Party 3/6 vs 5/10

[BobbyD]

Continuing the threads that have appeared in the last couple of weeks on the differences in low limits on Party, I'd like to throw out this observation and see if anyone agrees.

I recently started playing 3/6 after beating 2/4 handily for 6 months. I have struggled with this jump and the adjustment to the aggression and tightness of 3/6.

For kicks (and since I have the bankroll), I decided to sit in on a couple of full ring 5/10 games in the last 4 days and have found them to be softer, looser, and less aggressive then the 3/6 games.

Does anyone agree?

I post this because I know that my sample size in both 3/6 and 5/10 is way too low to draw any conclusions myself.

[MaxPower]

The 5/10 games on Party are much better now than they were a few months ago. I don't know if they are softer than 3/6, but they are not as tight as they used to be.

[John Deere]

I've sat in on a few 5/10 games at Party that my friends were playing, and was once again amazed by the poor play. And as someone mentioned in a prior thread, the structure of 5/10 actually allows you -- the educated player -- to play a bit looser due to the 2/5 SB structure (as opposed to 1/3 at 3/6), and see more flops.

[sthief09]

the biggest difference I noticed at 5/10 is how many different types of players there are. as a result, you'll experience completely different table styles, unlike at 2/4 where they all tend to be loose and somewhat aggressive. I've seen loose-aggressive tables, and tight-passive tables.

the games are tougher than 3/6 though. there are more players who know what they are doing. player reads become more important since there will be more opportunities to open raise. if you have a few tight players to your left, you can get away with murder preflop.

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
I've sat in on a few 5/10 games at Party that my friends were playing, and was once again amazed by the poor play. And as someone mentioned in a prior thread, the structure of 5/10 actually allows you -- the educated player -- to play a bit looser due to the 2/5 SB structure (as opposed to 1/3 at 3/6), and see more flops.

[/ QUOTE ]

the blind structure is .33 vs .40. it's really not that much of a difference. I definitely wouldn't consider the blind structure a "major" difference between 3/6 and 5/10. just like in 3/6, you shouldn't be completing too much.

[BottlesOf]

In the months I've been reading this forum, I've never seen an explicit discussion of exactly how playabale hands are in the 2/5 blind structure. 1/2 is often discussed, as is the need to almost ignore your $1 contribution in a 1/3 blind structure, as is the need to complete with anything in a 2/3 structure.

Would anyone be so bold as to discuss playable hands in the 2/5 structure, as I've always just kind of eybealled the hand and sit and decided if I wanted to complete, but this doesn't seem as scientific as it should be.

[Joe826]

I've only played about 1,000 hands at 5/10 but I thought it was much more aggressive. I was three-bet and check-raised more times then I can count last night, it sucked heh. I'm really encouraged at the poor quality of play though. It's not hard at all to find good tables, i'll just have to get use to the new style of play a bit and the diverse line-up.

[sthief09]

there are a couple of factors:
- 5/10 games are generally tight
- 2/5 is closer to 1/3 than 1/2, but pretty much right in the middle

as a result, I think anything that would be playable on the button (like in a 1/3 structure) should be played, plus Axo with only a limper or two, and probably any 2 broadway (QTo is probably playable). you could probably play any suited connectors or gaps with 2+ limpers too, which you probably wouldn't play on the button.