#1
|
|||
|
|||
Is there a rational explanation for this?
My last 20K hands at Prima $1/$2NL
$60/hr playing 3 tables...16.5BB/100 hands My last 10K hands at Party $1/$2NL $18/hr playing 3 tables....5.0BB/100 hands Win rates are true win rates (double PT stats) Im stumped and frustrated. Obviously I can just keep playing at Prima, but there has to be an explanation. Maybe Im playing differently, but I dont see how or why I would be. The only difference I see is that Prima allows short stacks. There is a $20 min buy in on a $200 table. There are always several short stack around $30-$100 and they almost always stink and donate their money. That cant be enough to make this big a difference can it? On the other hand, my $2/$4NL win rate at Party is quite a bit higher than my $1/$2 win rate at Party so maybe its just been a lot of bad beats while playing $1/$2? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is there a rational explanation for this?
clearly this proves once and for all that party is rigged.
cheers! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is there a rational explanation for this?
How did I know someone would say that?
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is there a rational explanation for this?
Iceman, I used to play small nl games on both prima (royal vegas) and party, but I found the prima games to be much better at the low levels. Im currently smashing the .25 .50, but i find its alot easier to make money on these tables than the party 50 tables. Its not luck, people are just awful at prima.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is there a rational explanation for this?
10k hands is not a lot, and the nearest explanation is variance I think.
From what I hear the play is a bit more weak tight at prima though. I'm not sure if that is correct, but if it is, the optimal style of play over there would contain more bluffing obviously. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is there a rational explanation for this?
I almost never bluff. I play tight aggressive and they just keep calling me.
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is there a rational explanation for this?
If you almost never bluff (or semibluff), I think your winrate at prima must on the very good side of variance, or the 1/2 game over there must be very fishy and I should give it a go.
I could be wrong though. It happens often [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
EDIT: deleted
..
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is there a rational explanation for this?
Variance. Could also be that the opposition's style is different and one suits your style better. Could also be that the interface makes a difference. I know for a fact that I play more aggro at UB where the 'bet pot' button is so enticing than I do at Party where it is a pain to bet. I'm an idiot, but it is true.
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is there a rational explanation for this?
That damned "bet pot" button is why I left UB. It makes bad players make more correct bets in alot of circumstances.
When I said I almost never bluff, I really meant I almost never do things like make an all in turn bet as a bluff. I probably bet more flops with absolutely nothing than anyone else I play with. I bet draws all the time and will push in with a draw if I get raised and Im playing the right person who I think knows how to fold. But yeah, the $1/$2 at Prima is incredibly weak. I would say there is about 6 really good players at the entire site, so I almost never have more than 1 of them at my table. |
|
|