Thoughts on new party games?

[CheckFold]

So after a couple weeks, what do you all think of the new party no limit games? I'm mainly looking for responses from $100 NL 6 max players. I actually haven't sat in any of the games since they changed format. Pot sizes for the $100 games seem dismally low and the $200 games seem to be full and not a lot of them. I'd love to take some shots at the bigger games but don't really have the roll.

I've been spending my time trying to learn Omaha 8b instead over the last couple weeks but don't know what to pick as my regular game next. The old 100 NL format seemed to be a perfect fit for me from a bankroll, variance, and win rate perspective. I'd be real interested to hear how other 100 NL players are handling it. How do your win rates compare in the new deep stacked games? Are the $200 games worth waiting for?

[greg nice]

tip: dont play over your roll

what was a 5 buy in 'swing' at your normal stakes is now bankroll suicide.

[Raven]

I was also playing in the very good 1/2 100 $ 6 max games. Im now playing in the 10 handed PL 1/2 200 $ games mainly because of the waiting list of the 200 $ NL games. The games are still good but a little bit more tight.

Its funny to see a waiting list of 25 person in the 200 $ NL games and of 3 persons in the 200 $ PL games.

I guess I'll have to learn the differences in PL play...

And also, Party Poker management sucks. Why the hell limiting the numbers of tables, I just cant understand.

[CheckFold]

The $200 PL game sounds interesting, although it might take a while to adjust to the nuances of pot limit. I also feel that a lot of my profits from no limit came from loose awful players making catastrophic all ins or calls of my all ins preflop and on the flop. Also some of the ability to manipulate odds for opponents is lost. Perhaps still worth a look though.

[MyMindIsGoing]

[ QUOTE ]
Im now playing in the 10 handed PL 1/2 200 $ games mainly because of the waiting list of the 200 $ NL games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are they soft? Many players playing them?

[Centrist]

I played the $100 NL prior to the change, although I also dropped down whenever necessary to find jucy tables. So I'd play a mix of usually $100 and $50, with the occasional $25 thrown in.

With the new blinds, I've been playing mostly $100, with probably even less $50's and $25's. I don't play as much as you guys -- maybe 1000 hands since the switch -- so my results are not meaninful yet.

This is how it feels so far, though:

First, it looks to me like there are two big drop-off stages in terms of the loosness of tables. The first is between $25 and $50. Much of the time, the $25's have pots just as big as they did pre-switch -- which has to be hugely +EV.

The second is between $100 and $200. The $100's seem plenty jucy, and I've actually felt much more comfortable and positive about my game since the switch. I understand, of course, that staying at the $100 is in some sense a drop down in stakes, but there seems such a huge drop-off from $100 to $200 that I wouldn't even consider making that move.

Second, the game feels *very* different. I seem to almost always leave a table with a modest win. Losses are less frequent, but all-in hands are far less frequent, so you're not doubling and tripling up.

There seem to be almost no tables with the kind of maniacs you used to see with 5x the buyin or more. I'm sure those guys were around in the early days, and some of them still are, but they get beat so quickly that they're not there by the time you get to the table. Big-bet, slot-machine poker has been dealt a serious blow, if not quite eliminated.

I'm somewhat surprised that I feel better about the game with the new structure, because I think my biggest weakness is in post-flop play. Somehow, I seem to be doing ok. I certainly feel like I'm *playing poker* much more than before -- more decisions, more maneuverability. I feel pretty comfortable laying it down to action, or, conversely, firing that second barrel if it has a reasonable chance at winning the pot.

I sense that the difference between under-aggression and over-aggression might be the second barrel versus the third one. I'm not tempted to go for the third one. And people seem plenty intimidated by the first two.

I think I'm kind of in the middle of making the adjustments to my game recommended here. One I'm having trouble with is my old bad habit of trying to induce bluffs. I'm not sure it ever worked that well, but it's especially bad now. Those min-bets on the river never result in someone coming over the top.

I flopped a set of 8's yesterday on a board with an A, out of position versus the pre-flop raiser. I check, he bets about 2/3 the pot, and I come over the top and blow him out of the water.

The guy thought about it for a long while before folding. Something tells me if I lead for 2/3 the pot, he raises me with his obvious AK, and *then* you blow him out of the water, right?

A note to myself: Bet your hand, stupid!!!

[meow_meow]

I'm in same boat as OP, previously making most of my profit at the 100NL 6max, and originally annoyed at the change.
Moved up to the 200NL for a bit, but found the action to be much tighter than the old 100NL. Also played quite a bit of PLO8 last week - I'm still not great at that game though, and you get so many fewer hands/hour than NLHE.

Anyway, this week I'm back to the 100NL with the new blinds. Obviously, I don't have the sample size yet ('bout 4500 hands so far) to say anything definitive. That said, I'm really pleasantly surprised so far. When the change took place I was almost certain that it wouldn't be possible to maintain my previous winrate, as it meant doubling it in terms of BB/100. Now I'm not so sure. Also thought that the increased emphasis on post-flop play would make multitabling more difficult, but I'm still doing 8-tables without too much hassle.
I think you need to make some adjustments - obviously small PP and suited connectors go up in value. But whether the buy-in is 50 or 100BB, people will still call off their entire stack on TPTK (and much, much worse).
Of course, it's very possible that I've just been running hot, but I think the game is still good, you just need to change your emphasis to a lot of calling small raises pre-flop and punishing your opponents when they get married to top pair or over pair when you hit your set, straight, etc...

[zaxx19]

My quick thoughts are basically this:

1) SC and baby pairs now have more value...which is good for me.

2) People need to stop slow playing their AA and KK like they are huge made hands like sets.

3) People need to learn how to play post flop more.

4(refers to 2) People need to take the lead with huge pairs and even JJ occasionally by putting in 2nd and even sometimes third raises dont be afraid to win a small pot with aces.

5) Generally variance should go down and you should be MORE willing to make hard laydowns.

[meow_meow]

[ QUOTE ]

5) Generally variance should go down and you should be MORE willing to make hard laydowns.

[/ QUOTE ]

I soooo agree with this. I still have trouble doing it all the time. I think it is the biggest adjustment in switching from limit.

[Wayfare]

[ QUOTE ]
My quick thoughts are basically this:

1) SC and baby pairs now have more value...which is good for me.

2) People need to stop slow playing their AA and KK like they are huge made hands like sets.

3) People need to learn how to play post flop more.

4(refers to 2) People need to take the lead with huge pairs and even JJ occasionally by putting in 2nd and even sometimes third raises dont be afraid to win a small pot with aces.

5) Generally variance should go down and you should be MORE willing to make hard laydowns.

[/ QUOTE ]

Zaxx speaks the truth. Especially #5.