My thoughts on Party Poker 15-30 game

[the_closer]

Some backround: Just recently started lurking here at 2+2 and since alot seem to play the 15-30 I thought that I would give it a shot. I am new to online poker but have been beating my local 10-20 and 15-30HE B&M games on the weekend for the past two years. I have pretty much payed my way through school with poker earings the last two years + some gov. loans. not really related in any way with the article title. I just want you (the reader)to view me (above ave. player but with some holes)as just as good if not better than you.

Main: from a lot of posts here it seems to me that most people here think that the 15-30 party is easy to beat. I played alot last week with mixed results. I ended up down about $400 on the week. I found most games to be pretty loose aggressive and their deffinitely are some weak players out there that are giving their money away.

My problem: I found that I am just another tight player in alot of games that were pretty tough. Even money won off the "weakies" I am probably giving back to most of you 2+2ers. I have rarely found situations where drawing hands can be played. Bankroll requirements seem to be much higher. blah blah blah.

Question: I am way out of my league? Or do I just need to adjust to the game. ie is it worth my time.

and what is the deal with everyone jumping tables every 5min. SHould I be doing that or just stick with a table regardless of the (Ave pot size). How often is that averaged and so on and so forth.

Dont feel obliged to respond I am mainly just bored at work and looking for some insight.

Thanks

[astroglide]

the game is not nearly what it is made out to be on the forums. compare this and this, for example. i would also venture that virtually everybody else that loses and quits after their "gold mine discovery" does so without announcement.

[Roy Hobbs]

I agree completely. There are still great soft spots to be found on Party, but I don't think that the 15-30 full ring games are where they can most easily be found.

RH

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
Main: from a lot of posts here it seems to me that most people here think that the 15-30 party is easy to beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Easy" and "beatable" are two different things.

[steveyz]

I think that the Party 15/30 game is really different from the live mid-stakes game. It could just be a bad run, but the few times that I've played the 15/30 & 20/40 games in Vegas and in the bay area I have not done too well. However, I can consistently beat the Party 15/30 game. After 40k hands at party I think I've just developed a lot of default plays that work well against the typical partier, but doesn't work out too well in live action.

Nate - I know you just recently played at the Bellagio & Mirage mid stakes games. What adjustments, if any, did you have to make?

[Franchise (TTT)]

Take a look at these topics posted in the forum today. These are the people TRYING to play well. It's still a very beatable gold mine if you are a good player .

That said, if you have to ask...

[SA125]

n/m

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that the Party 15/30 game is really different from the live mid-stakes game. It could just be a bad run, but the few times that I've played the 15/30 & 20/40 games in Vegas and in the bay area I have not done too well. However, I can consistently beat the Party 15/30 game. After 40k hands at party I think I've just developed a lot of default plays that work well against the typical partier, but doesn't work out too well in live action.

Nate - I know you just recently played at the Bellagio & Mirage mid stakes games. What adjustments, if any, did you have to make?

[/ QUOTE ]

The two main things:

1) I bluffed and semibluffed more often in the live games. In particular, I was much more inclined in the live games to do something like raise an unimproved AK when bet into on a rag flop, and fire the second bullet on the turn, something that will absolutely kill your win rate at Party. One thing I discovered is that it's much easier to develop a tight table image in live play than it is in online play. The online players are multitabling, watching TV, getting some work done on the side and so forth and will notice the loose players but not the tight ones, but the live players will peg you right away if you aren't playing very many hands.

2) I folded more often in the live games. Maybe some of these folds were incorrect, but I just felt a lot more *comfortable* folding the marginal hands in live play, partly because I felt like my tight aggressive table image would make opponents less inclined to take shots at me, partly because these players were a bit less aggressive period, and partly because I had additional visual and verbal information to work with.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
partly because I felt like my tight aggressive table image would make opponents less inclined to take shots at me

[/ QUOTE ]
I must be missing something here, because common sense says that a tight image should make players more inclined to take shots at you. Can you explain why you don't think this is the case? I have some guesses, but would like to hear what your reasoning is here. Thanks.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
partly because I felt like my tight aggressive table image would make opponents less inclined to take shots at me

[/ QUOTE ]
I must be missing something here, because common sense says that a tight image should make players more inclined to take shots at you. Can you explain why you don't think this is the case? I have some guesses, but would like to hear what your reasoning is here. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I felt that I generally had a tight-aggressive table image, and not a weak-tight table image. I didn't think my opponents would perceive it to be profitable to take shots at me with marginal holdigs, because they knew it was very likely that they'd get raised, 3-bet etc....

...perhaps "taking shots" is a misleading way to think about it. It's not just a matter of my opponents bluffing with hands that had little or no chance of winning if they saw a showdown, but also of the probability of their making perceived value bets and value raises with good but not great holdings. For example, if you have top pair with a weak kicker, or even second pair with an ace kicker, you might 3-bet it against a perceived loose-aggressive player but not against a perceived tight-aggressive player, against whom you'd save your 3-bets for TPTK or better. If I held top pair with a mediocre kicker in one of these spots, and I was 3-bet by an opponent who knew that I was a tight aggressive player, I'd feel safe about folding, which might not be the case in a Party game. Although my opponent might occasionally be bluffing completely, he won't "mistakenly" be raising with a worse hand that he perceives to be best, which impacts my calling odds significantly.

There are also some "irrational", psychological factors in play, namely that while a *good* player might take shots at another good player that he would never attempt against a poor player, an average player simply doesn't want to get involved in marginal situations with a player that is tabling a lot of winners. The psychological cost of showing down a bluff or calling down with a hand that had little chance of winning is a lot higher in live play than online, IMHO.

Finally, I *did* still call down a fair bit; in general I think that a lot of otherwise good players don't call down often enough. I just didn't call down quite as often as I would in a Party Poker game.