startling difference in results between $30 and $50 on PP

[eastbay]

I know these sample sizes are small, but...

Last month, I played about 50 $50 SnGs on party with a dismal ROI of about 20%. Over about the same time period, starting a little earlier, I played about 50 $30 SnGs with an ROI of nearly 70%.

Can this result be "real"? Is the play really that different at $50 as it is at $30? Is my 50 tournament sample really so small that I could be around, say, 40% for both in the "long term"?

My $30 result has been nearly constant for the 50 tourney sample. My $50 result started much higher, around 60%, and slowly went down, down, down. I eventually went back to the $30 level just to make sure my game hadn't fallen apart and I could still get 50%+ ROI there. It looks like I still can (but again, I've only played another dozen there, with a 72% ROI, which nearly matches my previous results.)

Has anyone else seen this kind of jump in performance when moving between buy-ins like this that held up as "real"?

I've seen people say that $50 is a "bad level" because of the mix of fish and strong players. I was highly skeptical of this, but I'm wondering (hoping?) now if there might be something to it. Does anyone want to support that idea or shoot it down? I could take a crack at the $100 level, but I'd feel much better about it if I was hitting 50% at the $50 level first.

eastbay

[La Brujita]

From my experience the $50 nl games at Party are much tougher than the $30 games. About four months ago this did not seem to be the case but I am convinced it is so right now.

Congrats on the great results!

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
From my experience the $50 nl games at Party are much tougher than the $30 games. About four months ago this did not seem to be the case but I am convinced it is so right now.

Congrats on the great results!

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks! I don't have the hard numbers to back it up, but I was playing the $50 level for several months, and I had the same observation about it not being much harder than $30 a months ago.

Then again, I didn't start keeping detailed records until I hit a biggish multi win and started needing to keep track for tax reporting purposes. Maybe my memory is being "convenient" as to my results before and after being confronted with the hard numbers.

In any case, I don't expect my 70% ROI at $30 to hold up indefinitely (does that seem possible? Anecdotally it seems 50% is probably a more realistic number). But I certainly hope I can figure out how to play at the $50 level these days. I find it is much harder to get paid off, and probably the real killer for me, is that I end up calling a lot of "bluffs" which have me buried at the $50, whereas at the $30 level I catch people with their hand in the cookie jar quite regularly.

eastbay

[jwvdcw]

While there is obviously a difference here, I would think that the bigger jump would be from 50 to 100 and from 100 to 200. I think sometimes it is more of a psychological thing. For some reason, when moving up in limits people tend to over-respect their opponents and change their game too much. I'm not sure if this is the case with you, but its something you should check out. Make sure that you're not 'intimidated' by the higher stakes.

And, yes, those huge contrasting numbers are definitely somewhat of a fluke.

[jaydoggie]

i truly believe, and hope, this can be a fluke. after 100 games at the 5$ level i was 42% roi. and after 50 at the $10 level im literally showing 5% roi.

i dont think theres a big jump in skill here, just small sample size. hopefully. /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[Guy McSucker]

Eastbay,

I haven't yet played SNGs on Party, but, isn't $50 where the starting stack size increases?

If so, I wonder if you're taking this properly into account for your strategy. You probably are; I was just surprised nobody had mentioned it.

Guy.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Eastbay,

I haven't yet played SNGs on Party, but, isn't $50 where the starting stack size increases?

If so, I wonder if you're taking this properly into account for your strategy. You probably are; I was just surprised nobody had mentioned it.

Guy.


[/ QUOTE ]

Good point! My question would be: what the heck is the difference in strategy?

I don't really do anything deliberately different.

eastbay

[CrisBrown]

Hi eastbay,

As a general rule, the larger the stacks relative to the starting blinds, the more hands (and thus more decision-points) will occur in the SNG. So skillful decision-making has a greater edge, simply because that edge will come into play more times. If you have that edge -- and from your posts I think you do -- it's to your advantage to keep the pots smaller (when you can), and give yourself chances to make good post-flop decisions. Basically, a skillful player loathes a shoot-out, because then it's all up to the dealer.

Cris

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi eastbay,

As a general rule, the larger the stacks relative to the starting blinds, the more hands (and thus more decision-points) will occur in the SNG. So skillful decision-making has a greater edge, simply because that edge will come into play more times. If you have that edge -- and from your posts I think you do -- it's to your advantage to keep the pots smaller (when you can), and give yourself chances to make good post-flop decisions. Basically, a skillful player loathes a shoot-out, because then it's all up to the dealer.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

Cris,

That all makes sense. Maybe something at play here is that I've done some work on the mathematics of preflop all-in play. That probably is the strongest part of my game because I've done the most thinking about it. So maybe I'm a little bit of a shoot-out specialist at this point.

Maybe the thing to do here is to practice my ring game before taking another shot at the $50 level.

(And thanks for the vote of confidence. I'm certain I have one hell of a long way to go at this game yet.)

eastbay

[jomatty]

ive noticed that the 50 plays a good bit tougher than the 30 too. i think it has to do with the starting stack size. this may sound counterintuitive as obviously a big stack benefits the better players. only the good players realize this which imo makes most good players much more likely to play 50 than 30 dollar buy ins. i think the result is less good players in the 30 and proportionately more in the 50. theres still plenty of bad players at the 50 but not at the same consentration. just my opinion
matty

[Moonsugar]

I recently started playing 50 also. 2 main differences I have observed:

1) At 50 there only seems to be 1 complete idiot whereas at the 30 level there are 2 or 3.

