PokerStars vs Party Poker tournament tables

[darin_henley]

Does anyone have an opinion on PokerStars vs Party Poker for where they prefer to spend their tournament dollar? I have been experimenting a bit lately, but not enough to have much data.

I know that Party Poker is much bigger, and people say that the players are less skilled on average.

However, the tournaments at PokerStars have nearly twice as many starting chips (1500 vs. 800) with, I believe, the same blind structure. It seems like the play would have to be terribly different to overcome that kind of difference in variance.

Any thoughts on the built-in variance argument and the two sites in general is appreicated.

[TylerD]

This has been addressed here A LOT. My personal opinion is although the games take longer at Stars, and the players are *perhaps* better, it is a much better site for SnGs. The fact the starting stacks are twice as big and the rounds go up every 10 minutes NOT every 10 hands means the more skilled player will have a much greater edge than a skilled player at Party.

Search the archive for more information.

[triplc]

My response is going to be colored a bit by my recent experience at Party, but I find that the structure at stars is more favorable for my style. Deeper chip count (1500 Stars vs. 800 Party) and slower blind increases give you more hands with which to exploit better play.

I've used this analogy before, but if I put my alma mater, UMass, up against the Duke Blue Devils in a game, in which scenario would you give Umass the better chance to win? A 5 min game, 10 min game, or the full 40? In my opinion, stars is like the full forty minute game, while Party is more like the 10 min game. The longer the game, the more chances skill has to win over luck.

That said, Party is more like playing against your local middle school girls team than the Dukies, but the point is still valid...

CCC

[TomCollins]

You are comparing apples and oranges. The difference in skill between the avg. Stars player and the avg. Party player is so huge, you can't just compare the structure.

Along those lines, where would Duke stand a better chance to win?
A 5 minute game against College of Charleston, or a 40 minute game against Stanford?

[jacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Along those lines, where would Duke stand a better chance to win?
A 5 minute game against College of Charleston, or a 40 minute game against Stanford?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the perfect analogy. Party's players are much worse, but that edge is muted by the compressed format.

[triplc]

I don't disagree with you, Tom, and I play at the $10 level, so the play at both isn't great. But the play is worse at Party than at Stars. I just feel that at my level anyway, the structure outweighs the level of play.

I would say Party's players are like Army (awful team in a weak conference), and Stars players are more like College of Charleston (pretty good team in a middle conference). Until you get to the 50 or 100 dollar level...Stanford isn't even on the schedule /images/graemlins/smile.gif. At that level, I imagine the difference is not that great, either...but interested to hear.

If that's the case...the Dukies want the 40-minute game every time.

All other things equal, I prefer the games at Stars because they allow me to play my game more easily.

CCC