micro stakes MTT easier to win?

i believe micro stakes MTTs are easier because i've had more success in them. Like i played a 2.20 one time (with about 400 people) and got all the way to the final table with a breeze. However, i played a 5.50 tounrey (with a field with about 400 also) and i struggled to make it into like 20th place. So would u guys suggest playing more 2.20 tourneys with LARGER fields rather than a 5.50 tourney with smaller fields?

Well, larger fields mean more variance.
Smaller buy-ins mean more fish.

It would be easier to make consistent cashes on the larger buy-in with a smaller field. However, it all depends on your style of play and the quality of your decision making.

Two MTT examples such as you have given isnt a good representation of how MTT's can be. Play 100 of each and then you'll have more of an idea of which suits you.

But just because your bankroll says you can play higher limits... sometimes your skill says otherwise... Be smart and expect a wild roller coaster ride with MTT's

I don't think the skill level in these two levels are going to be all that different, so I don't think the answer should lie there...IMO, you should play in the smallest fields that your bankroll can afford...and for large field MTT's, you should have enough for 100 buy-ins.

Depends on ur br. move up with it...there are worse players at both stakes actually.....i feel the higher stakes mtts are easier...

First off, making it to the FT will not a be breeze at any level. Also a top 20 finish in an mtt should be seen as a positive, even though you didn't reach the final table.

You are basing your argument for playing lower mtts off a sample size of two. Bad idea. To get an overall picture of which ones you will do better in consistently you need to play hundreds, not just two.

It depends on the size of the playing field and prefrence as we all go on winning and losing streaks.As far as Mtt's goes it's not easy to win in any toury no matter what kind it is.

edgie212 said:

I don't think the skill level in these two levels are going to be all that different, so I don't think the answer should lie there...IMO, you should play in the smallest fields that your bankroll can afford...and for large field MTT's, you should have enough for 100 buy-ins.

Click to expand...

I agree with the part about the skill levels, the $2.20 and $5.50 won't be much different. I'd even go as far as saying that alot of $11 tournies don't have much difference in skill from the 2.20's and 5.50's.
And definitely agree with the 100 buy-ins.

Gday, That a big YES from me.

I have been playing Micro stakes forever, as soon as I venture up a level, I struggle too. I think this is because I know in the back of my mind, (yep theres that little man again), that $5.50 is two and half of $2.20 tourneys. I know that shouldnt come into my game, but it does, and i hate it.

So, yes just keep at dude.

I believe microstakes are easier because are full of donkey.

crabby4 said:

i believe micro stakes MTTs are easier because i've had more success in them. Like i played a 2.20 one time (with about 400 people) and got all the way to the final table with a breeze. However, i played a 5.50 tounrey (with a field with about 400 also) and i struggled to make it into like 20th place. So would u guys suggest playing more 2.20 tourneys with LARGER fields rather than a 5.50 tourney with smaller fields?

Click to expand...

It's impossible to draw a conclusion from 2 tournaments (ie. you could play a $26 & end up bein' on the most fish tables EVER.. or end up with GettinDaize & others on your table (< MTT regs. who play all of the high buyins but because they put in such huge volume they play the low buyins ($26) too), or you might play a $3rebuy on FTP, have a really tough table FULL of regs.

Generally speaking, 'yes' the lower they buyin, the weaker/fishier players will be.