Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local

$12/180 man @ Stars vs $26KO/90 man @ Tilt

Reply to Thread
  1. krasark krasark is offline

    Australia

    Posts: 43
    Joined: Oct 09

    Oct 28th, 2009 (10/28/2009 9:58am)

    I play both of these Multi Table SnG's regularly and they both take approx 2hrs to play out, the 180 man on stars pays 18 people with $594 for 1st, the 90 man on tilt pays 9 people with $596 for 1st, both are turbo's. I was recently trying to evaluate which was a better tournament to play in and I think that there's no difference b/c the KO's amount to lowering the avg. buyin to somewhere ~$12, but a close friend of mine disagrees and argues that the 90 man is better b/c you're up against fewer opponenets, my counter is that since they both take the same amount of time, you play the same # of hands, so it's a wash.

    Any takes on this?

    Thx
    256 2
  2. Sternbfree Sternbfree is offline

    Philadelphia, PA
    United States

    Posts: 182
    Joined: Aug 08

    Oct 28th, 2009 (10/28/2009 10:50am) in reply to krasark

    I've grinded both of these....the similarities are amazing even though you start with a different amount of chips, the levels are different, the KO factor etc. I think the deeper stack at the beginning in the 90s helps to make it a better game. Even though there are the same amount of chips in play, on stars, in the early stages, you can lose half your stack with one bad hand and be fucked. Seems like more "real" poker, rather than just gamboooooling to get a stack on FTP.

    Good luck.
     
  3. Drewace34 Drewace34 is offline

    New Westminster
    Canada

    Posts: 1,961
    Joined: Jan 08

    Oct 28th, 2009 (10/28/2009 1:00pm) in reply to Sternbfree

     
    Originally Posted by Sternbfree View Post

    I've grinded both of these....the similarities are amazing even though you start with a different amount of chips, the levels are different, the KO factor etc. I think the deeper stack at the beginning in the 90s helps to make it a better game. Even though there are the same amount of chips in play, on stars, in the early stages, you can lose half your stack with one bad hand and be fucked. Seems like more "real" poker, rather than just gamboooooling to get a stack on FTP.

    Good luck.

    stern i love you...but i disagree with you in that there similiar....the 90 mans u can peel a ton more flops earliar with the double stack cause u start with more BB's obv...so there are more opportunities to chip up imo as well as people overcallin for the KO bounties...

    the 180's ur literally lookin to chip up in few spots ur callin and raisin range pe should b superrrr tight compared to that of the 90 mans...also theres almost never any restealin late in these b/c of stack sizes realitive to blinds compared to the 90 mans there r spots where u can 3 bet light against other big stacks @ the early ante levels hope this helps...
     
  4. Sternbfree Sternbfree is offline

    Philadelphia, PA
    United States

    Posts: 182
    Joined: Aug 08

    Oct 28th, 2009 (10/28/2009 1:05pm) in reply to Drewace34

     
    Originally Posted by Drewace34 View Post

     
    Originally Posted by Sternbfree View Post

    I've grinded both of these....the similarities are amazing even though you start with a different amount of chips, the levels are different, the KO factor etc. I think the deeper stack at the beginning in the 90s helps to make it a better game. Even though there are the same amount of chips in play, on stars, in the early stages, you can lose half your stack with one bad hand and be fucked. Seems like more "real" poker, rather than just gamboooooling to get a stack on FTP.

    Good luck.

    stern i love you...but i disagree with you in that there similiar....the 90 mans u can peel a ton more flops earliar with the double stack cause u start with more BB's obv...so there are more opportunities to chip up imo as well as people overcallin for the KO bounties...

    the 180's ur literally lookin to chip up in few spots ur callin and raisin range pe should b superrrr tight compared to that of the 90 mans...also theres almost never any restealin late in these b/c of stack sizes realitive to blinds compared to the 90 mans there r spots where u can 3 bet light against other big stacks @ the early ante levels hope this helps...

    [

    Really not so sure you disagreed with me at all. You just went a little more in depth. I think the similarities are in the endgame < 18 ppl. Its the early levels that are very different.
    I'm hoping that "love" comment was "no homo"
     
  5. Drewace34 Drewace34 is offline

    New Westminster
    Canada

    Posts: 1,961
    Joined: Jan 08

    Oct 28th, 2009 (10/28/2009 1:30pm) in reply to Sternbfree

    Theres more variance in the 90 mans cause there are less players....the 180s r filled with less skilled players which in the long run make them insanely more profitable...although i guess u can counter this that the 90 mans r deeper stacked so theres more post flop play so if ur edge is in that than...still think 180s r more profitable in the long run
     
  6. Sternbfree Sternbfree is offline

    Philadelphia, PA
    United States

    Posts: 182
    Joined: Aug 08

    Oct 28th, 2009 (10/28/2009 1:36pm) in reply to Drewace34

    I agree to disagree....whatever that means.
     
  7. Hateflops Hateflops is offline 7 over par. ship it!

    Posts: 7,044
    Joined: Nov 05

    Oct 28th, 2009 (10/28/2009 1:38pm) in reply to Drewace34

     
    Originally Posted by Drewace34 View Post

    Theres more variance in the 90 mans cause there are less players

    wat
  8. Drewace34 Drewace34 is offline

    New Westminster
    Canada

    Posts: 1,961
    Joined: Jan 08

    Oct 28th, 2009 (10/28/2009 1:40pm) in reply to Hateflops

    meant to say there less profitable my bad cause there r less players playin so tougher to chip up against fish....fish/grinder ratio is worse in these imo
     
  9. chickaboz chickaboz is offline

    NY
    United States

    Posts: 42
    Joined: Dec 08

    Oct 28th, 2009 (10/28/2009 2:41pm) in reply to Drewace34

    Anyone care to post their stats for the $13 and or $26 90 man KO's on Full Tilt?? I know some have posted before but I cant find the info.
  10. fish fish is offline

    Eugene, OR
    United States

    Posts: 1,338
    Joined: Jul 06

    Oct 28th, 2009 (10/28/2009 3:06pm) in reply to Drewace34

    90 mans = double stack = better
     
  11. sXeffects sXeffects is offline

    NC
    United States

    Posts: 1,769
    Joined: May 08

    Oct 28th, 2009 (10/28/2009 5:48pm) in reply to fish

    90 mans and it's not even close. no need to explain my reasoning. it's too obvious.
  12. krasark krasark is offline

    Australia

    Posts: 43
    Joined: Oct 09

    Oct 29th, 2009 (10/29/2009 9:52am) in reply to sXeffects

    Ok I've given it some more thought, and yes obv, the 90 man is double stack, but that translates into you starting w 75BB's instead of 100BB and I don't think that that is where the difference is made. Tbh I'm leaning in favor of 90 man tournies now myself but solely b/c of their blind structures, they have the same 5 min levels but on stars it seems as if there are a couple of levels missing altogether.
    256 2
    Thread Starter
  13. MakeMeMaster MakeMeMaster is offline

    Posts: 3,154
    Joined: Aug 08

    Oct 29th, 2009 (10/29/2009 10:51am) in reply to krasark

    If you can put in the volume, 180 mans are way more profitable.
    3 
Reply to Thread

Similar Threads