Has the Party 215 dynamic changed?

[FieryJustice]

I know for a fact that the games have gotten tougher...then again, I suck.

[skipperbob]

[ QUOTE ]
Your sample size is too small. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot the part about his having an alligator-mouth and a hummingbird-[censored] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[The Yugoslavian]

Have you considered Regression to the Mean?

Yugoslav

[Gramps]

[ QUOTE ]
Since party decided to split from the skins, other than the first 3 or 4 days after, I have had my worst run ever in the 215's over my last 550 or so, and I am wondering if any of the other people who play there have had similar results. Yes, it could be a deviation, but the fact that I am seeing 2-3 pros at most every table now is making me think there may be more to it than that. Sure, it may just be more obvious now who the pros are, but could it also be that there were many pros out there who didn;t really want to hassle with another account and such, then just popeed open a few more when given the opportunity by the new Party table limits? I'm not sure what the exact answer is, but I'm relatively sure that the $215 game has changed signifcantly since the switch, from being beatable by upwards of 20% since the new level went in to possibly 10% or even less. Anyone else have any insight on this?

[/ QUOTE ]

The long-run can be a biatch.

I also ran ice cold for 500 SNGs after the split, about breaking even over the period. Of course, right before that cold stretch (but still after the split), I ran hot at close to 20% for 500, so...IMO, not too much has changed in the past 3 weeks.

It has been easier to notice who the good players are (and conversely, for people to notice who you are), as the 8-tablers are now playing on 1 account instead of two. Still, a game in which near-20% returns are possible over the long-long-run is not a game I've ever recognized in the 215s absent some great game-selection/weekend-only playing/specific opponent tendency tracking, etc...

I fall into the Irie-camp in that long-run ROI numbers in the 215s are consistenly overinflated. I know there are a number of players out there with better long-run (>5,000 SNGs) than I, but regardless of who you are, ~$10,000 downswings happen, they f--k your ROI numbers up tremendously. You may go thousands of SNGs without more than a $5,000 to $6,000 downswing, and then you hit two of those puppies (the ~$10k downswings) in a span of like 2,000 SNGs (or less) and your ROI numbers get totally shat on. But...people look at those downswings as the "aberration," while not thinking of the super-hot streaks as the "aberrations" that they are as well.

Point being, I've now played well over 10,000 215s, they are a little tougher than when I started playing them 15 months ago, but I haven't noticed any change in the past few months (other than recognizing people a tad bit more, for the reasons stated above). Any recent downswing is due to simple "deviation" IMO.

[Daliman]

Yes, I definitely have, but too many other factors point in the other direction, which are:

1. Overall, my 8-tabling results blow. They started off terrible, then got good for awhile, then this last run. Points towards possible problem there.
2. This all happened since D-Day. Not directly afterwards, but close enough.
3. Looking back, every month in which I have had over 500 SNG's played at the $215 level, my $$$ per have sucked, topping out at 16 per, and as bad as .50 per. Maybe mass amounts dull my poker senses.
4. In my old PT database, I had over 2700 games, but only 2 layers had i played with more than 100 times that I know of, but in the past month, I am relatively sure I have played over 100 with at LEAST 5 different people.
5. I'm seeing WAY more people push crap as the blinds get higher.
6. I'd have to run a sim on it, but for someone who makes 14% long-term and about 21% since the new level went in, a 42 buyin drop sustained over 600 tourneys seems pretty far out on the sigma scale.
7. I'd be a fool not to consider maybe I am not playing as well, but I see how often i get in best and lose, so I keep telling myself it will turn around.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
Still, a game in which near-20% returns are possible over the long-long-run is not a game I've ever recognized in the 215s

[/ QUOTE ]

Frankly, I think EVERYONE is sub-10% in the 215s now. I stopped playing them. I just don't see much edge in them anymore. Everyone is pushbotting the bubble and I think getting a decent edge requires playing a few more hands in the early levels and paying attention to play styles. I find this too much like hard work, so I dropped to a level where I can 8 or even 10 table and smash the games while paying no attention whatsoever.

[ QUOTE ]
I fall into the Irie-camp in that long-run ROI numbers in the 215s are consistenly overinflated. I know there are a number of players out there with better long-run (>5,000 SNGs) than I, but regardless of who you are, ~$10,000 downswings happen, they f--k your ROI numbers up tremendously. You may go thousands of SNGs without more than a $5,000 to $6,000 downswing, and then you hit two of those puppies (the ~$10k downswings) in a span of like 2,000 SNGs (or less) and your ROI numbers get totally shat on. But...people look at those downswings as the "aberration," while not thinking of the super-hot streaks as the "aberrations" that they are as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't agree more. One of the lesser-known things about variance is that a smaller win rate carries a MUCH larger variance. Since everyone is pushing such a small edge in the 215s, the long run is longer there than in any of the smaller buyin tourneys.

