15/30 and 20/40 tighter than 30/60?

[mikeyKay]

for full ring games i find that the 30/60 on party will generally have one really poor player, and lots of good players, while the 15/30 and 20/40 will have a 2-3 moderately bad players, and the rest will be decent.

-mike

[stigmata]

I'm really pissed off that party effectively killed full ring below 30/60... those games were great for ABC, stress-free, cakewalk style poker, where you just wanted a session without any difficult decisions.

[HedonismBot]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm really pissed off that party effectively killed full ring below 30/60... those games were great for ABC, stress-free, cakewalk style poker, where you just wanted a session without any difficult decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Out of curiosity how did they ruin it?

[stigmata]

By getting rid of all the full tables and introducing lots of short tables. I kinda preffered it the old way: 10/20 for 6-max, 15/30 for full ring.

I just think there should be more balance between full ring and 6-handed, but everything below 30/60 is totally dominated by 6-handed.

[Dazarath]

[ QUOTE ]
By getting rid of all the full tables and introducing lots of short tables. I kinda preffered it the old way: 10/20 for 6-max, 15/30 for full ring.

I just think there should be more balance between full ring and 6-handed, but everything below 30/60 is totally dominated by 6-handed.

[/ QUOTE ]
The way I understand it (someone correct me if I'm wrong) is that the software keeps a couple "new games" open of each type. But the problem is that the fish and maniacs graviate towards the 6-max games, so there's very few full ring games. Another problem is the fact that full ring players don't like playing short, so a lot of the time what will happen is there's 4x 15/30 tables, with waiting lists of 15 people each, but no one wants to form a new table. Prior to the update, there wasn't this problem because the number of 15/30 6-max tables was capped at 3.

[jclin]

[quoteThe way I understand it (someone correct me if I'm wrong) is that the software keeps a couple "new games" open of each type. But the problem is that the fish and maniacs graviate towards the 6-max games , so there's very few full ring games. Another problem is the fact that full ring players don't like playing short, so a lot of the time what will happen is there's 4x 15/30 tables, with waiting lists of 15 people each, but no one wants to form a new table. Prior to the update, there wasn't this problem because the number of 15/30 6-max tables was capped at 3.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmm...15/30 6-max been good to me so far (<5k hands though)

[BigEndian]

Thank you, I like to start my day off with a smile.

- Jim

[3rdCheckRaise]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm really pissed off that party effectively killed full ring below 30/60... those games were great for ABC, stress-free, cakewalk style poker, where you just wanted a session without any difficult decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hate it too too...October skin cut killed my 20 game and all this 6max bullcrap killed my 15...Although i think 15 is slowly coming back.

[Dazarath]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm really pissed off that party effectively killed full ring below 30/60... those games were great for ABC, stress-free, cakewalk style poker, where you just wanted a session without any difficult decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ugh, I completely agree. I enjoyed the pre-update 15/30. Now, if I want to play full, my options are:
1) Play without table selection in the almost non-existent 15 or 20 games.
2) Play in the 30 game, which I'm not even sure I'm a favorite in.

I have put some serious consideration into just finding a different game to play. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]