Myth - Higher buy-in, harder to cash

The bigger the buy-in the harder it is to cash right? The more you pay to play, the more chances you will be facing a good player, that's a fact. It's not necessarily true, though, that playing a $11 tournament is harder to cash than a Freeroll. The ammount of variance in low stackes tournaments it's too high and sometimes you face players that are so bad that you can't apply some strategies on them. I'm not saying that's always the case, it's good to have bad players playing against you, but when it gets to a point that there are so many players that don't follow a logic when playing it may get hard to survive in the long run. I think that for some regulars and pros it's probably easier to cash in a tournment where the average player is a decent player and can be bluffed at, have its strategy cracked, and be read by the opponent than in a field of fishes. What do you guys think?

I think this argument only really holds true for freerolls because these are a completely different beast than most buy-in tournaments. If you take this argument and compare an $11 to a $100 buy-in I would say that the $100 buy-in is going to be a much more challenging tournament. In general I would say the more you are willing to risk the better you are which is why larger buy-ins = harder to win

You have to realize that for people in the US and EU and other places where the cost of living is high $11 is practically a freeroll. I mean if you play 1 or 2 $11 buy ins a day and never win you'd be blowing $330-$660 per month, which is peanuts if you live in the US to spend on leisure. OTOH if you played $110 buy ins that would be $3300-$6600 per month, not chump change any more.

According to my observations, a buy-in tournament or a freeroll doesn't matter. Everywhere there will be players playing for fun. The question is how prepared you are mentally, do you analyze your play and the play of your opponents. By making positive decisions, you will earn regardless of your opponents.

Its nonsense, that its easier to beat good players than bad players. If that was the case, what would actually even make the good players good and the bad players bad? The truth is, if you cant beat the worst players in the game, like people playing drunk on a saturday night, then you have massive flaws in your own game.

The issue is a mental one. A lot of people hate to get outdrawn, and sometimes they cant fold, when they should know, they are beat. So they end up playing bad themselfes, because they let the bad players tilt them. We have all been there to some extend, if we are honest. Getting it in light against a bad player in a situation, where we would easily have folded against a good player.

The other issue is fancy play syndrome. People want to run big bluffs, because its more fun than folding and waiting for a good hand. So they hate playing against someone, who wont fold. They want to "move up where they respect my raises". Evan Jarvis says it really well in this old video:

I don't think there is a lot of difference in playing an $11 game compared to $100-290 tournaments.
It is just your mindset that could change, maybe you're afraid to bust out early in the big ones.
If you have a bankroll of 50k ++ like the best players it's easy to play your best game.

perrypip said:

You have to realize that for people in the US and EU and other places where the cost of living is high $11 is practically a freeroll. I mean if you play 1 or 2 $11 buy ins a day and never win you'd be blowing $330-$660 per month, which is peanuts if you live in the US to spend on leisure. OTOH if you played $110 buy ins that would be $3300-$6600 per month, not chump change any more.

Click to expand...

I've seen this a lot on the forum recently and its nothing against your comment in particular but I just want to comment on it. Just because x amount of money isn't a big deal to you does not mean it isn't to a lot of other people. I've seen a lot of posts recently saying oh you're bankrolls only $25 well that's nothing you don't even have a bankroll unless its several hundred dollars. We don't know everyone else's life outside the forum and we don't know everyones financial situations so I don't think anyone has a right to say $330 is peanuts for anyone there are plenty of people getting paid hourly (and even more so now with the pandemic) that are barely living off that much. If that amount of money is nothing for you to blow through that's awesome congratulations for you for being in that spot but don't assume every single person is in that position, and don't assume because some lives in the US there are always living in leisure.

there is certainly a difference in player pool capability as we move up in stakes but a larger factor would be how big the fields are to begin with. These are my personal takes on the subject:

An $11 3k gtd with an average of 500 players in it should be much easier to win than a $2.20 4k gtd with 1600 players simply because we don't have to fade that additional variance - even though the $11 game will likely have a few more skilled players in it.

Through my experience freerolls and games up to $3.30 are VERRRRY similar in general population abilities - there are a few reggy small stakes grinders who are definitely good and crushing the games they play - but these are also the levels that have the most fish in the games. $5.50 and $6.60 games are also not much different beyond the $3 realm - ever so small player ability increase, generally not to recognizable - what made it stand out for me is if you play enough of these stakes you will start to see all the regs floating around and become pretty familiar with who is decent and who is not.

The $11 are where I start seeing more capable players - when you have too teir prize pools offering $800+ it draws in the sharks looking for a good ROI and good hourly rate if you are to win. Same with the $22s and I can't speak much for anything higher as I have only played a handful of those tournaments.

The good news in all this is that not all players are good annnnnd not all player practice good bankroll management - so you get shot takers in the larger (low level) buy ins just looking to hit one big score. Example :

I flopped a FH Sunday in a $22 20k with 77 on a TT7 board in a 3bet pot - all of us about 125bb effective, i opened the CO 2.5bb - SB called, BB 3bet to 11.5bb - so i called and the sb called as well.

