View Full Version : 1-table $30 + $3.....Stars vs Party comparison

rusty JEDI
02-10-2004, 03:14 AM
I sat in my first stars $30 + $3 tonight and i dont like it. The 1500 chips and the slower blinds, may add more skill but it also added an extra 30 minutes, despite only having 9 players instead of 10.

I had a little over an hour to play before i had to go so i decided to sit. At party this would be much more than enough time to finish. Well was that ever a mistake because it dragged on and on and i eventually got 4 way and had to just go crazy hoping to bust people or bust myself because i had to go. I got lucky enough and ended up making it HU before finishing 2nd, but this thing took way too long. The final count was 108 hands and my best guess is that at party they last approximately 65 hands on average.

I understand that extra starting chips and slower blind increases will help a better player increase their EV but at first glance it will hurt my hourly rate. I may be forced to clear the bonus in ring play.

Anyone care to agree or disagree?


02-10-2004, 08:29 AM

I happen to agree with you. I love the games at PS but they do last longer and if you are concerned about an hourly rate, might not be the best choice. If I have less than 90 minutes of time I will log in to Party or another site. I usually leave Stars to when I really have enough time to do it right.

On the flipside however, it is usually easier to play more than one tourney on Stars because of the same reason. You are able to give both games much more attention so it can actually improve your hourly rate...like much in poker, it depends. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Vince Lepore
02-10-2004, 09:27 AM
Wow, this is the first time I've heard anyone complain about getting more chips in a single table tourney. But you know what I agree with you. I've always been in favor of more chips so that the game becomes more of a skill game but I'm not sure that is true. I've played at both Stars and Party. I liked the Stars format and was successful. I liked the 1500 starting chips. I must also add that when I played at stars I mostly played Headsup tourneys but did play quite a few single tables. I play at Party now. I did not like the T800 chips when I began but I have changed my opinion. I believe that bad players play worse when they have less chips. My jusry is still out because I haven't played that long at Party. But i am not having any problem getting into the money more than my share of the time. And yes it is great to finish a tournaey in under and hour. Sometimes as quick as 30 minutes. I believe I will stay at Party for that reason.

Vince /images/graemlins/cool.gif

02-10-2004, 10:03 AM
My personal feelings are that I can't stand party's for all the reasons you seem to like them. I prefer to take my time and increase my chances of winning. The luck factor is clearly much higher in party's than stars'. I view that as "con." I would tend to think that hourly rate wouldn't change much because you'd win or place more often due to the smaller luck factor.

Stars often has pretty decent ring games, especially the stud and stud-8 because the antes (below 5-10) are smaller than party, thus you can play tighter. There are plenty of magoos to go around tho, even tho there are usually more of them at party games. The play is clearly better at stars, but that don't make it "good."

For SNGs I feel the slightly better play makes them a bit more winnable because you lower the luck factor and can steal more / make plays more often. At party they'll call you every friggin time.


rusty JEDI
02-13-2004, 06:19 AM
I just played my 3rd stars $30 + $3.

Unfortunately the second one did not take long after i made a couple mistakes one of which being large. However this latest 3rd sit and go i made it 3 way, and shortly after i busted the two HU players busted. This whole thing took 1 hour and 28 minutes. That is ridiculous and for an average of 45 minutes to finish one at party i can not see how it is more profitable at stars despite the advantages given to a good player.

I will be heading to the ring to clear the bonus, and then back to party where the $30 + $3's take half the time and fill all hours of the day much much much quicker than at stars.

Simon Diamond
02-13-2004, 09:44 AM
Having never played at Party I cannot judge the site. How does the speed of the deal/slickness of software compare between Stars and Party? Also, how would you compare the softness of the games rusty?

Whilst I really like Poker Stars, I played at Ultimate Bet last week and the difference in speed of deal at the two sites is astronomical. Hourly rate is not the most important aspect for me, but I agree with you about the 1 and a half SnGs - frustrating.


rusty JEDI
02-13-2004, 03:46 PM
As far as software goes I have no complaints with either except that party allows 1 disconnect per sit and go where stars does it right with zero disconnects. Another thing is party doesnt do the dramatic all in showdowns. But as far as playability goes they are the same to me. One party bonus is they fill quickly all hours of the day and late night at stars when i like to play most it can take a while to fill.

As far as softness goes, there is no doubt that party is softer. I find when i push all in at stars (very small sample size) the edge/margin i have when called is much lower. This is because of the way the blinds increase so slow and the better ability of the players. A bit of an exageration but it feels at times its only going to get to an all in with AA vs KK. One way to look at it is that at stars blind stealing from spots 4-6 is the largest part of my chip accumulation strategy while at party it is waiting to punish someone for an inevitable mistake.

02-13-2004, 04:24 PM
Hiya rusty,

One way to look at it is that at Stars blind stealing from spots 4-6 is the largest part of my chip accumulation strategy[.]

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't doubt this, although I find it surprising in terms of my own experience. According to my PokerTracker stats, I win about 70% of my chips from the button and blinds, and only ~5% each from other positions. To some extent this is skewed in that when play gets down to three-handed, all of the play is from the buttons and blinds. But I'm not sure that's all of it. It may be that I'm playing too tight in early and middle position. I dunno. I do know I prefer to be first into a pot, but even so, most of my chips come in late position. *shrugs*



La Brujita
02-13-2004, 05:20 PM
I play a lot at both, I have found multiple tables at the $30 level might give me the best win rate.

Although it seems extremely counterinuitive, I agree that in many respects having less chips makes bad players play worse. The two tourneys definitely have different skill sets, I think of PP as wham bam thank you maam poker.

As for the luck aspect, my gut feeling (and I may well be wrong) is neither has more or less long term luck, you may have a bit more variation per game in the PP format because of less chips and the reality that you will face an all in or two (usually with the best of it) but I think over x number of games (say 500) the good and bad luck evens out.

The players are much much much worse at PP and the games easier to join.

I may be in the minority but at PP I think the $30 games are much easier to beat than the $50 games due to the horrendous play you will find.

02-13-2004, 06:03 PM
Try the Stud Hi-lo at Stars. I've had them last over 2 hours. My win rate is fairly high, but it still probably ain't worth it.