2) If you play a really tight game (like I do) then 800 chips don't last too long if you don't get a hand early. By the time you get low you have to have a good knowledge of all-in hand equity (like you say you do in another post. Having that knowledge can be a real key to success at the 30 level, I have observed. At 50, though, if you get down to low there are often too many big stacks and they will call you more, leading to more exits at 4 and 5.

So, at 50 level you have a disadvantage cause you have less dead money and you have to adjust starting hands to account for more chips.

Hope this helps.

[Bozeman]

"Is my 50 tournament sample really so small that I could be around, say, 40% for both in the "long term"?"

Your sample is small enough that not only is this possible, it may be likely. Even your 1 SD confidence interval is something like +-25% ROI. So you can say with only ~67% confidence that you are between -5% and 45% at the $55 level. Also, I doubt that even the greatest players will sustain 70% ROI at $33.

Despite this, playing the same at $55 is going to be a leak. 1) you need to play somewhat looser at the beginning to profit from the few horrendous players before they (usually) go broke. You will not be able to limp to the money as often, and your opportunities to induce or take advantage of mistakes will often occur postflop. 2) you will find different players against you. Mostly, you will need to take advantage of players who fold too much, and will find less players who call too much. Cris can probably help you a lot with this style. Myself, I didn't see a statistically significant drop between 30 and 50, but do between 50 and 100.

Back when I played 20-30-50 (on paradise), I found that 30 were the hardest for me because the 20 players were horribly loose, while the 50 players fairly readable, but the LAG and tricky play at 30 was harder to overcome.

Craig

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
"Is my 50 tournament sample really so small that I could be around, say, 40% for both in the "long term"?"

Your sample is small enough that not only is this possible, it may be likely. Even your 1 SD confidence interval is something like +-25% ROI. So you can say with only ~67% confidence that you are between -5% and 45% at the $55 level.



[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, well honestly if I had to take a guess, I felt like I was functioning as a -EV player. I hit several firsts to kick off the month, and couldn't put anything together after that for 40 or so tourneys. That's when I dropped back down and came alive again. But thanks for putting some numbers on it. This is something I really should have a better working knowledge of. Is there a normal distribution confidence level calculator online somewhere?

[ QUOTE ]

Also, I doubt that even the greatest players will sustain 70% ROI at $33.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I didn't think so either. But it certainly feels consistently easier to win at the $30 tables. I don't know if such entirely subjective impressions are worth much if anything.

[ QUOTE ]

Despite this, playing the same at $55 is going to be a leak. 1) you need to play somewhat looser at the beginning to profit from the few horrendous players before they (usually) go broke.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, probably mistake #1. I learned to play ultra-tight at the first 3 levels in the $30 game.

[ QUOTE ]

You will not be able to limp to the money as often, and your opportunities to induce or take advantage of mistakes will often occur postflop.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably where my game needs the most work.

[ QUOTE ]

2) you will find different players against you. Mostly, you will need to take advantage of players who fold too much


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I find that in the $30 game, I'm often able to run over the table when it gets short-handed. In the $50 games, I tend to get run over more often than I do the running over.

Thanks for the input.

eastbay

[Stagemusic]

This is a great post and very very true. There IS a big jump from the $30 to the $50 and all the above comments include the reasons. I actually felt more comfortable and had a better ROI once I made that $20 jump. Play was much more consistent and by playing tight early I found that in the middle rounds my raises, steal or otherwise, were much more respected. Oddly enough, I have found that the difference at Poker Stars is even MORE pronounced. It may be because of the starting stacks, but I am more inclined to believe that it is because PS has a $20 level that provides a bit more of a cushion between the "maniac" low buy in crowd and the more stable players.

[rodeoclown]

Having paid for books and fees at school with winnings from the $30 Party games, and having tried, unsuccessfully to "move up" to the $50 games, I'm of the opinion that $/hr is actually higher (for me at least) at the $30s. Apart from the general "not-as-terrible" play at the $50s, the other part of stack size to consider is that $50 tournaments simply last longer. Now that it is possible to play 4 tourneys at once, is the 50 - 30 difference really a big enough increase to justify playing longer against better opponenents? Call me a grinder, but I prefer the $30s where I'm in or out of the money in about 40 minutes, and maintain a decently high ROI. After that, it's off to my reverse-leak (I can't get away from the $100 PLO games, but I seem to always hit quads!!).

[allenciox]

I really have to emphasize what Bozeman is saying here, it is so true. I have played very little $30, but what I have noticed is that as you ascend from $30 to $50 to $100 to $200, each level has tighter play. Just like in the stock market, you have to be a contrarian --- play looser when the game is tight, and tighter when the game is loose. I found that my $50 game (to hold tight until the 50/100 blinds and then make a move then) did not work very well at the $100 and $200 levels. I had to play looser in the early rounds, when I was IN POSITION --- this is the critical point. I'll play just about any two cards in late position in an unraised pot in the first two levels. This allows you the opportunity to learn good postflop play, and then to outplay your opponents post-flop.

If you intend to continue your poker learning and you have the bankroll to do so, I encourage you to move through the levels as fast as you can. Otherwise, you will not learn the switching gears loose-tight aggressive style that most of the pros use. I am only now beginning to understand why the pros make the plays that we see them make on the World Poker Tour.

[PrayingMantis]

Idea for a little test, not sure how practical or possible.

Have any of you ever tried entering an SNG, say between 5-50 buy-in, and play it WITHOUT knowing what buy-in it is? i.e., without "prejudice" regarding the level of play, tightness, looseness, etc.?

Will you always be able to tell between 20, 30 or 50 on stars, for example? Will your play gain anything from "not knowing"?