[ QUOTE ]
Point being, I've now played well over 10,000 215s, they are a little tougher than when I started playing them 15 months ago

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say a lot tougher. I think unless you move down levels you will not realise what a change there has been. When I started playing 55s, basically every tourney I'd get a powerful flashback to how things had been back in the day on 215s. I used to see the limp in from the SB and fold to a raise play constantly on 215s. Nowadays it's a minefield trying the junk-hand push in that situation as people trap with the most outrageous hands, AJo and suchlike. Instead of running the limp in and fold play, people have started pushbotting. It's hard to overstate how detrimental that is to your win rate.

[Gramps]

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, I think EVERYONE is sub-10% in the 215s now. I stopped playing them. I just don't see much edge in them anymore. Everyone is pushbotting the bubble and I think getting a decent edge requires playing a few more hands in the early levels and paying attention to play styles. I find this too much like hard work, so I dropped to a level where I can 8 or even 10 table and smash the games while paying no attention whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're close in opinion here, I think > 10% long-run (> 5,000 SNGs) is still possible but very, very difficult (assuming little table selection, playing lots of non-peak hours along with peak hours, multitabling, etc.).

[ QUOTE ]
I would say a lot tougher. I think unless you move down levels you will not realise what a change there has been. When I started playing 55s, basically every tourney I'd get a powerful flashback to how things had been back in the day on 215s. I used to see the limp in from the SB and fold to a raise play constantly on 215s. Nowadays it's a minefield trying the junk-hand push in that situation as people trap with the most outrageous hands, AJo and suchlike. Instead of running the limp in and fold play, people have started pushbotting. It's hard to overstate how detrimental that is to your win rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, maybe it's more than a "little" tougher - certainly your standard 2+2 "pushbot" strategy doesn't work nearly as well b/c so many people adopted it, and everyone has experience playing against it (thus it's not as effective as it was aginast prior game conditions).

But I think one can adjust to the masses of "pushbotters" and still do pretty well - completing with AJ against a known "pushbotter" can get a lot more value out of that hand in many spots than a standard raise. That's just one minor example of adjusting to the masses "pushbotting" adjustments, etc...

Of course, if you can beat the 215s for a good earn, you're probably better of now playing NL - unless you enjoy SNGs and are too lazy to learn a new game.... [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[inyaface]

I just started playing them and have a nothing sample size but I'm not finding them to be much harder since the switch. Also I'm practicing some table selection and haven't run into to many regulars yet which probably accounts for this.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, maybe it's more than a "little" tougher - certainly your standard 2+2 "pushbot" strategy doesn't work nearly as well b/c so many people adopted it, and everyone has experience playing against it (thus it's not as effective as it was aginast prior game conditions).

But I think one can adjust to the masses of "pushbotters" and still do pretty well - completing with AJ against a known "pushbotter" can get a lot more value out of that hand in many spots than a standard raise. That's just one minor example of adjusting to the masses "pushbotting" adjustments, etc...

Of course, if you can beat the 215s for a good earn, you're probably better of now playing NL - unless you enjoy SNGs and are too lazy to learn a new game.... [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, playing the game like that gives me the sh#$ts. I'm not particularly good at psychological warfare and if I was I'd probably play short-handed 30/60 or something. What I enjoy is crushing my opponents with sheer superior technical knowledge of the game.

I've observed before that SNGs, more than any other kind of poker, can start to resemble a complicated kind of solitaire. Much of the time you simply don't care exactly what your opponents have. When SNGs start to lose this quality, as I think they have in the 215s, then I lose interest. Plus, as you mentioned, a lot of the profit disappears and with the skill set required you'd probably be better off playing cash game NL.

Lets face it, the party sitngo is not that tough to get good at if you read anything on these boards. I am amazed that there is any profitability to still squeeze out of a 200 sitngo with a 15 dollar tourney fee. This gradual increase in high level play had to be expected.

The weird part is this did seem to happen right after the split. The number of players hasn't changed at party so what is the deal?

My theory is the popularity sitngo power tools. It's a sponsored ad on google now and if enough people start to understand how to use just a little bit then they are almost impossible to exploit (at least for a high profit).

Is the golden age really over?