Private games against public games

I seem to have much more success in private tournaments (both freerolls and buy in's) then any sort of public games ($1 and $2 single table and MTT SnG's, .5/.10 cash games). I'm probably up $45 or so in private games and down $20 or so in public games. Yes, private freerolls have no investment but the results so far are really beyond that.

I'm trying to figure out why this is the case. I can't possibly think that the level of play at $1 and $2 SnG's is higher than in the later stages of private games (even freerolls) from what I've seen. Possible ideas:

-I have spurts of success in public games which might mean that I am actually fine when I am focused. However, I lose focus quickly and go through down streaks where I'm getting up to grab food every 15 minutes or I start to read some stock news because I get bored.

-The motivation factor. You run into some of the same people more or less in private games so I feel like I should be on top of my game for image purposes. Also, some of the private games are for ranking purposes which adds a little extra incentive.

-The random factor. A lot of the people at lower stakes seem to have no clue how to play. I can not comprehend how some of these people play and therefore I give them too much credit for being able to play poker and make improper plays as a result.

-Just pure luck from a small sample size. I must admit I have had one major fortunate break in two of my relatively big cashes. On the contrary, I feel as though I have gotten the most utterly ridiculous bad beats.

Has anyone else gone through a similar experience at all?

Well, public freerolls usually have a lot more players to make it through to the money. Private games generally have smaller fields.

But I've often wondered if it's easier to make money in higher buy-in tournaments because of the random factor you talk about. Better players play in a way that makes more sense, so it's actually easier to deal with. They know what they're supposed to do in given situations. Poor players will just go all-in at the drop of a hat, and then what? Like I said, it's hard to wade through all that. Regulars on here tell me that it's easier for good players to profit off of bad players, which makes perfect sense, but when you're talking about huge freerolls, it's not easy to beat the randomness.

I should probably gain a larger sample size of tournaments before I make a claim like this because I'm beginning to think that I'm better at MTT's (including buy in's) than STT's and cash games which would make sense because of the many freerolls I have played which are all large fields.

I think that if you want to make good money at poker tournaments, MTTs are the way to go, especially higher buy-in ones. Of course, your bankroll has to support that. Those that are winning still only cash a pretty small percent of the time (like 15%) so you have to be able to withstand long droughts without starting to play scared because your bankroll is in jeopardy.

I haven't really seen anyone do well in SnGs over the long run. The prize structure just doesn't allow it, in my opinion. When I say "do well," I mean at least several hundred dollars or more.

ive found any low stakes or freeroll public game is hard to play in . I try to keep out of them . 4 or 5 players going all in with ace rag or kjo... sound familiar? ive found investing a little more to start with like anything in life gets better results. The more you buy in for (generally speaking ) the better the quality of play is

Another reason that it should be easier to do well in a private game is that there is usually a money-added prize fund. For example, today there was a cardschat buy-in tournament for $5.50 with $200 added. Approximately 40 people entered, so the prize fund was $400. Assuming playing in a poker tournament is gambling (which it's not) and everyone had an equal chance to win (no matter how good or bad they played), I think that means you have an expected value of $4.50 just by playing. Of course good players have an expected value of more than that, as long as there are bad players to go along. If everyone was good, but equally so, we are back to an EV of $4.50.

However, most places that run public tournaments only payout the prize pool but make you pay an extra 10% or so fee to play at their site (the rake). Therefore, if everyone had an equal opportunity to win, your EV would be -10% or -$0.50 for a $5.50 tournament.

So I don't know about you, but I'd rather play in a tournament that had a higher EV.

Of course, sometimes public sites have guaranteed tournaments that don't get sufficient entries (I think that's called an overlay), so playing in those makes sense, too, if you can find them. Most sites are clever enough to figure out what it takes to get sufficient entries, whether by allowing late entrants or allowing re-buys and add-ons, and how much prize to guarantee based on traffic patterns for that time of day or week.

You're right. This is probably one of the primary reasons. When I choose tournaments to play, I try to maximize expected return and definitely target money added tournaments. Also, if I add the fact that I'm better at MTT tournaments and that I'm much more focused on tournaments with more of a jackpot, it's starting to make sense.