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. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

[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