ITM% are in general irrelevant but I also have to say, if you're cashing a high percentage in large field MTT's then you're not playing correctly.
By this I mean, better players who often final table or win tournaments have a far less ITM% than someone who cashes often. Your sample size is small too, but I really wouldn't be focusing on your ITM%.
You're applying reductio ad absurdum, which is by definition ridiculous. My drop in ITM wasn't nearly as sharp as missjacki's, but like her, I experienced an increase in my ROI when my ITM dropped. I wasn't always just min-cashing, but I did have a higher proportion of small cashes and thus lower proportions of mid- and large cashes than I do now. This shift in balance translated to more profitability.This is a weird sort of logic that I've seen elsewhere in these forums. What this poster is saying in that first sentence is that it's better to cash fewer times than a lot!!! What sort of rubbish is that?
What he assumes is that if someone cashes frequently then they are always winning only tiny amounts, which is a ridiculous assumption.
You're applying reductio ad absurdum, which is by definition ridiculous. My drop in ITM wasn't nearly as sharp as missjacki's, but like her, I experienced an increase in my ROI when my ITM dropped. I wasn't always just min-cashing, but I did have a higher proportion of small cashes and thus lower proportions of mid- and large cashes than I do now. This shift in balance translated to more profitability.
And exactly where did I make such an assumption?Indeed. But that applied to you. You simply cannot assume that someone who cashes in 25% of MTTs is always mini-cashing. Why should you assume that?
Where did I say that it's impossible to have a high ITM and to win a lot?Of course if someone goes from playing tight to aggressive their number of cashes is likely to fall but their ROI will probably go up. But just because someone cashes a lot how do you know he's not winning a lot?
field size is 10,000. best finishing 41-92 in those 10 games
Indeed. But that applied to you. You simply cannot assume that someone who cashes in 25% of MTTs is always mini-cashing. Why should you assume that? Of course if someone goes from playing tight to aggressive their number of cashes is likely to fall but their ROI will probably go up. But just because someone cashes a lot how do you know he's not winning a lot?
I assume you are looking for points. that tournament only has 10$ prize pool, its ridiculous to play it to win $$. you should aim to make top 400 around 33% of times
One thing I'll add is that so many people are fans of saying "play for first" or "all the money is in the top spots, so shoot for the top" or "go broke or go home in MTT" it's almost like they're just quoting each other all across the forum (I am guilty of this) and accepting this as gospel without really examining what that means or considering what it looks like in practice.
Yes, of course we all want to win first place, and presumably none of us would enter a tourney if we didn't think we had a decent chance of taking it down.
But...you don't want to put the cart before the horse.
To get to first place, you MUST cash. you simply must. There's a lot of other important stuff that happens in between cashing and first place but NONE of it even has a chance to transpire unless you first cash. I think hyper aggressive players forget this sometimes.
I'm not diminshing the value of playing aggressive on the bubble, or accumulating chips in the middle, or being willing to take calculated risks anytime you deem it is acceptable for your stack and your goals...I'm just saying that some players wildy over simplify and over-romanticize the notion of "playing for first".
I still treat my chips with great care at all stages of the tourney. They are my little soldiers that I don't want to recklessly send them into harm's way without a really good reason or purpose. Now, you cannot win a war without spilling a little blood, but the art of war is about a lot of different strategies and tactics and balancing a delicate and dynamic equation; picking your battles is just as much a winning strategy in poker as it is in war.
Obviously winning without cashing is impossible. That said, this doesn't reflect the full picture since it doesn't take into account that for most of an MTT, "playing to win" is a misnomer. You're actually playing to get deep with enough chips to have a decent chance to win.To get to first place, you MUST cash. you simply must. There's a lot of other important stuff that happens in between cashing and first place but NONE of it even has a chance to transpire unless you first cash.