PDA

View Full Version : PP vs. PS after the death of rakeback


suited_ace
11-04-2005, 02:18 PM
I know there are a few ways of getting RB @ Party, but all of them seem too shady for me, so let's assume RB is dead for good there.

I usually play the $11s & $22s @ PP, but I'll move to the $33s as soon as I can (BR + being happy enough with my game).

My guess is that...

splashpot
11-04-2005, 02:21 PM
You'll have a higher ITM at Stars because there are only 9 players.

suited_ace
11-04-2005, 02:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You'll have a higher ITM at Stars because there are only 9 players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's the easy part... My main concern is $/hr. It was always a given that PP was better for that, but I was wondering if the turbos @ stars aren't beating PP since their rake is lower.

11-04-2005, 02:41 PM
I'd say it's pretty close, though I haven't played all that many at PP (I had just gotten a RB deal at Empire to get started before the split). The lesser rake at Stars is probably balanced somewhat by the extra buy-in at PP. I also like the turbos a bit more because the extra chips do give you some more wiggle room in the early going.

citanul
11-04-2005, 02:51 PM
everything you asked about really does depend on if you're a good, winning player, now doesn't it.

c

TheNoodleMan
11-04-2005, 04:37 PM
All of this stars vs. party stuff is overblown. Play them both and you'll find out that there are plenty of donks on each site. If you are a winning player you will make money on either one. I don't think the difference is going to be big enough to outweigh standard variance until you get a very large sample size.

downtown
11-04-2005, 04:40 PM
Not being able to choose my seat at Stars makes me confused and angry, and therefore my ROI and ITM are actually lower. I am only slightly joking, but my sample size is small and I'm a breakeven player over those 20-30 SNGs, so I'm sticking to my story of being confused and angry.

pokerlaw
11-04-2005, 05:56 PM
[ QUOTE ]
everything you asked about really does depend on if you're a good, winning player, now doesn't it.

c

[/ QUOTE ]

nah, it just matters how big of a luckbox you are /images/graemlins/smile.gif

i said higher ROI at stars b/c it didn't specify turbo or regular. i feel that it would be pretty close bet'n the turbos and party.

smb394
11-04-2005, 06:10 PM
(Might want to include a "just see results" option so that results aren't skewed by the curious)

1C5
11-04-2005, 06:55 PM
How many tables can you play at a time at Stars?

splashpot
11-04-2005, 06:58 PM
[ QUOTE ]
How many tables can you play at a time at Stars?

[/ QUOTE ]
SNGs? I think it's as many as you want.

TheNoodleMan
11-04-2005, 07:41 PM
[ QUOTE ]
How many tables can you play at a time at Stars?

[/ QUOTE ]
10

SammyKid11
11-04-2005, 08:09 PM
Yeah, but those turbos load SO slowly that, except for very peak hours, it pretty much kills the idea of playing in sets. By the time you get the eighth one started, you're at Level 4 of your first one. I have a linear mind, so for me, that's definitely -EV.

Plus, in my (limited) experience at Stars, I do think the play there is at least somewhat better than at Party. Add in the shady RB, and Party's definitely my choice for both ROI and $/hr. Obviously ITM's gonna be higher at Stars, for a very obvious reason. In fact, who are the donkeys who answered that their ITM was going to be higher at Party?

Edit: I just looked...FIFTEEN of you people believe you're going to money more against 9 other players than against 8 other players. Wow (I suppose some of those 15 didn't realize Stars was 9-handed).