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