I have applied Paul Phillips advice but am still sucking

[2Fast2Furious]

don't know about you, but playing the $11 MTTs on Party can take forever to make it in the money - I played 5 hours last week and ended up 53rd and still only made like $25 so time/reward just isnt' there - I'd suggest maybe playing the smaller tournies

thx everyone. i'm moving to smaller tournies with bigger stacks. makes sense.

[illegit]

[ QUOTE ]

I'd move off party (temporarily) because the stacks are too short and the fields are too big.


[/ QUOTE ]
Do you reccomend this solely to reduce variance and see some better short term results? Or do you think that it's too difficult to have a significant edge in the lower buyin Party tourneys due to their structure?

[locutus2002]

I recommend playing smaller field sizes to reduce the variance. Not so you can win more money, but so you can have a better idea of the frequency with which you make the final table. That way you can gauge how you are doing. If you are not a winning player you should not be trying to make a big cash in a big field, its EV-.

The shorter stack sizes mean less splashing around. Many of the players will be in push and fold mode from 50/100 to the end of the tournament. If you are working on your game you need to be able to call/raise and make some bad decisions without going out all the time.

The shorter stacks favor a stronger pf game, which is the easiest part of the game to play for less experienced players. The variance is high because its hard to string together 30 coinflips without losing more than 2 in a row. But the fields are comensurately weaker.

[KneeCo]

I wouldn't move up in buy-in because you're not winning. If you're interested in smaller fields, you can try the new 180 man sngs on Stars or the 3$ rebuy on Party (which should let you play some deep stack poker if you can play well during the rebuy).


P.S.
Paul Phillips rocks.

[bruce]

If you have an average stack and push four times in a row when you are a 4:1 favorite against a similar sized stack you will eventually go broke unless you're lucky.

My results took off exponentially once I figured out that I
needed to accumulate a bigger stack to sustain bad beats.
If your stack is twice as big as the other persons and you win you first 4:1 shot your chip stack even if you lose a hand will continue to grow because you had more chips to begin with. Now if it were only that simple.

Bruce

[jrbick]

not that I'm a tourney expert or anything, but I can attest to the advice in here so far. Shorter fields are a great way to start as are small-buy-in rebuys (which really act as deep stacks...just call 1 BB on the first hand and re-buy for another 5.00 right after that and voila, about 2k in chips on Pty, for instance).

I don't know what other posters in here think, but there are good times to do tournies on Full Tilt, especially the money added tournaments (24+2 or whatever they are). They usually don't get up to more than 3-400 entrants. An avg. of about 4 hours until the final table in the past.

If you're always getting your money in as a favorite, you're probably not playing very well. Early on, you should be looking to win big pots with big hands. Later, you should be looking to win small pots with two cards. If you do this well, you should have a big enough stack to absorb a bad beat. Right now, if you're being blinded to the point of near-death waiting for a big pair, you need to get really lucky to get a decent stack.

Once you get <15BBs or so, you should be looking to steal the blinds at least once an orbit, and more if you can get away with it.

[Skjonne]

[ QUOTE ]
thx everyone. i'm moving to smaller tournies with bigger stacks. makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

May I suggest Full Tilt? They suck on bigger buy-in tourneys, but have quite a few smaller ones.

The field for a $24+2 (don't ask) is a couple of hundred people.
Their structure is good (second only to UB as far as I know)
They have a deposit and a reload bonus clearable with MTT's (which in effect give you a 42% rebate on entry fees)