Party 30-60: To play or not to play

[doubledouble]

I have been a very successful 15-30 Party player for the past 16 months, with about $130K in total winnings. When the site suddenly expanded their 30-60 offerings to an unlimited number of tables, at first my eyes lit up. Seemed like a great opportunity to make more money.
However, upon thinking about it more and looking at stats from a bunch of games last night, I have ruled it out for now. Here's why:

(1) The games seem more aggressive than their 15-30 counterparts. Average raise preflop looks to be in about an 11%-12% range versus 9%-10% at 15-30. That may seem to be a small increase, but it is an increase that is likely to cut into my winning percentage, because I play a conservative game when raised.

(2) The key question is whether the negative impact in #1 above would cut my winning rate at 30-60 below what it is at 15-30. Unfortunately, it would take a good 20,000 to 40,000 hands to know for sure. That's a lot of hands and potentially a lot of investment.

(3) My swings at 15-30 during the course of the year typically include a dozen or more daily losses of $2K+ and one or two multiple streaks leading to about a $5K loss. Not only is it daunting to imagine losses twice as high, it will also require me to maintain a much larger amount in the cage (I don't like making deposits, so keeping a low balance and periodically replenishing when needed is not an attractive option for me).

(4) Because of the psychological disadvantages of #3 above it would only be worthwhile playing these higher stakes if the returns are substantially higher. That brings me back to problem #2 above.

Anyone else drawing the same conclusions or am I too much of a wuss?

Joe

[spectator]

[ QUOTE ]
When the site suddenly expanded their 30-60 offerings to an unlimited number of tables, at first my eyes lit up. Seemed like a great opportunity to make more money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Careful. Another recent thread discussed what many viewed as unusually high winnings by a 30/60 PP player who plays a lot of trash, according to those who have played against him/her.

Some talked of the possibility of collusion as a possible factor behind the success of this player. Others quickly ran to the defense of this player -- who they don't seem to actually know -- and insisted that his/her play is just that much better, as judged by the positive result.

I've data mined PP 30/60 more than I care to admit, as some may accuse me of not having a life. I've long suspected that PP 30/60 has been ripe for collusion, and I am convinced that collusion has taken place on a semi-regular basis. No, I'm not open to argument. It's my opinion, and it's based on what I have observed. Others are certainly entitled to hold different perspectives, and their opinions may be well warranted by what they have observed.

Now, here's the point of my reply, and the reason I quoted from your original post the section above. I strongly suspect that PP is aware of possible collusion activity and that PP cannot prevent collusion teams from operating at the 30/60 tables. So PP decided that the best remedy is to increase the number of 30/60 tables to the point where any 30/60 player can easily move to another table if he/she wants to avoid particular players -- i.e., suspected colluders.

Given what I've expressed above, I'll let you guess what my opinion is regarding your question of whether you should play PP 30/60.

[steveyz]

I think collusion would actually be less of a problem in 30/60 than in 15/30 because the pots tend to be contested heads up after the flop. Hard to collude if it's you against one villian. Of course, on the other hand, collusion might be easier to hide in the 30/60 as jamming a street and then folding a later street occurs frequently and doesn't tend to raise many eyebrows.

[steveyz]

(1) what makes 30/60 harder is not just the increased aggression, but also the tighter play. currently, the ASF for 15/30 is around 30-31%, but for 30/60 it's 23-24%. That's a huge difference. That means that unlike in 15/30, you won't get mileage out of sitting back and being a rock and relying on just playing better hands than your opponents. You will actually have to frequently outmanuever your opponents to earn a critial extra pot or extra bet here and there.

(2) I believe many top 2+2'ers have wondered this as well, and along with them, I'm just not sure. Even 20k-40k isn't enough to be really confident (esp if it's close). I'd say at least 100k hands would be needed.

(3) I don't think this should be a huge problem once you get used to it psychologically. I mean when most of us were playing 3/6, being -500 was a horrendous session and could be hard to stomach. As far as keeping more money in the cage, you might be able to get by with not having to double your roll but maybe increasing it just by 50%.

(4) you're not gonna know unless you try it out. Everyone is different. Some people will be able to adjust to the 30/60 play more easily than others, so you won't really be able to count on the experience of others to see if you yourself could succeed at 30/60.

Personally, I really think it depends on what your view of poker is. Are you just trying to grind out a good living (if so, I'd say say with the 15), or do you really enjoy the challenge and the thinking parts of the game?

[NMcNasty]

Don't try to decide if you are a winning player at a certain level by the number of hands you played. There isn't some special point at 20k hands or whatever where you can suddenly determine an accurate winrate. If you want to move up, you should instead ask yourself a few questions:
1. Are you completely comfortable with the stakes below you?
The answer here for you is clearly yes.
2. Are there enough players who are bad or make clear mistakes to make the game profitable?
Yes, there are. There might be 3-4 other players at the table that are as good as or possibly better than you, but just having 1-2 fish and a few more marginally bad players will make the game profitable. If you can't spot any fish at your table just leave.
3. Is my bankroll big enough?
If you make 130k and were smart enough to save a good portion of it, your bankroll should be large enough (over 20k is adequate to start).

See you at the tables.

[CardSharpCook]

I'm another 15/30 player contemplating the move. One question: Can you still 8-table Party 30?

CSC

[NMcNasty]

No, you can't 8-table 30/60, and I think playing anything more than 3 15/30 tables is insane.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm another 15/30 player contemplating the move. One question: Can you still 8-table Party 30?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was 8tabling 15/30 for a while, and in my attempt at the 30 game, i'm dropping down to 6. my plan for now is to play 3 games of 15, and 3 of the 30, just to see how things go at the 30. also, after playing 8 games, 6 seems much more relaxed, I can play longer sessions, and obviously you have more time to think about each play... i think that the most important thing, b/c i'm really trying to work on improving a few aspects of my game. I probably should drop to even less tables, and maybe if i get off to a bad start at the 30, then i'll just 1-2 table it for a while, just to REALLY focus.

[BradL]

[ QUOTE ]
my plan for now is to play 3 games of 15, and 3 of the 30, just to see how things go at the 30.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats the path ive been taking as well.

-Brad

[mach3]

Ughh - I wish I wouldn't have played today. Over 2k hands, 19% VPIP and a W$WSF of 34% - yeah great day...