anyone have success at party steps

[Steve]

I fold AA at ministep1 also until in the money. There simply is no reason to play any hand until 5 players are gone. You will make it to the money 100% of the time that way. Then you can freeroll your way on...

[Steve]

Oh, to answer your original question, the Mini-Steps are very boring but certainly profitable. I've been to Step 5 three times and only cashed once ($300 for 4th place). So, I'm basically up $300 (minus a few buyins at step 1), but probably out about 100 hours. So, $3 per hour win rate. I'd be better working at McDonalds.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm basically up $300 (minus a few buyins at step 1), but probably out about 100 hours.

[/ QUOTE ]

= start raising with AA

[HoldingFolding]

They are a change of pace, but a huge burden on your earn rate. I've played literally 40 higher steps for the same $33, that's a lot of time for zero reward (and I'm back at level 2 again [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img])

[david050173]

I will bet you any amount of money that you will not make the money 100% with this stragey. I think the number is more like 95% but I definitely haven't kept detailed stats to back the number up but I have playes some games where just folding isn't adequate. I also think you folding AA strategy is going to make you odds of advancing really poor.

Steps are lousy on a $/hr basis for anyone buying in on step 1,2 or 3. The ROI (assuming you use you initial buyin as the basis) is pretty good though.

[Jason Strasser]

Small sample, but in 100 step 5 normal i have a 37% ROI.

Not sure how helpful that is, because ive been running well.

I only buy in really when the lineup looks good, which isnt so often these days.

-Jason

[SamuraiPlatypus]

hey, thinks for providing useful information to support your point. i feel that i really learned a lot from it.

[bkbluedevil]

EverettKings and I spent a lot of time wondering if these could be profitable too. We (mostly him) worked out a formulta to determine the number of buy ins and games it would take to reach the step 5s given you're finish distribution at each step. We came to a couple conclusions:

1) They can be profitable given you beat the rake at each step. I strongly disagree with people who consider them at raketrap.
2) Even for the best players buying in at level 1 it takes around 100 games and 7 origional buy ins (ministep structure only) to make a step 5).

Basically these things are as low varience (bankroll wise, not nessesarily time wise) as you can get, but they are time consuming.

Everett then wrote a spreadshead (hes a comp genious) which lets you change the finish distribuation at each level as well as rakeback, and it works out how many games and buy ins you need to get to each step 5 as well as an hourly wage. If you PM him I'm sure hed give you a copy. If he doesn't still have it, I'll send you one. I tried for a long time to get variance numbers but to keep a long story short you need to compute a lot of infinite sums for covariences and excell doesn't like those.

[imported_exelius]

Thank you for the info. I think I'll stick to the sng's for now. But the steps still do look better for profit and would probably help me on my play by playing all those freerolls while getting experience playing. I'm winning a good rate atm though.

Anyways thanks for the info,
Ex