Would you say there is a correlation.....

[Rojosox]

between the higher dollar tournaments having a lower ROI? Initially, this makes perfect sense. But I was thinking about it. A lot of people are not rich and therefore can only afford the 30 and 50 games. You might have a lot of rich people just spending tons of $$$ at the 100/200 games (probably not the 1k games)... so theoretically, some of the 30 dollar tourneys may be harder than the 200s. Am I crazy or does this make any sense? - Jared

[Apathy]

In some ways it does make sense. Irieguy has written a few great posts all explaining his theory that in difficulty level:

5<10<20<30<50<100<200...

I too have had toughts similar to yours, that there are certain levels where the 'grind it out' small stakes pros are forced to stick around for longer then usual (like the 33s for example) while the rich fish have no problem playing at the highest level.


I think that type your talking about has more possibility of being true live then it does online.

Obviously you can find a 200 game that would be easier then a 50 game. It would be rare though, and doesn't change the fact that on average the difficulty level goes up as the money does in online SNGs.

[Misfire]

I don't know about SNGs, but there's a paradox I've heard from several places that the 1/2 games on Party are tougher than the 2/4...

You'd think, however, that the good players starting with smaller bankrolls would still move up eventually...

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
between the higher dollar tournaments having a lower ROI? Initially, this makes perfect sense. But I was thinking about it. A lot of people are not rich and therefore can only afford the 30 and 50 games. You might have a lot of rich people just spending tons of $$$ at the 100/200 games (probably not the 1k games)... so theoretically, some of the 30 dollar tourneys may be harder than the 200s. Am I crazy or does this make any sense? - Jared

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you're not crazy, but I don't think the theory is correct. Unless every rich fish is also crazy. They will start to realize that they can get enjoyment at a $50, and not piss every cent away at the higher levels.

The levels play out a lot like a free market. In the end, the average tournament difficulty will be related directly to the buy-in. But there are adjustment levels, and not every tourney would be the same. Just like every business owner does not make optimal business decisions. Still, as a whole, business owners make logical decisions designed to further their own needs. Same thing here.

[lorinda]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about SNGs, but there's a paradox I've heard from several places that the 1/2 games on Party are tougher than the 2/4...

[/ QUOTE ]

Definition of Paradox

A paradox is an apparently true statement or group of statements that seems to lead to a contradiction or to a situation that defies intuition, such as "This statement is false".

Definition of Bullshit

Bullshit (or bull) is a common English expletive meaning "humbug" or "nonsense." It implies that the purveyor of alleged nonsense is willfully lying, or that he/she is speaking boldly from ignorance. It is also the verb meaning to talk bullshit.

Source: Wikipedia


Lori

[Maulik]

my friend plays 15/30 as a college student and can't beat the 2/4 tables, he games for excitement. He's about to quit because he's down maybe $8gs.

some people are degenerate or can afford to lose. I'm sure you'd be lucky to run into some Wall Street/lawyer types, who will never play a $100 tournament.

[skipperbob]

1.) Yes, you are crazy
2.) However, your theory is true
3.) We both had better hope that Irieguy & Citanul are in a good mood when they read this [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[gumpzilla]

It's surely not a paradox, but I think that I could get behind the avg. skill(1/2) > avg. skill(2/4) more easily than the similar situation in SNGs. Wouldn't the argument be that a lot of unusually strong players might use 1/2 to clear bonuses? Is the rake structure the same in both games? I could imagine that 2/4 might have a gentler rake structure such that even though the game was harder, one had to do less well to beat it for similar amounts of money. These arguments don't apply to SNGs; maybe they don't apply to ring games either, but that's not clear.

I'm not saying that 1/2 > 2/4 is definitely true, but with this one I can at least see my way to how it could be.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
between the higher dollar tournaments having a lower ROI? Initially, this makes perfect sense. But I was thinking about it. A lot of people are not rich and therefore can only afford the 30 and 50 games. You might have a lot of rich people just spending tons of $$$ at the 100/200 games (probably not the 1k games)... so theoretically, some of the 30 dollar tourneys may be harder than the 200s. Am I crazy or does this make any sense? - Jared

[/ QUOTE ]

You're crazy. It just doesn't work that way in practice, at least the way I play.

30 is easier than 50 is easier than 100. I just can't image 200 gets any easier. I've never heard anyone say it does.

eastbay

[p0t_Commit3d]

I cant say anything about 1t yet, but speaking for limit games I can say that sometimes its a factor, but more often at lower limits then the higher limits.

This is because the rake is a huge factor in limit games moreso then at 1t. This causes the 1-2 game to be tougher then the 2-4 sometimes simply because of the rake factor. The skill levels of the players is so close that rake>skill.

At the higher limits I have played there may be the occasion big fish, and sometimes he will stay in the game for a long long long time, but all in all losing is just no fun. They will eventualy quit even if they have money to blow. If they have a ton of money and they still want to play, then they often try to find the higher then what they are playing now. Chasing their losses.

Anyways. Quantity fish> quality of fish . I cant prove it, but I know from experiance that in limit games it just doesnt make a difference at the higher limits. Each game is progressivly tougher~in the long run~. As for the lower limits rake is the factor.