sitngo players

[Egarim 0]

Just wondering how the sitngo pros are feeling about the new change in pp's blind structure. It looks horrific to me. I think party thinks its better just because they start you off with twice as many chips. Unfortunately the blinds are higher and they move up faster.They switched it to 10hands per level to timed. Does anyone like this better?

[Relvin 0]

I am a sit and go pro on party. I have not looked into it closely yet but I think the games will now last a little bit longer (maybe an hour instead of 45-50 minutes)? just a somewhat random guess. This in my opinion is good and I hoped that they would at some point make a slight change (like keeping the old structure and giving us 1200 or 1300 chips instead of 1000.

[Petoria 0]

I think this is fine, anything is better than the old structure. It's no Stars sng structure, I'd say it's Full Tilt like. It might be slightly better than FTP. FTP has a pretty quick blind structure, with lower increments. Let me play my first sng, and I'll let you know if it's as good as it looks.

[Jdr999 0]

I like the changes.First, I like the 2000 starting chips. In the old SnG's, if you lost a hand early, you were down to 500. While the blinds move up faster in the first two levels (around 7-9 hands in each one, once players get elimated, you can sit back and wait a little, rather then push hard with any two cards.

[scweeber 0]

UB still has the best SnG structure IMHO... but PP has more fish

[Egarim 0]

You can lose a hand early and be down to 1k. It'd still be the same thing as 500 in the old structure. Also, Jdr999, I don't understand why you say once players are eliminated, you can sit back and wait??? What exactly are you referring to? The fact that players get eliminated faster due to the faster increasing blinds or are you saying the structure is slower and gives you more time to be patient?

[Jdr999 0]

You can lose a hand early and be down to 1k. It'd still be the same thing as 500 in the old structure. Also, Jdr999, I don't understand why you say once players are eliminated, you can sit back and wait??? What exactly are you referring to? The fact that players get eliminated faster due to the faster increasing blinds or are you saying the structure is slower and gives you more time to be patient?

I'm saying when it's down to 6 players or less, because of the new structure, instead of the blinds going up every 10 hands, it goes up every 10 minutes, which means more hands.And losing 50% of your stack is different than losing 35% of your stack.

[Jdr999 0]

UB still has the best SnG structure IMHO... but PP has more fish

I agree with this.But with the new SnG at Party Poker, it may be more proftiable than UB SnG's.

[jayboogie 0]

I'm in the minority, but I prefered the old structure. It allowed for quicker tournaments and allowed for playing more tables while still playing optimally.

[PhilHellmuth 0]

i've not played on the new party yet, but any possible change can only be for the better, the old party sng structure was absolutely horrific, a complete and total joke. kudos to party for finally changing it even tho it took way too long. i just played my first ever 90 person SNG on full tilt and they start you with 3000 chips. i was thrilled, and unsurprisingly [to me at least] i won it. what a pleasure to finally actually be able to play real poker at a sng. and to those who say that stars structure is so much better than FT, you're only paying attention to the time of level difference. the smaller increasing increments makes a huge difference.

[HtotheNootch 0]

I'm in the minority, but I prefered the old structure. It allowed for quicker tournaments and allowed for playing more tables while still playing optimally.

Amen! Once I bought SNGPT, the old Party SnG game got real simple. Now I'll have to start thinking again.I also loved the fairly consistent timeframe.

[PhilHellmuth 0]

I'm in the minority, but I prefered the old structure. It allowed for quicker tournaments and allowed for playing more tables while still playing optimally.

im sorry but this opinion is totally absurd. if you polled the 200 best tournament players in the world, id be shocked beyond belief if a single one of them agreed with this opinion. you basically desire something that will decrease the skill factor and increase the luck factor, which means that if you're one of the better players, you are taking edge away from yourself, and costing yourself money

[HtotheNootch 0]

I'm in the minority, but I prefered the old structure. It allowed for quicker tournaments and allowed for playing more tables while still playing optimally.

im sorry but this opinion is totally absurd. if you polled the 200 best tournament players in the world, id be shocked beyond belief if a single one of them agreed with this opinion. you basically desire something that will decrease the skill factor and increase the luck factor, which means that if you're one of the better players, you are taking edge away from yourself, and costing yourself money

Okay, ask Gigabet. Go ahead you can do it.Or, if you want someone local, ask Steve7Stud. The structure made the game - if you knew how to adjust.

[gary21212121 0]

the structure is way better.... with the older structure youd play the first 30 hands and were a couple would drop... then the blinds are at 25/50 were most the skill is stopped....with ave stack at 900ish players are raising to 200 and most post flop bets are all in.....once the blinds move up again its all in/all out time at party....if you find yourself in a slow tourney with 6 or more people in it... a lot of it turns into luck and not skill....

