Party $10+1 vs. $30+3 -- Opinions?

[Six_of_One]

I know this has been discussed before on older forums, but I'm looking for fresh opinions.

I'm curious, what do people see as the difference, if any, between the level of play at $10+1 vs. $30+3 SNG's on Party? I only play limit, but I'd welcome opinions about NL as well.

I've been satisfied with my results at $10+1 (very small sample of only 55 tournaments), and thinking about moving up to $30+3. Bankroll is not an issue. Can I expect a similar ROI at the higher level?

[crockpot]

naturally, the level of play is a little better. in other words, you can expect one or two fewer morons per table. still, the play is sufficiently bad that you should avoid all but the most successful bluffs in the early going and focus on outplaying them when it gets down to six players or so.

your return on the dollar will probably go down a little because you'll run into a few more good players. i would say a great player would probably earn something like $7/tourney at $10+1 and $15/tourney at $30+3.

[Stagemusic]

I agree with Crock as I have made the move up to the 30's and 50's at Party. The game is much more stable at the 50 level but you will still have a couple of maniacs as opposed to the 6 or 7 at the $10 level. Depending on the table, you can still find a good share of maniacs at the $30 level. Last tournament I played this morning we were down to 5 handed before the end of the first level. /images/graemlins/grin.gif The tournament was over in a little more than half an hour. A quick $117 profit. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Cosimo]

damn, what the hell am I doing at UB?

[whips out spreadsheet]
41 SNGs
1963 minutes
= 47 minutes on average

and my average place is something like 5th; I'm only just beating this level ($0/hr, IOW). All my fourths (7 of them) have taken an average of 57.7 minutes.

[Iceman]

"i would say a great player would probably earn something like $7/tourney at $10+1 and $15/tourney at $30+3."

What about the $50+5?

[AleoMagus]

It is interesting that you post this because I am currently on the sad end of that jump gone awry. I played $10+1 NLHE sngs for the past three months and played hundreds of tourneys in that time. Before that I had played hundreds of $5+1. My 10+1 results showed me in the money over 40% of the time with 1st place finishes very near 20% of the time.
I was making almost $5/tourney (which steadily went down from over $10/tourney after my first 30 or so).

Anyways, I thought I was ready to jump and I was wrong. I only managed to get about fifty $30+3 before I got tired of losing money. What is interesting about this is that I had played $30+3 all the way up to $100+9 in the past, but only rarely and only as a change from my normal $10+1 schedule. In the past, I had played quite a few tourneys at these levels and finished very well. So why did I suddenly fall apart? Well I've been asking myself that a lot.

I'd like to say I got unlucky seeing as how I only got about 50 tourneys in, but that is just not the whole story. The simple fact is, it was not unheard of for me to lose five or six $10+1 in a row. I guess that if you can finish in the money 50% of the time, then about every 64 tourneys you should expect to have a six tourney bad spell. This is easy to deal with when it only hits your bankroll for $66. At the 30+3 level this is significantly different. Losing $200 in a few hours was enough to rattle me and I know that I wasn't playing my best game.

Given my situation, I am obviously pessimistic about this jump but it is a bit big when you think about it. Usually a player can jump to 1.5x or 2x their current stakes, but the 10 to 30 jump is tripling your usual play. If bankroll is really not an issue, then perhaps you are capable of doing it successfully. Lord knows, I think that I am capable of doing it even still, but here I am playing $10+1 again so...

I would suggest that you play about a hundred more $10+1 to get more certainty in your results and if you do want to play bigger, I'd just play $30+3 every now and then. In the past, I allowed myself a higher stakes tourney every time I found myself at the buy-in+$100 earned. For example, if I started $10+1 sngs with a $300 bankroll, then I'd play a 30+3 as soon as I turned that into $433+ and again when it reached $533,$633, and so on. In this way, you are still playing at a level you are comfortable with and you can play the bigger tourneys with confidence because it is not crucial to win. Not only that but it still leaves you with a nice feeling because your bankroll sits nicely above the last hundred dollar mark if you lose. And if you win a $30+3, you can jump straight into another one because you will be at the next bigger sng buy in point.

All this said, I really don't think the game is very different at all from $10+1 to $30+3. That is not the point though. Will you be different?

Regards,
Brad S

[Stagemusic]

[ QUOTE ]
All this said, I really don't think the game is very different at all from $10+1 to $30+3. That is not the point though. Will you be different?


[/ QUOTE ]

I hereby nominate this as the best 3 sentences ever written by a newbie. Very well said. I agree that there is sometimes a lot of "scared money" in these tournies at the 30 and 50 level in particular. If you feel that you are even slightly uncomfortable at ANY level...move to where you feel right...simple.

Very nice post. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[muzungu]

6/1-
Shlub covered 99% or so of what I was going to say (nice post, btw). I remember the first time I had a losing streak of 5 $30+3 Sngs- even though it didn't put too much of a dent in my roll, losing $165 at a go was a little more than I was accustomed to.
I remember Al Schoonmaker (sp?- he posts in the psych. forum and writes for cardplayer.com) mentioning the idea of "psychological bankroll", which is the amount that you can lose and still play your A game. Even if you have the actual bankroll for the $30+3, it's important to know if you are comfortable with dropping the $200 in a couple hours and knowing there might not have been much you could have done about it.

Other than that, if you can beat one I'd say you should be able to beat the other- I didn't play many of the $10+1s, but I didn't notice much difference. I think I once placed in 3rd in a $30+3 without winning a hand. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

-muz

[Six_of_One]

[ QUOTE ]

Even if you have the actual bankroll for the $30+3, it's important to know if you are comfortable with dropping the $200 in a couple hours and knowing there might not have been much you could have done about it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that's a key question. I typically play 6-12 or 8-16 live, so I am used to losing $200 or more on a bad night. I've never played near those stakes online though, so I can't say how losing a bunch in a row will effect me. I know the losses will come, of course. In my 55 tournaments at $10+1, my longest losing streak is 6. I've been in the money 28 out of 55, making $5.31 per tournament. I had a streak of 7 straight money finishes which helped a lot with those results.

I guess the bottom line is, I need to give it a shot and see what happens. My current plan is to wait until my bankroll has 30 buy-ins for the $30+3 level (that's another $100 for me to win at $10+1 -- when I said in my original post that bankroll was not an issue, I meant that anything I lose online is easily replaceable) and then move up. If I drop down below 20 buy-ins, I plan to go back to the $10+1's.