MTT Structure dependend adjustments? (From Party to Stars)

Hi,

Lately I've had a fair bit of success playing small stakes ($1 to $6 buy-ins) MTT:s at Party. I've won a couple, and made a lot more itm.

So I decided to give a go at the similar games at Stars, and it seams I can't beat them. At all. I've been trying to wonder why, and I have an idea that the difference in the structure (of blinds, antes etc.) calls for some play differences. Ideas?
I'm inclined to think that Stars holds more fishier and looser players than Party, because it is sooo popular..

Any good advice from the guys who beat the Stars MTTs all the time?

Thanks,
L

define the differences in structure - most of us can't play on party.

I just started playing MTT's on Stars and the ones I have played in are definitely fishy. Although I am rolled for higher stakes I played a $2.20 last night just to start getting a feel for large player MTT's and was flabergasted (sp?) at the level of play even up to the 600/1200 blind level. Out of just under 3k players I managed to finish in 120th place just by playing standard TAGGISH poker and may have made the final table if my 72% equity hand had held up on the river.

I would also think that with more fish in the player pool that the variance would also increase and that may be playing a factor in your winrate.

move up to where they respect your raises

Originally Posted by GatorJH

I would also think that with more fish in the player pool that the variance would also increase and that may be playing a factor in your winrate.

No. Beating up on fish is much lower variance than playing against good players. Good players are more aggressive and you end up putting your stack in in marginal spots a lot more often. The 3000-person fields do increase your variance though.

Originally Posted by drmcboy

move up to where they respect your raises

I don't get respect at any level

I'm laughing at you, not with you.

start here

http://www.pocketfives.com/poker-art...n-MTTs-2426235

you should be beyond the idea that it's harder or takes longer to beat bad players.

ru serious? I am WELLLLLLLL beyond the idea that it is harder or takes longer to beat bad players. My comment was based on the thought that with more donkeys in the field you get more donkey calls, which lead to more suckouts, which leads to higher variance.

I do see and agree with Mike's point in that variance at the higher stakes coming from getting into marginal spots against solid players. However, at lower stakes (such as those that OP is playing) the overabundance of donkeys versus wolves should drive a higher variance for foxes and wolves simply based on the extremely high variance of donkeys in the player pool.

Maybe I am thinking about this the wrong way, but imo the article you linked to (which was a pretty good article btw) seems to support that idea. If you take the donkey's out of the first graph (ROI Variance after 1000 MTT's) I can't help but believe that the variance for each of the other groups would be reduced accordingly. Conversely if you change the % of the player pool within each group, i.e. add more donkeys and reduce the amount of sheep, wolves and foxes I would think the variance in those threee groups would increase.

Differences in blind structure are significant: party levels are 20/40, 30/60, 50/100, 100/200, 150/300, 200/400 and so on.. whereas at Stars you have more "small" blind levels (at least it seems so..)

I did better, finished 17/1041 at a $1 tourney, got busted as a small stack when my 22 didn't hold against T6.. The play seemed really fishy..

Re read it.

The more people put their money in bad against you, the smoother your graph will look.

Your post essentially says you would rather people fold A2 vs your AK because 25% of the time they win and so you don't. That's true if they are getting 3/1 on their money but probably they are not and so you win more chips and money over time.

Winning a MTT is an result far outside your expectation in that one event. You are not supposed to have the best hand hold up as often as it needs to for a win. If that wasn't true, poker would be more or less chess and no one would make money playing it.

If you have a 50% edge, you will have less downswing in your graph than someone who has a 1% edge, which is what the article is telling you. That's why only crazy/zen people play $100+ SNGs because the swings when you run best case at 5% are insane. As you get less donkeys, your edge goes down.

It's just about getting the money in good as often as possible. Against better players, you can't do that nearly as much.

ru serious? I am WELLLLLLLL beyond the idea that it is harder or takes longer to beat bad players. My comment was based on the thought that with more donkeys in the field you get more donkey calls, which lead to more suckouts, which leads to higher variance.

"If it wasn't for luck I'd win every time" - Phil Hellmuth

Here's what you're both missing - these calls also lead to more chips. So yes, I am quite serious because it's important to understand where money comes from. It will help you play better and deal with tilt. Are you saying you'll have less variance when people never call you with bad hands? In the short term that might be true in a cash game but in a tourney you're going to get called eventually. You should want it do be by a bad hand.

Say you're playing a poker tournament where you have to win or you die. Would you rather play with a bunch of donkeys or a bunch of wolves? Assuming you took the donkeys - Why?

It's easy to see why i failed statistics. You are right in that I was reading the graph incorrectly. Nice post and explanation. Thanks.

If Party is still a 1000 starting stack, then you should see a big difference in early play as compared to Stars.