[PhilHellmuth 0]

I'm in the minority, but I prefered the old structure. It allowed for quicker tournaments and allowed for playing more tables while still playing optimally.

im sorry but this opinion is totally absurd. if you polled the 200 best tournament players in the world, id be shocked beyond belief if a single one of them agreed with this opinion. you basically desire something that will decrease the skill factor and increase the luck factor, which means that if you're one of the better players, you are taking edge away from yourself, and costing yourself money

Okay, ask Gigabet. Go ahead you can do it.Or, if you want someone local, ask Steve7Stud. The structure made the game - if you knew how to adjust.

im well aware that gigabet made himself on the old party sng's. 2 things tho -1 - the 100's and 200's he was playing start u with 1000 chips [i believe?] whereas the lower buy-ins start you off with only 800. that's 25% more stack2 - when gigabet started, i believe that the only real action was at party. that doesnt necessarily mean he prefers that structure to a better one. if any great player would agree with your opinion, i would think it might be gigabet - with his revolutionary views on stack sizes, which i still dont understand entirely. if you're implying that you are 100% sure that gigabet prefers a faster structure i would be extremely curious to hear his explanation.if i had to prove my argument it would be thus - lets exaggerate each of our opinions to the extreme.mine - we make a tournament that has 3 day blind levels and lasts about a month? would the top pros like this? [provided the buy-in was high enough for it to be worth their time] i would think the answer would be 'hell yes'yours - we make a super turbo with 5 minute blind levels. would the top pros play in this? do i even hav to answer?the only possible explanation i can think for people liking the old party structure was not the structure itself, but the competition at party.i would still be very surprised if u showed me a top player who likes faster structures.

[HtotheNootch 0]

I'm in the minority, but I prefered the old structure. It allowed for quicker tournaments and allowed for playing more tables while still playing optimally.

im sorry but this opinion is totally absurd. if you polled the 200 best tournament players in the world, id be shocked beyond belief if a single one of them agreed with this opinion. you basically desire something that will decrease the skill factor and increase the luck factor, which means that if you're one of the better players, you are taking edge away from yourself, and costing yourself money

Okay, ask Gigabet. Go ahead you can do it.Or, if you want someone local, ask Steve7Stud. The structure made the game - if you knew how to adjust.

im well aware that gigabet made himself on the old party sng's. 2 things tho -1 - the 100's and 200's he was playing start u with 1000 chips [i believe?] whereas the lower buy-ins start you off with only 800. that's 25% more stack2 - when gigabet started, i believe that the only real action was at party. that doesnt necessarily mean he prefers that structure to a better one. if any great player would agree with your opinion, i would think it might be gigabet - with his revolutionary views on stack sizes, which i still dont understand entirely. if you're implying that you are 100% sure that gigabet prefers a faster structure i would be extremely curious to hear his explanation.if i had to prove my argument it would be thus - lets exaggerate each of our opinions to the extreme.mine - we make a tournament that has 3 day blind levels and lasts about a month? would the top pros like this? [provided the buy-in was high enough for it to be worth their time] i would think the answer would be 'hell yes'yours - we make a super turbo with 5 minute blind levels. would the top pros play in this? do i even hav to answer?the only possible explanation i can think for people liking the old party structure was not the structure itself, but the competition at party.i would still be very surprised if u showed me a top player who likes faster structures.

You're only considering ROI. What about hourly rate?I started being serious about STTs at Fulltilt. I played a few at Party. My ROI was much higher at Fulltilt, but I could cash 2 at Party while I was 5-handed at Fulltilt. Even if I dropped my ROI significantly at Party, the fast structure made my hourly rate.Think about it (again these numbers are totally fictional but used for arguments sake):At the Fulltilt 20s, my ROI is 25%. Let's leave the juice out of it for now, and that means I earn $5 per tourney.At Partu let's say the luck factor drops me to 20%. That means I earn $4 per tourney.If the average Fulltilt tourney take 1.25 hours. Then my hourly rate per tourney is: $4.If the average tourney at Party takes .75 hours, my hourly rate at Party is $5.3. $5.3 > $4 It's that simple.

[dsm_rsx 0]

UB still has the best SnG structure IMHO...  but PP has more fish

[jayboogie 0]

I'm in the minority, but I prefered the old structure. It allowed for quicker tournaments and allowed for playing more tables while still playing optimally.

im sorry but this opinion is totally absurd. if you polled the 200 best tournament players in the world, id be shocked beyond belief if a single one of them agreed with this opinion. you basically desire something that will decrease the skill factor and increase the luck factor, which means that if you're one of the better players, you are taking edge away from yourself, and costing yourself money

That's a pretty close minded opinion, but I think you're wrong anyways. S&G's are all about chipstacks and it's all about managing your chipstack, it's not really about the cards, making plays against your opponent and etc. Your goal should be to place in the Top 3, because 4th place pays nothing and it is not worth the risk busting out 4th if it's not neccessary.Sit & Go's on any site pretty much require you to use a similar strategy, it simply takes longer to complete and cuts into your hourly rate. Sit & Go's are not played the same as MTT's, there are no implied odds, post-flop play and etc. It's not even poker really, all your plays are made Pre-flop. The successful S&G players realize that it's not about the cards, but rather your positioning and timing in making steals and also playing your opponents accordingly due to their stack size.