Is it just me or are the $11s on stars MUCH harder than the $5.50s?

[ QUOTE ]
I've been beating the $5.50s pretty badly and consistently for weeks now and thought it was time for me to advance. Well I just played 6 $11 1-tables in a row and have yet to break 5th place. Seems like the people are a hell of a lot better. More than I had expected from such a small jump in price. Is it true or am I just experiencing the ass end of variance?

[/ QUOTE ]

How many 5.50's did you play to know you were beating the $5.50's pretty badly? Remember that 1000 SNGs is considered on the low end of a sample size to let you know your true ROI. If your single tabling, 1000 SNGs takes A LOT of time to grind out. Right now this is what I'm doing (although at the $11's on Party)

Amount of Tables / ROI
1 / 20%
2 / 20%
3 / 20%
4 / 18%
5 / 18%
6 / 16%
7 / 16%
8 / 15%

I play 100 SNGs at each table level and must have my ROI at the level indicated to move up, if I don't meet my ROI requirement, I don't add a table until I reach it over 100 SNG's. If I take a beating and lose money over the 100 SNG's, I move back down a step.

When I meet my 8 tabling goal, I will drop back down to 4 tabling but play one 22 and 3 11's at a time. I must meet the above chart minus 2% on the ROI to add another 22, until I get to 8 tabling the 22's.

I came up with this system after having my bankroll brutalized at Stars because I was an idiot with no clear cut goals, taking shots at limits way above my ability. It's been working well so far, and I find that my desire to move up is good incentive to keep me focused on playing well, and I should never be playing above my bankroll with this system in place. Basically its checks and balances on my desire to gamble by moving up in stakes.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
You should be playing at least 20 games to find out if you can play g00t at this level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Short, meaningless, annoyingly phrased replies are one thing. Clearly bad advice is another.

To the OP: consider this. Recently I had about ~230 SnGs played. Then I finished 6 OOTM, and my ROI dropped like 6 percent (if I recall correctly). And that's with a sample size in the hundreds.

Irieguy is right when he says you need 1k sngs for your results to have any real meaning. 6 sngs is nothing.

[Melchiades]

That being said. The 5.5's are donktastic, and although the 11's are still horrible they are considerably tighter. So I'm not too surprised to hear someone noticing a difference.

Please take this in the nicest of ways: MY GAWD.

[pokerlaw]

I haven't noticed any difference bet'n them and i have played a few hundred at each level. At the $30s I start to see the play become a little more sophisticated overall.

Does that mean that SOME $5 tables have 3-4 horrible players while some $11 tables are tighter? yeah, but the opposite also holds true.

As an experiment, you can try loading up two (do you two table?) then mixing around the $5 and the $11 on your screen before they start (a la 3 card monty). After L3, guess which one is the $11, you may be very surprised.

[nuclear500]

As someone who almost stricly plays $5.50's and $11's on 'Stars I can tell you that there isn't a whole lot of difference.

You'll be paid more often at the $5.50's with your good hands and you can use a little more fancy play at the $11's....but otherwise there isn't a lot of difference.

I've run into plenty of good players at $5.50 and plenty of bad players at $11. I think there are a lot of $5.50'ers who win 4-5 at $5.50, have about $40 in profit and go and blow it on 4 buyins at $11 cause they were lucktastic at the $5.50's...they do this in spurts.