for the 200s?

i think 10 ptbb/100 is great. to get higher than that over the long term, i think you'd have to be very picky with table selection. this, of course, would cause you to pass up some sub-optimal but still +EV opportunities.

i think the problem is that people are generally too tight and understand the concepts of nuts. they make some mistakes, but usually these are often a lot of small EV mistakes and the very occoassional big EV mistake. i think at party the big EV mistakes were much more common than at FTP.

anyway, i think the 200s are FTP are playing a bit like the 400s at party did -- that is, they are the tightest. not sure about stars. i'd try the 400s or higher if you want some higher stakes akshun.

I agree with Mendacious to a large extent.

Here's my OToolkit graph of the ~11k hands that I spent at FullTilt. About 80% of the hands are split evently between $100 and $200 PLO8.



Unusually, I ran below my Sklansky line at FTP (I'm usually a moderate to large luckbox). My overall net was somethingl ike 2 bb/100 during that period of time. If I ran approximately at my Sklansky line, that would put my BB/100 at arond 5.

That was playing my usual relatively TAG style of VPIP 20, PFR 4, and AF-Tot 2.6. It's interesting to contrast my red Sklansky line with my green results. The nice slope of my Sklansky line shows my playing style results in plenty of equity advantage situations. However that comes at a heavy price as you can see in my green lne. I'm getting robbed of a lot of my Sklansky dollars during the non showdown hands due to the generally more aggressive nature of the games.

So I agree that the games certainly feel tougher at FullTilt. I think they're still beatable, but to a much lesser degree than the glory days at Party. Bottom line for me, I've cashed out of FullTilt until they offer another reload so I can take advantage of their combined 60% rakeback through bonus + rakeback.

PS, sorry for all of the edits. I just wanted to add that I realize my sample size is limited but the OToolkit helps filter out at least some of the short term variance by the different colored lines.

i think you may need to start redefining your definition of a "good" game. average pots sizes are nice, but i think there's a lot more to the story than that.

i think a better aspect to look at his how many donators are sitting at a table. first, one donator who is willing to reload can make a game. a maniac can also loosen up a table to make it "good", even though pot sizes are not huge. also, some players will have a style that will lose to people like you specifically (CSs are my personal bitches).

one thing that's changing for me is that i'm not only being selective about what tables i play at, but i'm also being choosy about who i play pots with. for example, i have a wider pf range when a loose-passive player is in the hand because i know i can get free cards and paid off when i hit (more often than not). also, there are some people i choose not to play pots with without pretty big hands since i know they are usually bringing the goods. i guess i'm just trying to say that you can adjust your game quite a bit so that you're really playing a different style depending on who's in the pot with you.

anyway, something to chew on...

fwiw, 400 and 600 at FTP have some soft players in them right now... although they might be getting stacked in short order.