Who claims Party beginner tables are loose?

[JussiUt]

I've been playing 0.1/0.2$FL and 0.15/0.30$FL tables at Party for a short period of time now (about 5k hands) and I can say that the tables ARE NOT loose by any means if you compare them to other sites. At 0.1/0.2$ limit tables the average of "people seeing the flop percentage" is about 30% which is not that much comparing to other sites.

At 0.15/0.30 the flop percent usually is between 20-30%! I mean come on, at such low limits it is that tight. I can't understand how people can describe Party tables as loose. I play daytime European time so perhaps all the fishy and loose Americans (no pun intended) are gone and that explains it but those tables are definately not a gold mine.

Maybe I've been just playing at wrong times and I've been unlucky but time after time the action is very tight.

Can somebody tell me if I'm completely alone with this statement? Also can you recommend a site with the same stakes that I've talked about which have a higher "seeing the flop percentage"?

Ps. 0.05/0.10$ beginner limit tables are quite loose so maybe all the worst fishes are there, I don't know.

[theJoblessWobbly]

I find them pretty tight as well. I was playing .25/.50, but it was only getting 3-5 players to a flop and 2-3 to showdown. I find that the .10/.20 tables are better, of course, but you're right: the only truly loose tables are the .05/.10s. Otherwise, it seems like you have to isolate a few retards, put them on your buddy list, and look them up when you log on. You can't depend on any random microlimit table being really loose.

[IndyFish]

[ QUOTE ]
Also can you recommend a site with the same stakes that I've talked about which have a higher "seeing the flop percentage"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pacific Poker .25/.50 tables are usually around 50 - 60%. The .05/.10 tables are even looser. The downside is the software is pretty shabby and you can't multi-table, but if you're looking for fish, Pacific is a great site.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
Pacific Poker .25/.50 tables are usually around 50 - 60%. The .05/.10 tables are even looser. The downside is the software is pretty shabby and you can't multi-table, but if you're looking for fish, Pacific is a great site.

[/ QUOTE ]

My thoughts exactly. They no longer have the OP's preferred limits, but if he doesn't mind playing up every once in a while (maybe mix in 25% Pacific to start) he can add in some great fishiness, high variance, but quite high expectation in BB terms.

[JussiUt]

Yeah, I've heard that Pacific has very loose micro-limit tables but the problem is that you can't multi-table there. I really don't have the patience to play only 50-60 hands per hour.

Of course I could play at two different sites at the same time but I'd prefer a one single site. What are the flop percentages at PokerStars? I hear it's very tight but could someone who plays there tell me the percentages of the smallest micro-limit tables? (eg. 0.10/0.20$FL)

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't have the patience to play only 50-60 hands per hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably headed toward a "religious war", but I'm of the school of thought that, if you can't discipline yourself to single-table effectively (i.e., by spending downtime observing the action) then you're asking for a bloodbath by multi-tabling. Full disclosure: I say this as someone who has all kinds of trouble observing the action when I'm not inolved. I see this as a huge flaw in my game to be improved before I can really maximize my potential. This is part of the reason why I don't multi-table that much, and never more than two for now.

I'm not against multi-tabling; in fact, for those that do it well, it's stupid not to. In this regard I agree that Pac is seriously flawed. I hope to improve my own observation and concentration to the point where I can multitable without reinforcing bad habits. I'm just saying -- of the valid reasons to multitable, I don't consider impatience to be a sound one.

To be sure, I don't doubt that any of us can beat 10c/20c hold 'em soundly while multitabling, but I don't think it's laying the groundwork for future success. To each his own.

[KeySqueezer]

[ QUOTE ]
What are the flop percentages at PokerStars? I hear it's very tight but could someone who plays there tell me the percentages of the smallest micro-limit tables? (eg. 0.10/0.20$FL)

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been playing the nanolimit tables at PokerStars since October, starting at .02/04 LHE and currently at .10/.20 LHE. The .10/.20 LHE full ring tables vary tremendously -- sometimes you'll find 50%+ VPIP tables, but they usually don't last very long. As the fish bust out, they always seem to be replaced by TAGs and rocks. Suddenly, the fishy table you sat down at is a rock garden or a TAGfest, with 20-30% VPIP and 10%+ PFR, often within the space of an orbit or two.

I've also noticed that Stars doesn't provide as many .10/.20 tables (about half as many as they do at .05/.10), so your selection of tables is more limited to start. The big key at Stars nanolimits seems to be knowing when to get up from the table.

However, if you don't mind playing shorthanded, I've found that some very profitable games can be found at both .05/.10 and .10/.20. A fairly typical short-handed game at either of these limits usually has 3 or 4 loose passive players (50-70% VPIP, 5% or less PFR). It's been a lifesaver for me -- fewer suckouts and fishier players.

The biggest hassle with the .10/.20 short-handed games is that the tables tend to fill up too quickly for my taste, probably due to the lack of .10/.20 tables overall. The .05/.10 tables stay shorthanded longer and, even at half the stakes, seem to be just as profitable for me as the .10/.20 tables (and much more profitable for me than the full-ring tables at either limit). Additionally, the .10/.20 tables are raked and the .05/.10 tables aren't, which puts a few more cents in my pocket with every pot (.5 BB per pot adds up after a while).

YMMV, but I've been quite happy at Stars nanolimit since I discovered the joys of shorthanded play.

[hampi32]

A lot of bonus chasers use the beginners tables to clear their sign up bonus, so sometimes they can be a bit tight. But most of them are quite loose IMO.

[Songwind]

I don't find the Party beginners tables to be particularly tight compared to Stars. Sure, some of the tables are tight, but most nights I can find a good loose table with a little searching.

[ottsville]

[ QUOTE ]
This is probably headed toward a "religious war", but I'm of the school of thought that, if you can't discipline yourself to single-table effectively (i.e., by spending downtime observing the action) then you're asking for a bloodbath by multi-tabling. Full disclosure: I say this as someone who has all kinds of trouble observing the action when I'm not inolved. I see this as a huge flaw in my game to be improved before I can really maximize my potential. This is part of the reason why I don't multi-table that much, and never more than two for now.

I'm not against multi-tabling; in fact, for those that do it well, it's stupid not to. In this regard I agree that Pac is seriously flawed. I hope to improve my own observation and concentration to the point where I can multitable without reinforcing bad habits. I'm just saying -- of the valid reasons to multitable, I don't consider impatience to be a sound one.

To be sure, I don't doubt that any of us can beat 10c/20c hold 'em soundly while multitabling, but I don't think it's laying the groundwork for future success. To each his own.

[/ QUOTE ]

AK...I'm glad you say this. I've seen you say it before and seen it elsewhere on this site from others. Multitabling is profitable, but it also magnifies your leaks...if you have the habit of playing weak hands OOP, now you will have more opportunity to do that.

Discipline and patience are required to become a solid poker player. Spend some time learning them at the lower limits and you will get a cheaper education.