I "moved up" to the $100 and $200 SNG level from the $50 level at the beginning of February. My strategy is to open both tables and sit down at the one that does not have anybody on my "good player" list. But my results are drastically different at the two levels since then:
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
buyin # win place show ROI
$100 81 21 7 11 68%
$200 55 7 4 7 3%
</pre><hr />
Interestingly, my sample size is small enough that this is not even close to a significantly different effect, by a chi-square test of independence.
But it is difficult beating my head up against a wall at the $200 buyins when I am winning so much at the $100 buyins. Based on other people's experiences:
1) Are the $200 games at Party significantly more difficult to beat than the $100 games? Or are they pretty equivalent but my sample size isn't big enough?
2) Is a different strategy needed to beat the $200 games at Party than the $100 games?
I can see arguments for both questions: I do NOT consider a 68% ROI as sustainable for the $100 games --- I would be happy with a 33% ROI. As far as question 2 goes, I wasn't very successful playing the $100 games until I changed my strategy from the $50 games: I bluff a lot more at the $100 level, because people believe you more than they do at the $50 level: "Don't bluff a calling station". I found that I had to increase the aggressiveness of my play. But at the $200 level, they seem to "play back" at my aggressiveness more than they do at the $100 level.
Comments?