Official Party Regulars Thread

[ArturiusX]

[ QUOTE ]
no way I_eat_ur_soul is 2p2. He's also a retarded fish berating douchebag.

[/ QUOTE ]

I told him to stop berating fish. He said "do you know who I am?".

Are you [censored] me dude?

Also:

Party Poker - No Limit Hold'em Cash Game - $3/$6 Blinds - 5 Players - (LegoPoker HH Converter)

<font color="black">Hero (SB): $1,017.30</font>
BB: $765.30
UTG: $194.59
CO: $909.00
BTN: $457.82

<font color="black">Preflop:</font> Hero is dealt T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (5 Players)
<font color="red">UTG raises all-in to $194.59</font>, 2 folds, Hero calls $191.59, BB folds

<font color="black">Flop:</font> ($395.18) 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (2 Players - 1 All-In)

<font color="black">Turn:</font> ($395.18) 6[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (2 Players - 1 All-In)

<font color="black">River:</font> ($395.18) 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (2 Players - 1 All-In)

Pot Size: $395.18 ($2 Rake)

UTG had 5[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (a straight Three to Seven) and WON (+$198.59)
Hero had T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (a pair of Sixes) and LOST (-$194.59)

[bmxicle]

nitttttt

[benjo]

thx for your polite answers :[

[Inyaface]

[ QUOTE ]
thx for your polite answers :[

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your really good.

[cianosheehan]

[ QUOTE ]
my 2+2 name already outs me. anyways... any thoughts on benjo444 ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of the small amount we've played you seem solid enough.

[shipitkthx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
yeah its getting really bad. allowing us to 12 table did really, really bad things for the site [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] 4-5 TAGs a table now, and the table breaks as soon as the fish gets stacked

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we need to do something about this and get the 6 table limit back on. Do people think if we drafted a letter and all sent it it would make a difference? It worked when we wanted to remove the ban.

[/ QUOTE ]

umm no

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

QFTTTTTTTTT

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone explain to me why u think playing 12 tables with 4 regs/1 fish and constantly searching for new tables cuz they break w/e the fish gets stacked is better than 6 tabling with 2-3 regs/2-3 fish

Im all for cutting it down to 6 tables, dont think it happen tho, too many breakeven nits generating so much rake.

[SpecT]

[ QUOTE ]
Im all for cutting it down to 6 tables, dont think it happen tho, too many breakeven nits generating so much rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed

[DLizzle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
yeah its getting really bad. allowing us to 12 table did really, really bad things for the site [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] 4-5 TAGs a table now, and the table breaks as soon as the fish gets stacked

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we need to do something about this and get the 6 table limit back on. Do people think if we drafted a letter and all sent it it would make a difference? It worked when we wanted to remove the ban.

[/ QUOTE ]

umm no

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

QFTTTTTTTTT

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone explain to me why u think playing 12 tables with 4 regs/1 fish and constantly searching for new tables cuz they break w/e the fish gets stacked is better than 6 tabling with 2-3 regs/2-3 fish

Im all for cutting it down to 6 tables, dont think it happen tho, too many breakeven nits generating so much rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now this is the truth, f u 12 tabling nits

[SEABEAST]

i have found unpossiblational/thesoundofmusic both tough for sure

[shipitkthx]

[ QUOTE ]
Now this is the truth, f u 12 tabling nits

[/ QUOTE ]

In case any of the nits actually want to fight me on this, lets break out some math (all winrates I'm about to use are
purely for example purposes, also for easy calculation they will be in bbs/100, not ptbbs/100):

Lets say you can 12 table and make 8bbs/100.
Because of the fact that tables break down quickly and getting on good tables often requires waiting lists because other 12 tablers are filling them up, your actual MT ratio will probably be around 9.5ish, but we'll assume u can get an even 10.0 to make this calculation easier.
We'll assume an average 6 max table on Party plays about 100 hands per hour. So 12 tabling with a 10.0 mt ratio you will be playing around 1000 hands per hour.

So your expected hourly rate at 8bbs/100 would be:

(8/100)*1000 = 80bbs/hour

The question is, how many higher would your 6 tabling winrate need to be for the 2 to be basically even.

With a 6 table max, tables aren't going to break down as much because the fish/table ratio is higher and you don't end up stranded on a table with 4 nits when the 1 fish busts, this means u can stay on tables longer and your MT ratio will be closer to your actual # of tables. I normally 6 table and can maintain an MT Ratio of about 5.50. So 6 tabling we are going to play 5.50 x 100 = 550 hands per hour.

To have 12 tabling = 6 tabling (not counting in any other factors) we need to achieve a winrate of

(x/100) * 550 = 80bbs/hour
(x/100) = 80/550
(x/100) = 0.1455
x = 14.55 bbs/100

Ok, so we need to increase our winrate from 8bbs/100 to 14.55bbs/100 by cutting our tables in half.

There are several factors that would increase our winrate but ill focus on just 2:

A. Overall your play will typically be better and u will make less mistakes when concentrating on 6 tables as compared to 12. If you disagree with this than you are just [censored] retarded.

B. The overall table dynamic, more fish per table increases our expected winrate of playing on that table.

The problem with A is that it is impossible to calculate. So im just going to have show that we can make up for the winrate difference simply by the change in B.

Lets take an example player pool of 90 players, consisting of the following mix:

40 Fish with an average lossrate of -31.25bb/100
25 Slight winners/breakeven players with an average winrate of 1bb/100
25 Solid winners who will win the remaining fish losses after the slight winners.

We will assume that the fish will always play 2 tables, the slight winners will always play 4, and the solid winners will always play 12. This will require (2*40)+(25*4)+(25*12) = 480 total seats = 80 total 6 handed tables.

With this player pool the average table will look like this:

1 Fish
1.25 Slight Winners
3.75 Solid Winners

If the fish is losing 31.25bbs/100, and the slight winners are winning 1bb/100, there is (31.25*1)-(1*1.25) = 30bbs to

distribute to the solid winners. So the equity of a solid winner on this table would be (30/3.75) = 8bbs/100.

Now lets take the same player pool, but with a 6 table cap. Assuming the fish and slight winners will still play the same number of tables but the solid winners can only play 6, this will require (2*40)+(25*4)+(25*6) = 330 total seats = 55 total 6 handed tables.

With this player pool the average table will look like this:

1.45 Fish
1.82 Slight Winners
2.73 Solid Winners

If the fish is losing 31.25bbs/100, and the slight winners are winning 1bb/100, there is (31.25*1.45)-(1*1.82) = 43.4925bbs to distribute to the solid winners. So the equity of a solid winner on this table would be (43.4925/2.73) = 15.93bbs/100.

So looking back on our calculation of bbs/hour, a player winning 80bb/hour with the 12 table cap would make (15.93/100)*550 = 87.615 bbs/100 if the cap was reduced to 6.

Conclusion: Setting the maximum number of tables to 6 would increase your bbs/hour by 9.5% ASSUMING THERE IS NO IMPROVEMENT IN YOUR PLAY BY CUTTING YOUR TABLES IN HALF.

I know this will have zero affect on actually getting this changed, but any of you nits who want to fight for your right to 12 table plz STFU.