Ring vs SNG

[aslowjoe]

I have been playing $10 NLHE sng's at party and doing well. Every once in a while I would venture over to the 50/1.00 HE and get killed. Didn't think about it too much because of success at sng's. The other day I decided to earn some bonus money and played 1000 hands over a couple of days of 50/1.00 HE. I made 13.32 bb/100. I know that is unsustainable but it piqued my interest.So I thought I might play a bit more and play 1/2. My question is play full or play the six max. which is better and why

[deacsoft]

I think it's a toss up. It may lean a little towards the 6 handed. It is very hard to find a good 10 handed 1/2 table on party at most times of the day. The full 10 handed games are good because you can play much like you did a .50/1 and still turn a nice profit. Your varience will be lower at 10 handed. At 6 handed you have to play a lot looser. Because the blinds come around more often and for the simple fact that it is 6 handed you need to play a lot more hands. For some this gets them in unknown territory and can be hard on the bankroll. Others can take full advantage of the loose game and make quite a bit of money doing so. The games are generaly fast paced for fast money. This makes for a higher varience.

I'd almost say skip the 1/2 on party altogether, but if you must, play in which ever game you're more comfortable in. Money can be made in either place. Just be sure that if you play 10 handed... find a good table. Good luck.

[sthief09]

if you haven't played much limit, there's no way you should go to 1/2. you will get eaten alive. it's a completely different game.

I seem to do well at limit, but suck horribly at no limit for some reason. it's not my feel for the game. I just suck at it. there are two here (as far as I know) that post regularly on this forum that are ridiculous at both. those are Nottom and Tosh. ask them about making the transition.

[Randy Burgess]

Just to say it, $.50/$1 and $1/$2 are both micro-limit, not small stakes ... so you might be better off posting in the microlimit forum.

Beyond that, limit ring and limit short-handed (which is the 6 max) are night and day as far as proper tactics go--including starting hand selection, typical pot odds on the flop, playing tactics, typical tactics of your opponents, etc.

You should start with ring for a number of reasons - for one thing, most limit hold'em books address ring play in detail, whereas they only have a chapter or two on short-handed play and don't go into a lot of the finer points. For another, short-handed games involve more bluffing and semi-bluffing, and it's not the kind of bluffing and semi-bluffing you do in no-limit. You're better off learning how to play solid cards in limit (which you learn in ring), before you move on to bluffing & semi-bluffing in short-handed situations. For a third, if you're going to play limt at the micro-limits, you need to learn how to make money against players who school. Schooling occurs at these limits in both ring and short-handed play, but it's easier to learn how to handle it in ring first.

Personally I favor short-handed because you do get to play a few more hands - and because so many players are bad at it. You can find a huge number of soft games at the $1/$2 micro-limit. By soft, I mean tables made up of calling stations who don't understand they're not getting the pot odds to limp all the junk they limp, e.g. big-little offsuit.

[Dynasty]

deacsoft:
[ QUOTE ]
It is very hard to find a good 10 handed 1/2 table on party at most times of the day.

[/ QUOTE ]

sthief09:

[ QUOTE ]
if you haven't played much limit, there's no way you should go to 1/2. you will get eaten alive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I miss some news from the poker world? Are only world class players now playing in the Party 1-2 games?

I'm going to give you guys the hard truth. If you think the Party 1-2 games are not good and are tough to beat, it's not due to the competition. The only reason you can't beat the game is because of yourself.

[sthief09]

so you think someone with no limit experience should jump right into 1/2 before playing .5/1?

I don't think anyone mentioned 1/2 games being hard to beat, but a NL player playing limit for the first time at 1/2 isn't a good idea. the games are too different.

[Randy Burgess]

After all, before online poker became available, you'd never find a public hold'em game as small as $1/$2 just starting out. Even today there are still a lot of people who start out at $5/$10 or higher because they can afford it. This isn't wrong.

