Ultra high buy-in SnG...beatable?

[Danielih]

Ok I apologize Dali, I did not know that are such an expert player. But consider this. I know people who have over 30% ROI at 50+5 and 100+9 so why would you play the 200+15, especially with a short roll. In fact, it is possible that a situation has developed where there are so many good players at the 215s that the winrate is higher at the lower buyin tourneys.

I know there is some prestige perhaps to playing the highest tournaments available (don't mind the STEPS for now) and against good players but perhaps you should consider that your bankroll and earn would be better suited to a lower buyin.

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
We don't have to be *that* good, and I know you meant the average game. But we *are* that good, and it's because of the PP stucture we have broken down into a science. Gig will make more moves, I will press harder at the bubble, and Dr. will never make a mistake, but we all have the nuts and bolts down dead solid perfect. COuld Negreanu play them better than us? In time,(not much), I'm sure of it. COuld he get 2 to 3x our winrate? No chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'd like to reference Phil Ivey's article on The Art Of Winning at www.cardplayer.com where he discusses the differences in skill level from $400-$800 to $4000-$8000 when it comes to elite players adjusting. i think given time to adjust, i believe players like Daniel Negreanu, Barry Greenstein, Gus Hansen, and Phil Ivey would eclipse , outplay, and outperform Party Poker's current $215 gatekeepers. even then, it still comes down to whether the stakes are high enough to warrant their time.

i thinks it's easy to get overconfident about $215 SNGs where oftentimes you're playing against opponents no where near world class ability. try bringing the stakes up to $15000, $20000, $35000, and $50000 where you start to attract a whole different level of smarts, play, psychology, and bankroll...
then let's see if Dr_Gammon stays rock solid, let's see if you (Daliman) press harder on the bubble, or if Gigabet makes more moves.

[Oluwafemi]

i think $215 SNGs are alot like $15-$30 Limit, whereas stakes like $30000 + $600 SNGs could attract play on par with $1500-$3000 Limit.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We don't have to be *that* good, and I know you meant the average game. But we *are* that good, and it's because of the PP stucture we have broken down into a science. Gig will make more moves, I will press harder at the bubble, and Dr. will never make a mistake, but we all have the nuts and bolts down dead solid perfect. COuld Negreanu play them better than us? In time,(not much), I'm sure of it. COuld he get 2 to 3x our winrate? No chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'd like to reference Phil Ivey's article on The Art Of Winning at www.cardplayer.com where he discusses the differences in skill level from $400-$800 to $4000-$8000 when it comes to elite players adjusting. i think given time to adjust, i believe players like Daniel Negreanu, Barry Greenstein, Gus Hansen, and Phil Ivey would eclipse , outplay, and outperform Party Poker's current $215 gatekeepers. even then, it still comes down to whether the stakes are high enough to warrant their time.

i thinks it's easy to get overconfident about $215 SNGs where oftentimes you're playing against opponents no where near world class ability. try bringing the stakes up to $15000, $20000, $35000, and $50000 where you start to attract a whole different level of smarts, play, psychology, and bankroll...
then let's see if Dr_Gammon stays rock solid, let's see if you (Daliman) press harder on the bubble, or if Gigabet makes more moves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with what you say, but then, I did in the first place. I guess the best way I can explain it is by saying if you have a guy who is a top 300-600 ring player who is making 1 BB an hour long term (highly unlikely, from what I hear about high limits, but either way..), Ivey is not going to come into the same game as this guy(let's say he replaces him so his EV is not dropped by having a top player at the table..) and beat it for 3BB's a hour long term. Same thing applies to SNG's. You are never going to find a situation where the best player in the world is going to have 3x better results than the best players there at the moment.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok I apologize Dali, I did not know that are such an expert player. But consider this. I know people who have over 30% ROI at 50+5 and 100+9 so why would you play the 200+15, especially with a short roll. In fact, it is possible that a situation has developed where there are so many good players at the 215s that the winrate is higher at the lower buyin tourneys.

I know there is some prestige perhaps to playing the highest tournaments available (don't mind the STEPS for now) and against good players but perhaps you should consider that your bankroll and earn would be better suited to a lower buyin.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a good point about the win % in the 100's vs the 200's. Although I doubt the people you know that are at 30% are playing solely 100's, or if they are, they are likely not in long run at all yet, I DO think 30% is attainable there. And yes, 200's had reached a bit of a maximum density, but the STEPS have served to clear the waters extremely well.

