Confusion About Party Conventional Wisdom.

[chicagoY]

Just about everybody here has played longer at Party than I have so let me apologize in advance for any ignorance that I am about to parade. My stance on "Monster" isn't as negative as everybody else's, and yes that may be because I don't really understand the cost/benefit break down well but if I get a better understanding from looking stupid then that's a good enough reason to post.
A few points:
1. I've had the week off and have been poker junkying it up which is also due to my fear that the sites, one by one, will will start throwing us land of the free (that was a joke) types off soon.

With Party, I've logged a ton of hours since Monday and I find the monster games total wildness but still encouraging in light of all the talk of NL drying up. Monster guys are nuts! Its like a Gamblers Anonymous meeting on 100 tables.
Yes, I'm barely up, and its rough having all those callers with AA. Yeah, the beats have been a horror show yet, as we all know, it's a long term game and I'll take the long view about the beatings and raise calls with unsuited junk. I do know that this view comes more naturally to most of you than it does to me as alot of 2p2ers never seem to tilt.
2. An inequitable increase in rake along with none of us not getting any monster jackpot loot hurts and does suck, but doesn't the better action somewhat mitigate? Rake online is always less that B&M and these games remind me of robbing drunks at 5 am at the Excalibur. It'll pay off sooner or later.
3. I've never had warm feelings toward Party anyway so I guess nothing would shock or offend me like it did others. Maybe my confusion here is also a result of low expectations. One expects a scammer to scam so, while annoying, it has been a humorous vacation from nitland.

I agree that the regular, non-monster games are definitely worse, and I admit that all of you know better than I do about Party so any explanation is appreciated. I know some of the math guys could clarify why its not worth staying there with a simple equation so thanks in advance.

[heater]

[ QUOTE ]
With Party, I've logged a ton of hours since Monday and I find the monster games total wildness but still encouraging in light of all the talk of NL drying up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I don't really have any answers for you but this caught my attention. Who is saying that NL is "drying up"? Whoever it is is wrong.

[chicagoY]

Yeah, there was a thread in the spring about NL will die and limit is the natural state of affairs. It had a ton of comments on it, and a lot of guys feel NL fish will all die out and limit will once again rule--I hope not though. I don't have the experience to say one way or another.

BTW, cool pic of Hunter.

[Gregg777]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, there was a thread in the spring about NL will die and limit is the natural state of affairs. It had a ton of comments on it, and a lot of guys feel NL fish will all die out and limit will once again rule--I hope not though. I don't have the experience to say one way or another.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would love to hear a single good reason why a game with limited opponent control and sick long term downswings is supposed to overtake the CADILLAC OF POKER [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

The donks love to go all in and the good players need control.

[chicagoY]

Here is a thread:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...6422&page=

This wasn't the big one though. There was a really long one that was in General or Poker Theory, and maybe it was in February but that's all I can find now.

It was mostly limit guys defending limit as the being the purer, better game. One poster, I recall, said that skill can overcome much of the variance that so much marked my time at 2/4 of course I wasn't very good.
Another said that the fish blow out of NL so fast that its only a matter of time before they fall below replacement level and then we return back to limit with its mandatory backdoor flushes and straights cracking your sets while the clown who beats you asks, "First time playing?"

[emon87]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, there was a thread in the spring about NL will die and limit is the natural state of affairs. It had a ton of comments on it, and a lot of guys feel NL fish will all die out and limit will once again rule--I hope not though. I don't have the experience to say one way or another.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would love to hear a single good reason why a game with limited opponent control and sick long term downswings is supposed to overtake the CADILLAC OF POKER [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

The donks love to go all in and the good players need control.

[/ QUOTE ]



Basically because it has less variance, the fish go bust quicker and are less likely to reload. Look at a game like chess, where the better player almost always wins. How often does a bad player want to wager money on the outcome of a game of chess?

[[Phill]]

How often does the average losing poker player (especially online) go to vegas/local casino and play craps/roullette.

Applying economic theory at its basic level doesnt work for the reason that the average fish doesnt consider it more than entertainment.

The reason why NL is more likely to wipe out limit is for the reason that for weaker players it is considered a much more enjoyable game.

Ive taught a lot of people the game and ive played a lot of home games. Limit is bottom of the list of game choices in dealers choice and the newbies just dont understand how it can be good to only bet small increments when you have 'good' hands.

To one extent or another i would imagine this translates well to online poker and its mainly the long term fish who are playing limit because its the traditional game of choice.

All my opinion.

[Cry Me A River]

The fish will get tired of loosing money at NL about the same time they get tired of loosing money at Blackjack and Slots.

And they don't [/i]always[/i] loose. We've all seen uber-fish sitting with 500BB stacks in 100BB buy-in games. That's pretty good positive reinforcement, even if they do wind up giving it all back...

[DrPhysic]

NL will dry up (or at least the fish supply will dry up)

WHEN THEY TAKE IT OFF THE TV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not going to happen.

Doc [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[Gregg777]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that the regular, non-monster games are definitely worse, and I admit that all of you know better than I do about Party so any explanation is appreciated. I know some of the math guys could clarify why its not worth staying there with a simple equation so thanks in advance.


[/ QUOTE ]

You don't need a math guy, it's really simple.

Do you have PokerTracker?

If not, get it.

If so, select the previous month before monster and check your winnings and subtract the rake.

Then select the dates you have played with monster and check your winnings and subtract the rake.

Are you losing much more to rake?

It's that simple.

Maybe you are doing fine, then again, maybe the rake stat comparisons before and after monster will point out exactly what you are looking for.

One caveat though. I noticed PT has been screwing up pretty bad recently with the rake. Some guys are getting negative rake, while others are losing hundreds per hand [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

If you think this is an issue, go to the Game Notes tab and select all, then sort by highest and lowest. If nothing looks out of place, then you are fine.