[sfer]

Before people jump on me let me preface by saying I don't think either limit is tough. But for a newbie, the decision on limits at Party should not just be bankroll. The AVERAGE 0.5/1 has a different style than the average 1/2 game at Party. 1/2 is distinctly tighter and more aggressive. It's almost as if Party 0.5/1 is a Darwinian feeder into 1/2. Bankroll shouldn't be the only consideration.

[Festus22]

On the PARTY 1 (easiest) to 10 (toughest) scale of difficulty, I'd rank the games as follows (some from first hand experience and some from what others post as well as reading how hands play at different limits):

0.5/1 - 1
1/2 - 4
2/4 - 3
3/6 - 6
5/10 - 8
10/20 - 8
15/30 - 7
30/60 - 10

Again, this is relative to Party games only. I'd be curious if others generally agree or disagree with the above rankings and assuming a linear scale, the separation between the levels.

[sthief09]

I haven't played 15/30, but I'd be surprised if it's easier than 5/10

I'd also say that it's just wrong to say that 1/2 is 4 times harder than .5/1 and that 1/2 is tougher than 2/4. there also isn't a huge jump from 3/6 to 5/10

overall I think it's linear with a sizeable gap between 2/4 and 3/6, a gap between 3/6 and 5/10, then after that I don't know

[aslowjoe]

It is very hard to find a good 10 handed 1/2 table on party at most times of the day.

I'd almost say skip the 1/2 on party altogether, but if you must.

I don't understand these two statements. I thought low limit party was the place to be. Could you expand.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
so you think someone with no limit experience should jump right into 1/2 before playing .5/1?

[/ QUOTE ]

Anybody who puts even a small amout of effort into studying the game should be able to beat the Party 3-6 games. So, if you have the bankroll, that's a good place to start.

David Sklansky has said that players should move up to 10-20 as quickly as possible rather than doddle in small stakes games.

Randy made a good point about where you had to start before online poker rooms. I started playing 4-8.

[aas]

[ QUOTE ]
After all, before online poker became available, you'd never find a public hold'em game as small as $1/$2 just starting out. Even today there are still a lot of people who start out at $5/$10 or higher because they can afford it. This isn't wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before online poker became available, MOST beginners and new players, were found in the lowest limit available at that time. Today, MOST of them are still found in the lowest limits available. If you start out at 5/10 and want to stick to it, I think you're in for a big surprise.

aas.

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
It is very hard to find a good 10 handed 1/2 table on party at most times of the day.

I'd almost say skip the 1/2 on party altogether, but if you must.

I don't understand these two statements. I thought low limit party was the place to be. Could you expand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think its a fairly wide held belief around here that Party 1/2 is actually a little tougher than 2/4 and MUCH tougher than .5/1.

I'm not really sure why this is although a like sfer's "Darwinian feeder" theory. In my limited experience with 2/4 and 1/2 I also tend to agree that 2/4 is looser and maybe a little more aggressive yet easier to beat overall than 1/2. However, I may be biased because I read here that that was the case before I ever played them.

Party .5/1 is probably the softest game of that limit that you will find. If you're just starting out and are a little unsure of yourself I think this is the place to start. If you start beating it for 2 or 3 BB's an hour then move up. But if you have the bankroll then maybe just jump from .5/1 straight to the 2/4 or even 3/6. I think that's why you're hearing to skip the 1/2 all together.

[Mike Gallo]

David Sklansky has said that players should move up to 10-20 as quickly as possible rather than doddle in small stakes games.

Mason has an essay in Poker Essays III called "Playing for minimum wage". In it he discusses a similiar subject.

For what its worth, I agree with playing the higher limits. Although I do not have the needed bankroll to play the $20 game at the Borgata, I know I can beat it from watching the game.

[sthief09]

This is a completely subjective statement (I'm only writing this because you didn't mention his stance on the topic, and I thought it would be important):

In that essay, Mason write, [ QUOTE ]
if you are a new player, at what limit should you begin your play? I have always been an advocate of starting small and working your way up.

