Has the Party 215 dynamic changed?

[Gramps]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've played computer solitare for hours on end many times before (that Solitaire-like game Free Cell especially). Guess that's why I'm an SNGer....

[Gramps]

[ QUOTE ]
Is the golden age really over?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and if you're a winning multitabler, you should leave SNGs immediately, never to return.... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

gramps spread the word to all the winning multitablers that they cannot win longterm.

This will be our little secret

[jedinite]

[ QUOTE ]
Is the golden age really over?

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO there is room for a lot of evolution in currently accepted SNG strategy. If the $215'ers all start pushbotting perfectly (and especially appropriately expanding their calling ranges, etc) then making the appropriate hand range changes for ICM calculations will result, other tweaks to strategy based upon all opponents playing with knowledge of how to defend against the pushbot (as much as that is possible), etc...

[Newt_Buggs]

[ QUOTE ]

My theory is the popularity sitngo power tools. It's a sponsored ad on google now

[/ QUOTE ]
lol, I didn't know this until reading this thread.

[fnord_too]

I had a horrible september in the 55's and the few 109's I played. When I look at why, though, it really looks like variance to me. I have had an unusually high number of beats and bad situations (AA v. KK (me) pf sort of stuff), and I also probably was not playing my best after several consecutive sets of this brutality. I'm guessing I have played about 300 STT's since the split. I would look to my own play and circumstances before I jumped to the dynamic changing theory. You will notice things like the number of pros at the table more in a rough patch, so I wouldn't put too much weight on what I thought was a change in some of those variables without some data to back it up (humans have a lot of weaknesses when it comes to assessing things like that).

Oh, and the quality of play does not seem to have improved in the games I am playing. There are still tons of donktastic players (who have been excelling at sucking out against me lately. That's fine though, the Skinner box will train them well in the art of sucking, I just would rather someone else was feeding them the pellets.)

[zambonidrivr]

"there aren't terribly many people that are very good at those tournaments (in fact i'd guess there just aren't very many people who make money at all in the long run without rakeback?"

Are you suggesting this for the $200's only? How does this apply to $55 & $100's? Just curious as I have spend the last year building roll from 5-30's and seem to be doing well at $50's too. My sample is over 3000 games. Thanks.
J

[poindexter]

I agree that the game is different than it was 1 year ago but I dont buy into the theory that it got harder over night after the split. The fish are still there and the evidence is in all the bad beats I have taken. Since the split I have also been on a huge downswing. During this time coinflips have been a joke and I literally never win when I am a slight dog. Most significantly I have never lost so many 2...3...4...5 to 1 shots in my life. The only time I do win with any consistency is when I challenge another pro.

Other then losing most of my bankroll I really enjoy the new party poker. Oh by the way I came back to party with a new rakeback account if that matters.

[Degen]

FWIW i am finding both the 55's and 109's much more difficult than pre-switch...

The 11s and 22s are still easy [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]