WHy do I play the 200's then when I am low on BR? Because I am stubborn, vain, immature, and petulant. Other than that, I'm a great guy [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We don't have to be *that* good, and I know you meant the average game. But we *are* that good, and it's because of the PP stucture we have broken down into a science. Gig will make more moves, I will press harder at the bubble, and Dr. will never make a mistake, but we all have the nuts and bolts down dead solid perfect. COuld Negreanu play them better than us? In time,(not much), I'm sure of it. COuld he get 2 to 3x our winrate? No chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'd like to reference Phil Ivey's article on The Art Of Winning at www.cardplayer.com where he discusses the differences in skill level from $400-$800 to $4000-$8000 when it comes to elite players adjusting. i think given time to adjust, i believe players like Daniel Negreanu, Barry Greenstein, Gus Hansen, and Phil Ivey would eclipse , outplay, and outperform Party Poker's current $215 gatekeepers. even then, it still comes down to whether the stakes are high enough to warrant their time.

i thinks it's easy to get overconfident about $215 SNGs where oftentimes you're playing against opponents no where near world class ability. try bringing the stakes up to $15000, $20000, $35000, and $50000 where you start to attract a whole different level of smarts, play, psychology, and bankroll...
then let's see if Dr_Gammon stays rock solid, let's see if you (Daliman) press harder on the bubble, or if Gigabet makes more moves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with what you say, but then, I did in the first place. I guess the best way I can explain it is by saying if you have a guy who is a top 300-600 ring player who is making 1 BB an hour long term (highly unlikely, from what I hear about high limits, but either way..), Ivey is not going to come into the same game as this guy(let's say he replaces him so his EV is not dropped by having a top player at the table..) and beat it for 3BB's a hour long term. Same thing applies to SNG's. You are never going to find a situation where the best player in the world is going to have 3x better results than the best players there at the moment.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's debateable though, because again, you speaking about $215 SNGs...not $30600 ones. your confidence in your play/skill level and that of others like Dr_Gammon, Gigabet, ZeeJustin, spyhard, etc. is based predominately on a game at a stake that you are comfortable and familiar with. i think, IMHO, that players like Ivey would eclispe Party's current $215 crop given adjustment to their structure and if the stakes were higher. the title of this thread deals with ULTRA HIGH BUY-IN SNGs, not the $215 ones that Party's elite grind out and are confident in beating.

[Big Limpin']

[ QUOTE ]

the fact is, the $200+15 players at Party are very weak when compared to say Daniel Negreanu, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if players of that calibre could beat them for 40% ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are a moron. Sorry to be blunt and rude, but i cant think of any other way to respond to this tripe.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Edit: On second thought, i cant buy this. I dont think that is possible. I may be wrong, but i dont think 40% is achievable at 200+15 for ANYONE. 30%, ok, not 40. But i dont play that level, so i may not be the best authority on what is possible

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, my whole impression of your post was that you were talking about the very best in the world, as that's the language you used, and the fact is, the $200+15 players at Party are very weak when compared to say Daniel Negreanu, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if players of that calibre could beat them for 40% ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

My 2 cents in this thread is that you're wrong, and you're wrong for a very specific reason: the Party SnG structure is too easy to master. The reason it is easy to master is because it quickly becomes a preflop game, and a preflop only game is of limited complexity, and it doesn't take a prodigy to find optimal play, just a lot of practice and reasonably good poker smarts.

This is why I believe 40% at $215 is impossible for everybody, Daniel N. included. Now, change the structure to deep money, and I agree with you. But that's just not what the game is.

eastbay

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Edit: On second thought, i cant buy this. I dont think that is possible. I may be wrong, but i dont think 40% is achievable at 200+15 for ANYONE. 30%, ok, not 40. But i dont play that level, so i may not be the best authority on what is possible

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, my whole impression of your post was that you were talking about the very best in the world, as that's the language you used, and the fact is, the $200+15 players at Party are very weak when compared to say Daniel Negreanu, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if players of that calibre could beat them for 40% ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

My 2 cents in this thread is that you're wrong, and you're wrong for a very specific reason: the Party SnG structure is too easy to master. The reason it is easy to master is because it quickly becomes a preflop game, and a preflop only game is of limited complexity, and it doesn't take a prodigy to find optimal play, just a lot of practice and reasonably good poker smarts.

This is why I believe 40% at $215 is impossible for everybody, Daniel N. included. Now, change the structure to deep money, and I agree with you. But that's just not what the game is.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

...which entails a game that, IMHO, is not so much skill based as it is employing more of a luck factor. limited complexity and optimal play which anybody with poker smarts can learn does'nt involve alot of skill.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

...which entails a game that, IMHO, is not so much skill based as it is employing more of a luck factor. limited complexity and optimal play which anybody with poker smarts can learn does'nt involve alot of skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anybody would argue that short stack poker ultimately has less skill than deep money poker, as it involves more decisions preflop. Simple as that.

On the flip side, there's additional skills in these things which require time and experience to master: playing stacks, understanding equity apart from chipEV, etc.

But your "more of a luck factor" statement doesn't make any sense. Everybody gets the same luck. It's not a factor.

But, that being said, so what? If I could earn as much money flipping coins, I'd do it. I'm not in this for the vanity of playing "the most skilled game" or whatever. If that was my bag I'd be playing chess (or something) for money.

eastbay