular step 5's, most of the people will be the same. I'm sure that once the higher steps start running that ALL of the people that play in it will be regulars at the normal step 5's. I guess what I am trying to say is that the minis are not much harder than the regulars and then when the highers run, they will be virtually the same as the normal steps.
The $215's were. in my opinion basically the same as step 5's up until the minis came out. Now most of the people I tried to avoid in the 215's are playing the minis now. I only recgonize about 3 or 4 names now in every $215 I play whereas before i noticed about 6 or 7. When I take a look at the mini5's, I notice baiscally every name. I guess all the sharks moved up.
Jcardshark

[adanthar]

You know, that's really dumb for most people to do unless they also have rakeback at Party. But it sure works for me.

Hmm...I've got a $200-ready bankroll now...

[Apathy]

There is some truth to this in that some players are good enough to beat high limit poker but aren't good enough to adjust to certain types of game conditions that are rarely seen at the level they usually play.

The players who can't adjust to any type of structure or game setting are going to have problems when "their" game is no longer available, but they probably don'y care about that right now.




As for Jcards comments about the ministep5s softening up the 200s, there are some things that are better not being posted on a public forum, this is one of those.

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about SNGs, but there's a paradox I've heard from several places that the 1/2 games on Party are tougher than the 2/4...


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this may be the case, but if it is it is almost entirely the result of the existance of 6-max games at 1/2 and none at 2/4. These games attract many of the action players which in turn tightens up the full games.

[FieryJustice]

my bad..I will learn to beat the $33's and also to keep my mouth shut.

[dfscott]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about SNGs, but there's a paradox I've heard from several places that the 1/2 games on Party are tougher than the 2/4...

You'd think, however, that the good players starting with smaller bankrolls would still move up eventually...

[/ QUOTE ]

"Harder" is a relative term.

As a veteran of the limit grind, I'll give my theory (supply your own grain of salt).

.5/1 is the lowest level on party. People who have no idea what they are doing play there, loose as a goose. Beginners who are true students of the game also begin there.

The typical person who learns the basics of playing limit poker learns how to play weak/tight, since it's so easy. Playing that way, you can destroy the .5/1. These players build a big BR and move up. The uber-fish never leave .5/1, since they just get the occasional suck-out and lose long-term to the better players (and in some cases, have no interest in moving up.)

So, the 1/2 becomes populated by weak/tight players who beat the loose fish, plus some tight/aggressive players as well and a few lucky fish. Now, weak/tight no longer works since everyone is playing that way. Only the better players that know how to play aggressive but back away from rocks that play back at them do well. Those players build a BR and move up to 2/4. OTOH, the weak/tighties don't lose much (since they're so tight), but have trouble getting anyone to pay them off (since everyone else is so tight). As a result, they're stuck in 1/2 land forever (or until they learn how to change up their game), hence, it's a rock garden.