#11
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Interesting fact about Party shootouts and round 2+ reseeding
Not really worth it for $/hour, but as something to fill the last spot on my monitor when I get knocked out of an MTT early, yeah, I'll take it.
It plays to my strongest game, though. The first three rounds and especially the first one play more or less like a deep stack SNG until they turn four or five handed, when it suddenly turns into a satellite. That is fantastic for ROI, though not for $/hour. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Interesting fact about Party shootouts and round 2+ reseeding
[ QUOTE ]
the first one play more or less like a deep stack SNG until they turn four or five handed, when it suddenly turns into a satellite. That is fantastic for ROI, [/ QUOTE ] I knew that's why you were messing around with these things. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Regards, Woodguy |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Interesting fact about Party shootouts and round 2+ reseeding
[ QUOTE ]
fantastic for ROI, though not for $/hour. [/ QUOTE ] pretty much a spot on description. soft as butter, really great chances to pwn the bubble, but ultimately, take way too long to be a big money maker. if you are interested in optimizing your $/hr, you would be better served to fire up another sng. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Interesting fact about Party shootouts and round 2+ reseeding
Yeah I basically play these because they are a fun change from the normal MTT or STT structure. PLus its nice once you place in the first round, the rest is basically a free roll and you can switch up your play a lot. I like to adopt different "personas" playing tight in round one, then LAG in round 2, etc. I think they provide for some unique and interesting strategic opportunites. SnGs may be more profitable, but I find the shootouts to be a lot of fun and even get down the the $5+$1 shootouts for a good time. The real treasures are the party step tournies, but I'll save that for another thread.
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Interesting fact about Party shootouts and round 2+ reseeding
Good info, I hadn't noticed they were "seeding". It actually looks like a reasonable way of doing it, probably as good as any other way. Notice that the total number of chips at a table should be similar from table to table. If they did it randomly, there would be "chip rich" and "chip poor" tables, which creates a different set of problems (or different set of advantages for big stacks).
|
|
|