Aggressiveness Cycle in Party Steps

[beetyjoose]

[ QUOTE ]
oh yeah, it's very safe to assume that a $500 buyin and a $1000 buyin sng, neither with the same structure as the $33s or the $55s would be the same.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just asking for advice from more experienced players. I don't see the constructiveness of flaming me and not offering any help. If I was a pro I wouldn't be asking for help. Sorry if I appeared ignorant.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
I was just asking for advice from more experienced players. I don't see the constructiveness of flaming me and not offering any help. If I was a pro I wouldn't be asking for help. Sorry if I appeared ignorant.

[/ QUOTE ]

i did not intend it as a flame. i intended it as being blunt and making your realize the flaw in that line of thinking. i often prefer that people come to realize things themselves instead of just handing them the answers.

citanul

[beetyjoose]

[ QUOTE ]


i did not intend it as a flame. i intended it as being blunt and making your realize the flaw in that line of thinking. i often prefer that people come to realize things themselves instead of just handing them the answers.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I admit I did not explain my line of thinking and how I arrived at my conclusion.

My reasoning for the above statement which seemed ill prepared was for the following:

I've played $5-$100 SNGs. We all know the $5s are a supreme donk fest. $10's not being much better either. The 20s and 30s are mixed with are range of players usually beatable by TAG and good position play.

The $50s are the first level with T1000 chips. Naturally there is more play as a result of this. You see few bonehead plays i.e. all in UTG for T30 in blinds with 55, as in the lower stakes.

The majority of players in the $100s play a TAG style and are fully concentrated on position poker. It is not uncommon to see multiple hands fold around to blinds consistantly.

So, my reasoning for my one line comparison between steps and standard SNGs was a result of the previous statements. It seems that some of the players playing the step 4 and 5 will be the best players on PP as they are buying directly in with their large bankroll. Another group of players have made it in from a smaller stake and probably usually play SNGs in which they are not willing to risk more than $30-50 a pop. Hence, not having the experience of the $100+ SNGs.

Of couse my generalizations are soley based on my own experience and personal sample size. I'm not summing up all players and their techniques. I realize I could be completely off base in my logic which is why I come to you guys.

[citanul]

i think you should watch a few step 5s before playing one. most step 5s i've ever played have been >50% "regulars" who buy in at at least step 4. most of those are buying in at step 5 directly. the number of people who are freerolling their way up from basically anywhere above step 3 is very small.

citanul

[beetyjoose]

Thanks. I appreciate your input, as I know you have much more experience in the high stakes buy-ins than I do.

[citanul]

there's an interesting dynamic to the higher stakes games that makes them in one sense much harder than the normal sngs for twoplustwo players, and in the other sense, if that player is a good, thinking player, possibly even easier.

because there are a fair number of players in these things who are playing scared money just hoping to get late enough to luck in, they play super tight, which leads to these 8 handed 100/200 fests and the like. these are games that the typical 2+2er doesn't fare well in and posts about 'how can i beat the games, they seem like they've gotten tougher overnight' or something like that.

however, such games afford you chances to pick up chips early and often and then late and often too, as people are scared scared scared. if you can find it in yourself to play not scared, and jump on the weakness when you find it, you will have better than average success at the step 4s and 5s.

citanul

[fisherman112]

[ QUOTE ]

i did not intend it as a flame. i intended it as being blunt and making your realize the flaw in that line of thinking. i often prefer that people come to realize things themselves instead of just handing them the answers.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

let's be honest, it was kind of a flame.

[citanul]

no, honestly it was not intended as a flame.

citanul