[/ QUOTE ] then he goes on to talk about how he used to play $1/$2 games.


maybe (definitely) this is a case of not thinking for myself, but I have read this essay before and accepted it to be true. but Dynasty's, Randy's, and your posts got me to thinking. If bankroll isn't an issue, it might not necessary to play at the low stakes. I guess those are mainly for building up a bankroll from scratch

That leads me to another question, aimed for anyone. If a person has an unlimited bankroll and was completely new to the game, what would be the best track through limits to make him a winning upper middle limit player in the shortest amount of time? This is assuming he puts in the necessary work toward becoming a good player (mainly reading and thinking about the game while he's not playing).

[deacsoft]

[ QUOTE ]
It is very hard to find a good 10 handed 1/2 table on party at most times of the day.

I'd almost say skip the 1/2 on party altogether, but if you must.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's what I meant by the first statement. Party offers a very small selection of 10 handed 1/2 tables. I would think because there are so many 6 handed tables. The tables that are 10 handed are generaly tight and not very profitable. The .50/1 tables and the 2/4 tables are much more profitable because of the looseness.

By the second part of the quote I meant that if you are concerned about making money it may not be a bad idea to stay at .50/1. Staying at .50/1 at least until you have the bankroll for 2/4 or by just moving to 2/4 now if you are ready is a porfitable way to play it.

Fell free to check it out but I believe your play at 1/2 will very much fit the discription I've made.

[Randy Burgess]

To say that 1/2 is significantly tougher than .50/1 is like saying that a walnut is significantly bigger than a peanut.

In the real (non-virtual) world of clubs and casinos, limits like 3/6, 4/8, and 5/10 are rarely if ever tough - though I'll admit they do have a higher number of players who can correctly count how many fingers and toes they have than limits like .50/1 and 1/2.

[MRBAA]

I think the 2-4 games at Party generally are about as tough as the 4-8 at Foxwoods. I also think some of the move up as fast as possible advice applies to players who are trying to earn a living more than to recreational players.

[Rico Suave]

Hey Randy:

[ QUOTE ]
To say that 1/2 is significantly tougher than .50/1 is like saying that a walnut is significantly bigger than a peanut.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would guess a walnut is 200-300% larger than a peanut.

--Rico

[MRBAA]

Yeah, but think of that 10-20 game as a coconut

[sfer]

Have you played these two limits at Party? The difference is real to a novice. And since we're talking about someone new (who is probably wondering if gambling for fun is really for them), doesn't it make sense for them to take their inevitable lumps at a lower limit?

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, but think of that 10-20 game as a coconut

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what 10/20 game you're talking about. Granted I play in the proverbial land of milk and honey that is AC in the WPT era, but the 10/20 games I've sat have been more like tennis balls... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

scrub

[aas]

[ QUOTE ]
To say that 1/2 is significantly tougher than .50/1 is like saying that a walnut is significantly bigger than a peanut.


[/ QUOTE ]

And that's about right.

[Randy Burgess]

It's only marginally true at the micro- and low-limits that going up in limit means a tougher game. Since almost no one is a super player at any limit up to $10/$20, what you're really encountering is different table textures which call for different tactics.

Taking this a step further, not all of the lessons you learn at .50/$1 apply to a limit like $4/$8, and vice versa. It's quite common in casino play for an average player who regularly plays $10/$20 hold'em or stud to sit down in a smaller game while waiting for their regular game, and to do very poorly, because they haven't geared down. The same applies to online play--you might get pretty sharp at $2/$4, then go and revisit the $.50/$1 limit you started at a year ago, and do poorly because you don't remember (or never really understood) the proper tactics for succeeding against the ultra-loose schooling you find there.

So again, bankroll comfort in many cases is the most important factor for someone just starting out. If I were an investment banker making $200 K or $300 K a year and decided to take up poker for fun, would you seriously object to my starting at $5/$10 or even $10/$20 if I wanted?

[PokerNoob]

Is the jump between 2/4 and 3/6 really that big?

[BaronVonCP]

It would seem that the best way would be to jump right into a 15/30 game.