Is it because of Ed Miller's book that Party is so tight now?

[fallout1234]

Around January I read Ed Miller's book and start having really nice result at Party's 2/4 and 3/6. I took a break in May. When I returned I had trouble at 5/10, so I went down to 3/6, but 3/6 is really tight too. Now I go down to 2/4 to clear bonus, and it's hard to collet points there because the pot is often less than $20. I wonder why people say party is the biggest fish pond nowadays. It certainly doesn't look like so to me. The loose games Ed's book targeted simply don't exist anymore.

[peterchi]

2/4 is still full of fish.
3/6 isn't so bad either, but you do have to actually find the good tables.

The "loose games" in SSH (5-7 players per flop) is primarily in reference to B&M games, or microlimits online. But as he says, the "tight games" in SSH (3-5 players per flop) are still quite loose, comparatively. And yes, these games do still exist, even on Party, even at 3/6. In fact last night I was playing in such a game at Party 10/20.

Honestly I can't say for sure if Party's low limits have tightened up over the past year or so, but if I had to guess, I would say no, and I would put money on that. <...let the subtle humor sink in...>

[fallout1234]

I guess you can find someone just having fun at 10/20 or higher. (Even though I only played that high couple of times so I am just guessing here) But 2/4 and 3/6 seems to be filled with people like us on their way to higher limits.

[Predator314]

There's a lot to blame. The rush of books, magazines, websites (2+2).

You just have to find ways to beat all kinds of players.

[sammy_g]

I haven't played these limits in a while, but 3/6 full might be tighter because there are 6 max games at that limit now.

[jman220]

Games are always tighter when there's a bonus to be cleared (lots of whores). That said, just judging by the average pot size statistic, games are way tighter in both limit and no limit then they were a year ago. One year ago, my criteria for table selection at a no limit table (I played $50 and $100 nl) was an avg pot size near 1/2 of a buy in. Now I'm lucky to find avg pot sizes of 1/4 the buy in.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't played these limits in a while, but 3/6 full might be tighter because there are 6 max games at that limit now.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the winner. The six max games really hurt full ring games.

[PennDisc]

[ QUOTE ]
One year ago, my criteria for table selection at a no limit table (I played $50 and $100 nl) was an avg pot size near 1/2 of a buy in. Now I'm lucky to find avg pot sizes of 1/4 the buy in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this primarily due to the 100bb buy-ins now as opposed to the 50bb buy-ins a year ago?

[Perseus]

They may be tighter preflop, but the postflop play is still downright terrible

Edit: When I started playing party I remember the first time it got to 4,000 players. Right now during a weekday there is 36,000. I am sure there are many times more bad players playing than there was then, you just have to find them. If you are too lazy to look then you are just hurting yourself

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
They may be tighter preflop, but the postflop play is still downright terrible

[/ QUOTE ]

I get tired of this reply.

Yes, games are still profitable when the players play bad post-flop.

However theey are not as profitable as when the players play bad pre-flop as well.

Tight pre-flop players make less mistakes. Less mistakes= less profit. It is that simple.

Can you still make money from these players, Yes... but on average not as much.