Have Internet Games Gotten Tougher?

[Matt]

I have noticed that competition on the internet has gotten a lot tougher, at least in the games I play--mostly fullhanded $2-$4 and $3-$6 limit hold'em games; the $5/$10 games on Party Poker have become extremely tight-aggressive. There are also a lot of good semi-loose players online. I think this is because many pros who have small bankrolls can now make a good living multi-tabling at the low limits.

Playing those stakes for a living is practically impossible in a casino. Low-limit casino players are bad, but you could only make about $10 an hour (at best) playing their $2-$4 games. Mid-limit casino games are softer than low-limit games online, but you need a relatively large bankroll to withstand the short-term luck factor (e.g., about $10,000 if you play $15-$30).

This is probably what drives some good players to play online. You can usually find about two or three fish in an online $2-$4 game, but they are not nearly as loose as they used to be. Several years ago, I could make $100 in just two hours at those stakes, but it now takes much longer to make that much at one table. I'm guessing that most bad players have either busted or are sticking to the micro-limits. Others play at the five- and six-max tables. Many sharks also play those games. Ed Miller, a great poker writer who jokingly refers to himself as the "noted poker authority" plays five shorthanded $3-$6 tables at one time.

I'm not sure how much tougher the NL games are, but I suspect you'll find a similar trend at the $1-$2 and $2-$5 levels. Therefore, it may be a good idea to learn more games. I've started playing $.50/$1 Omaha/8 on Party Poker. Those players are absolutely terrible, much worse than the $.50/$1 hold'em players. I'm guessing that a lot of the bad hold'em players are now trying out the other games.

Has anyone else noticed a similar phenomenon?

[Matt]

The online games I play in are still tougher than they used to be, but they have softened up a bit in the last month or so. Party Poker is running a new promotion that is drawing a lot of loose players (many of them maniacs) to their tables. Many tables ($2/$4 limit and up; $.50/$1 NL and up) are bad-beat jackpot games where players can not only win the jackpot but an entry into a series of huge free-rolls as well. Right now, the total prize pool is over $11 million dollars. For more information on this promotion, see the following link: http://www.partypoker.com/monster/.

This is a mixed blessing, as jackpot tables charge a higher rake. I'm not sure the competition is so soft that a good player can overcome the drop, especially at the $2/$4 and $3/$6 limits where the rake is proportionally higher. I'm going to take my chances though. Party Poker has more traffic than any other site, with the exception of Poker Stars. And I'm sure that their competition is softer than what you would find at the other big online poker rooms. We'll see what happens...

[notcalebsheridan]

from what i've read and heard:

the games get harder during summer/early fall.

Soon, there will be loads of fish back, as soon as all vacations are done and new students learn about poker. Also, WSOP broadcasts will mean lots and lots of new players.

I don't think monster is worth it at all... Plus, stars has a much better VIP program, at the higher levels, it rivals rakeback..

Stoxtrader commented on games drying up at his site, saying that, instead of having one main site, you will have to search for the fish, maybe using 2-3 different sites at a time to get good table selection when multi-tabling.

[Matt]

I've heard similar things, which sucks because all the fish are flocking to those Monster tables. It's hard to find any tables above $1/$2 that aren't Monster tables. The few non-jackpot tables are filled with rocks. I may give Poker Stars a try. Maybe Full Tilt as well. I'll download the software and watch a few games to see what the competition is like.

[notcalebsheridan]

I'll just say, go to a limit that's 1/2 your normal. the games at stars are a lot different than party. a monkey could run 5bb/100 at party NL games.

The order goes (easiest to hardest)

party, stars, full tilt.

You can get rakeback for full tilt though. So that may make it more worthwhile. 27% at thisisthenuts.com, if you use it, let me know and i'll refer you

[Matt]

I will probably go to Full Tilt next. I want the big deposit bonus ($600). I watched some of the $2/$4 and $3/$6 limit games. They don't seem too tough--not incredibly loose, but also not rockish. I think I could easily beat the games. Plus, I want to give Razz a try after I absorb Sklansky on Poker. Unfortunately, I don't have time to work off the deposit bonus at the moment. I'm busy with graduate school stuff, or at least I should be. :?

When I do decide to play at Full Tilt, I'll look into the rakeback program and let you refer me.

[notcalebsheridan]

2/4 and 3/6 limit games at full tilt are very soft. I think that if you played a straight up, NL type game, you could beat 2/4 for atleast 1bb/100. There is generally only 6-10 tables going at any given time. So you'll run into the same set of 8-10 people a lot. I like to stay out of their ways for the most part, but if i had a better database i'd learn their tendencies and tangle more. I havn't played at FT all summer, but that's how it was in april/may

FT's bonus is very slow to work off, i can't imagine at 2/4LHE. But it's nice to pick up $20 in the middle of a bad session