Are Party 100s actualy tougher than we think ?

[Irieguy]

Are you serious? I haven't heard anything like that before... I need to rethink my whole plan if that's the case.

Irieguy

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you serious? I haven't heard anything like that before... I need to rethink my whole plan if that's the case.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

Deadly serious, however, I should note that almost everyone I've ever told that who has experience in both games has said it must be a fluke, or that I was playing scared, or something. I really don't know how to explain it. It did involve some ridiculous cold streaks, but then again so have the $55s.

eastbay

[Gramps]

200 or so SNGs at that level is way, way, way too few SNGs to make long-run assumptions about. Play 500, or better yet 1,000, before you starting drawing conclusions. Swings (including some "ridiculous" ones) do happen (both up and down). No way around it.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
200 or so SNGs at that level is way, way, way too few SNGs to make long-run assumptions about. Play 500, or better yet 1,000, before you starting drawing conclusions. Swings (including some "ridiculous" ones) do happen (both up and down). No way around it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. You'll notice I said long-term for 55s but not for 109s. I really don't know where I stand in those things. The only thing I know for sure is that I need a much bigger roll before I take them on again.

eastbay

[Gramps]

True dat on the roll. I've had a couple of few thousand $ downswings in the 109s having played over one thousand. Once you replenish up to the 55s level, might be good to mix in one 109 with your 55s.

[Daliman]

players in the 100's suck, period. Their amount of suckitude is of a lesser number than in the $50's and below, but still highly sucky.

scale of 1 to ten in terms of suckitude, with ten being infinitely sucky and 1 being Daliman-like greatness [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] in all levels of which i have experience, including approximate # played at that level.

$30/~60 played= 10. Moron Country.
$50/~80 played= 9. Moron State.
$100/~200 played= 8. Moron County.
$200/~2700 played= 5. Moron street.

However, if I were able to remove just 20 top players from the $200 player pool, the suckitude jumps back to 8. Your job, should you play that level is figure out who they are, and avoid those top players. I'll give you a hint on one of them..... [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[PBaek]

It also matters at which time of day or night you play, right?

Anyone have an idea on when it is easy or when it´s tough?
(apart from Daliman thinking they all suck all the time)

Regards, Peter.

[Daliman]

Yes, i should have mentioned nighttime is better(read: extra suckitude) in all situations in my experience. Subtract 1-2 suck points for playing during the day, although weekends seem fully sucky at ALL times.

[DalaiLama]

My theory is that the highest level, in this case 200, will always be the hardest jump because it is simply the stopping point. Party could host 1,000 buy ins and everything still applies because it’s the end point, the only difference is a flatter diminishing return curve. Assume bankroll requirements are met and the player is fully capable and profitable. If the diminishing return is the smallest at the last jump (all players apply, but each individual player curve varies), then why is it the hardest jump, Lama? The intangibles associated with being at “the highest level”, mainly psychological side effects from large swings, smaller ROI, and better competition. The magnitude of each varies depending on a number of variables, mainly player ability. [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[DalaiLama]

Thoughts?