That they're both (abc nits and aggro spewtards) bad has been what I've been trying to get at this whole time. Also, with respect to the ranges in the hand, top 40 and top 60 seems pretty optimistic given the action so 38% is prob a bit high, imo.

I may have mis-characterized villains as generally as bad or worse than before, because A) they play unorthodox, very risky style, and B) I don't recognize them from pre-BF. It seems very possible to me that current villains may be as good or better than before (in terms of results more than knowledge). They are more willing to gamble and are making a lot of risky plays (esp. PF) that are risky enough that they really don't appear +EV for villain (given that there are plenty others willing to gamble), and in the process they turn the game into more of a gamble for everyone. They are probably not much, if at all, worse as a group from hero's perspective, in the sense that they don't help hero's ROI much, if at all. However, they may be worse in the sense that they are mostly break even or losing players who seem to have limited knowledge of the game and many don't really seem to think much or try to get better. I hope this makes some sense.

I understand that (much) smaller prize pool might seem irrelevant to you, but there are various dynamics that have changed and everything is related, at least they are from my perspective.

First, I think most of us are trying to maximize one or all of the following:

- ROI
- hourly rate
- total net

Smaller prize pools directly influence the latter two. The smaller prize pool is irrelevant to ROI, but the smaller fields can affect certain players (and I would include myself as one).

It's not something I can exactly describe, although I've certainly tried. It's just something I feel is valid, based on my experience before and after BF. Before BF, I was at several FTs of the 10R and 33NL the last two weeks I was able to play. That was when the 10R averaged ~200+ runners and the 33NL about ~100. Before that, I was able to consistently cash the 11R, although wasn't regularly playing 33NL until near the end, and know there were at least 3 occasions when I was THE short stack before the bubble (36-45 players, down to 2-4 BB) and was able to not only cash, but grind my stack back up to finish first or second. However, post-BF there is no opportunity to cash and then work your way up, and the smaller fields play much differently in general (60 players, 8 or 9 cash vs. 200+ players where 36-45 cash). It also seems like I don't make a higher % of FTs in that MTT (limited sample and don't have numbers), despite the tourney being 1/3-1/4 of its previous size. It may just be that being more dependent on my BR than I was then, I can withstand long droughts and downswings much less, but tbh I didn't really have long droughts and downswings in O8 before. The only exception was when I tried to "donk it up" for a month or so after my initial success in PL/NLO8 and met with predictable results.

With my luck, once I begun winning nlhe mtts it will suddenly stop being popular. Or we'll be invaded by razz-loving aliens and thus forced to play it for a living.

They get lucky and knock you out

Don't push marginal hands PF. Don't take relative flips post. Let them spew at your nuts trying to get you to fold. Exploit their nature. EZ game.

FWIW, I like that the tourneys I play in are only 50-70 peeps. Playing an 8 hour 5.50 rebuy would tilt the **** out of me.

Were/are PS MTT's 10 or 15 minute levels? Because maybe I'm just getting more play in mine (a good amount, IMO) because the levels are longer?

I think you underestimate some of the people giving you their direct experience. I also may have underestimated villains in some manner. I looked at three players I can think of off the top of my head who play at least a lot of mid-stakes before and after BF. All three seem to have lost a couple % points from their ITM%. They may have compensated somehow to actually maintain or increase their ROIs, but that indicates that it isn't easy these days, whatever the cause. Combined with the firsthand experience of more "widely ranging results" and smaller prize pools, it's not the best combination for a PL/NLO8 tourney grinder.

Also, those coming from a cash perspective where levels stay the same, may not appreciate all the dynamics. You can't just sit back and wait for the nuts in most cases. I think there's plenty of options in earlier levels, but as you get into the mid-late stages of the tourney, the villains' risky strategies are more likely to create more "widely ranging results".

about the same ROI + wider range of results + smaller prize pools = bad news

Whoa! I staggered through most of this and ended up brain numb.

The first 3/4 was mainly about someone who copped a bad beat and should I move up/ down/ sideways.

The last post was the most informative of all and if you deleted all the morons trying to be clever, would have been a great post. Unfortunately the best site is obviously going to attract the most idiots.

Point #1. I don't remember anyone saying the games weren't beatable !

I believe the question asked was "Was it easier to win tournaments BF".

It's quite obvious the games are beatable if I'm beating them although, with my small numbers, that could be variance.

[B]Point #2. The majority of the posts in the threads you presented were about NLHE cash games.

Obviously we would expect the carryover into Omaha to be similar (or would we?)

However, The last post in the threads makes some very valid points about changing your game.

Isn't this exactly what "billygstar" has said from the beginning?

So if you have to change your game ,from what was a winning play previously ,does this prove or disprove the question at hand or do we just put in down to poker evolution ?

Pokerstars are 10 minute levels.

I miss the before time, the long long ago. Playing Dorsal HU, out-nitting Mega, & getting be-rated by Breal.

To a lesser extent, & not as long ago: Running like god HU against Whothedonk, & getting 200bbs in on the flop against Fed with TPGK & knowing it was good.

I agree with you 100% but if I make a statement and you return with "No you are wrong!" then it should be reasonable to assume you are going to offer some proof as to why I am wrong.

If this is not the case then the point of having a forum at all is futile.

It definitely makes sense.

There is a German guy on Stars who runs at 56% VPIP, which by our ground rules is way too high, but he consistently knocks off the $22 LHO and the $5.50 rebuy LHO.

I'm not sure of his ROI as this is hidden.

This guy is very aggressive pf with hands we might find suspect.

Here is my difference in pools for the same tournament.

24 Aug 08 Limit Omaha Hi/Lo Buy in $5.50+ Entries 243 Rank 2 Prize $434

09 Apr 12 Limit Omaha Hi/Lo Buy in $5.50+ Entries 74 Rank 1 Prize $252


So you are playing for the same length of time to win approximately 50% of the win pool of pre BF tournaments.

i'm confused and curious.....when you use term ROI what are you referring to?

i think return on investment to be (payout-BI)/BI

so for example,
play a single $22 freezeout and finish 8th for $88
your ROI is (88-22)/22 = 3 so 300%

or play it 9 times and finish ITM only once, a 3rd for $355
your ROI is 355-9*22/9*22 >>> 157/198 = .79 or 79%


so roi incorporates the prize pool as the prize pool is what dictates the payout amount

to achieve the same ROI when the payout is smaller requires different results, and
the same results (placing 3rd or 8th) over the same sample, when the prizepool is smaller, hence the payout amount is smaller, would mean a different (smaller) ROI.


however the same ROI is the same ROI regardless of prize pool size

i'm confused and curious.....when you use term ROI what are you referring to?

i think return on investment to be (payout-BI)/BI

so for example in $22 freezeout you finished 8th for $88
your ROI is (88-22)/22 = 3 so 300%

or play it 9 times and finish ITM only once, a 3rd for $355
your ROI is 355-9*22/9*22 >>> 157/198 = .79 or 79%


so roi incorporates the prize pool as the prize pool is what dictates the payout amount

the same ROI is the same ROI regardless of prize pool size

the same results (placing 3rd or 8th) over the same sample, when the prizepool is smaller, hence the payout amount is smaller would mean a different (smaller) ROI.

to achieve the same ROI when the payout is smaller requires different results