As I said, flop was TT7 rainbow - sb checks, bb bets 14bb, i call and the sb raises to 34bb - the bb calls so i shove it in there targeting the Tx hands and sticky overpairs -- sb snap calls and the bb calls as well.

Sb shows JTo, bb shows QQ - board runs out TT7-T-6 and it is what it is.

The point here is not a bad beat story...the point is we got JTo calling 3b pots OOP and post flop with all that action on the flop - 2 all ins in front - we STILL got QQs to call it off there. Good players are folding QQs in that spot, a good enough player may even find the fold with JT on that flop because what worse Tx hands are in a 3b pot preflop - and stacking off on a TT7 board? T9s? Thats maaaaaybe the only combo and with a T in your hand and 2 on the board there would only be one combo of that left in the deck making it HIGHLY unlikely here. So the fact is - we basically NEVER shoving worse than JT on this TT7 flop -- and we get max value from both villans in a chance to win a 370+bb pot.

In conclusion im just saying there are bad players in every buy in level and that makes the game profitable, but the skill edge in the general population pool certainly increases with buy in amounts - how much is totally dependent on the game.

Remember - game selection is key!! Winning an event in a massive field is as tough as it comes for even the best players in the world - so even tho that Sunday $6.60 25k gtd looks juicy, you're going to need to beat 3200+ players to do so - better off spending your money in a smaller field with a decent prize pool where your odds of winning are much greater. Game selection and good BRM are key to being successful long term.

I hope this all makes sense and I hope you find it useful.

You want to play hands with fish, the lower the buyin the more likely the fish. This is similar to players who want to reg late and avoid the fish, but the fish are the easiest to win chips from.

You should have a higher ROI in softer tournies like freeroll and micro-stakes than higher stakes games.

But OP's idea I believe is specifically that it's easier to cash in higher stakes games which is different than having a higher ROI. I.e. It could be possible that there are games where cashing is easier but having a good ROI is harder.

I think it's an interesting idea to think about, but will usually not be the case for freerolls vs higher buyins. The reason is because you have the option of playing tight early and making sure to get it in with high equity in large pots to build up a stack. Staying patient and playing tight-aggressive can pay off nicely in very loose games.

Tournaments up to 10 are not much different from freerolls. But tournaments over 50 will already be more difficult and so on

I wouldn't call that a myth, but rather true enough.

AmidamaruRu said:

Tournaments up to 10 are not much different from freerolls. But tournaments over 50 will already be more difficult and so on

Click to expand...

It's not true. 10 bucks MTT is much more closer to 100 bucks MTT than to freeroll

Think of average buy ins. players who have large ave buy ins are seldom going to be seen playing below that realm say mid stakes. you will very rarely see this guy down in the micro stakes and only now and again at the highest of the low stakes. what im getting at is if you are swamping the $1.00 games you can probably do ok in the upper realms of that level say $4.50 or $5.00 because you are playing largely vs the same players. You may see a true Low stakes player in there but not so often.
You will almost never see a true poker pro playing less than $55 and certainly not below $22 unless they are just playing on a lark. these guys you see playing many thousands of tourneys per year at micro stakes are usually just bored grinders to whom 5K a year is good money. and they are normally 6-9 bullet blasters who Auto late reg and bully people off of their spots. these types die off once the limpers go away for the most part or once they try to stab at a higher level. Take a good look at their scopes and you will see they tried. "they tried and failed?" " they tried and died."

No Way

perrypip said:

You have to realize that for people in the US and EU and other places where the cost of living is high $11 is practically a freeroll. I mean if you play 1 or 2 $11 buy ins a day and never win you'd be blowing $330-$660 per month, which is peanuts if you live in the US to spend on leisure. OTOH if you played $110 buy ins that would be $3300-$6600 per month, not chump change any more.

Click to expand...

YO you must be rich,I live in canada on pension and make less then $40000 so have to play poker at lower levels.

Jon Poker said:

I flopped a FH Sunday in a $22 20k with 77 on a TT7 board in a 3bet pot - all of us about 125bb effective, i opened the CO 2.5bb - SB called, BB 3bet to 11.5bb - so i called and the sb called as well.

As I said, flop was TT7 rainbow - sb checks, bb bets 14bb, i call and the sb raises to 34bb - the bb calls so i shove it in there targeting the Tx hands and sticky overpairs -- sb snap calls and the bb calls as well.

Sb shows JTo, bb shows QQ - board runs out TT7-T-6 and it is what it is.

Click to expand...

I just had to comment on your post, not to poke fun or anything - just to say - how aweful this game is that we LOVE so much.

You went from first to worst in like 2 seconds. Damn you poker Demons!!! :icon_cat:

theANMATOR said:

I just had to comment on your post, not to poke fun or anything - just to say - how aweful this game is that we LOVE so much.

You went from first to worst in like 2 seconds. Damn you poker Demons!!! :icon_cat:

Click to expand...

Such is poker - if you've never been one outtered - then you havnt played long enough lol. The point was that even in a medium stakes buy in, you still had players willing to get their money in bad. The Tx hands i can see, but after that action on the flop QQs should NEVER be calling off. One of us should eaaaasssily have the T at the very least. I got my money in super good and basically had to fade 6 outs to win a massive pot - doesn't get much better than that.