Making Money in Low Buy-in MTTs, Possible?

[RogueRivered]

Looking at the stats on sites like Official Poker Rankings, it looks like it's just about impossible to make a positive ROI in low buy-in MTTs over the long run. Am I wrong about this?

About the only people making money are playing between $25 and $50 buy-ins and only in the large (> 180) players tournaments. Of course that means there are a lot of people losing money at these levels.

Also looks impossible to win anything significant in the Head-to-Head matchups even if you win more than you lose.

Also, it seems to me that most all the money ends up funnelling up the buy-in structures. Low buy-in winners move up in level with their winnings and either lose or keep moving up until they do lose. Only a few at the top end up with any significant earnings.

Anybody agree or disagree?

 

[Worak]

It is possible.
It isn't easy though.
If 10% win 90% must lose.
If you belong to the 10% most of the time you're a winner, if not ....you're not.

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

If it's possible to make money in higher buyins, why would it be impossible to make money in lower buyins against easier fields?

Rake kills HU games significantly but it's still possible to win in the long run.

You're right about a lot of winners moving up and bustoing - most people either have no concept of bankroll management or they know what it it but throw all logic out of the window once they win a bit of money. A lot of big winners will move to cash games and lose it all there too.

 

[Worak]

If it's possible to make money in higher buyins, why would it be impossible to make money in lower buyins against easier fields?

Rake kills HU games significantly but it's still possible to win in the long run.

You're right about a lot of winners moving up and bustoing - most people either have no concept of bankroll management or they know what it it but throw all logic out of the window once they win a bit of money. A lot of big winners will move to cash games and lose it all there too.

I can underline that.
As long as I sticked to my BM plan I gradually went up - slowly but I had the patience. After a month (beginning oct 1.) I summed up 40$ from scratch.
Then I had a look at the cash game tables and they ripped me apart, some bad beats - but to be honest - mostly due to poor playing.
I went down to 10$ within two days.
Now I'm back to the ground again playing my levels and up to 17$ again.
My advice: STICK TO YOUR BMP AT ALL TIMES !
:listen:

 

[RogueRivered]

Judging by the stats, I'd say those players who make a lot of money playing higher buy-in MTTs versus low-cost ones are doing so because they are playing against more "scared" money. It must be harder to win low buy-in tournaments since your opponents will play a bit crazier, making it harder for you to win by skill alone. People invested in higher cost tournaments will probably try to play safer, making it easier for good players to beat them.

The stats show that these money earners aren't afraid of going out early in a tournament. Most of them only finish in the money less than 15% of the time. Personally, I play way too tight (in low buy-in events) and make the money 44% of the time and still have a negative ROI. Until I can accept more risk (and have the bankroll to back it up), I have no business playing higher levels.

 

[dsvw56]

A good friend of mine is a fairly successful low stakes MTT player.
Average Buy-in = $13
Total Profit = $12,227http://www.officialpokerrankings.co...lts/7566F21F47204FB78EE8E0926EDBC8A5.html?t=2

 

[DuaneK]

I win about 40% in 1 table sng's But you have to be tight. 10 top hands until table half gone. Sundays are softest.

 

[T_inc]

test test
its possible but its annoying at the low buy ins after nearly goin broke (19cts left) i went to lower buy ins and i got back in the game thanks to it without depositing....but next time i go broke.. i Deposit (better for my hart) i do perform better at higher buy ins ...havin said that..i cashed out a few times made a bit of profit...but i always end up goin to lower limits and loose in the end..mayb i play to much or i have to cash out more often to gain more profit or i dunno what to do to stay in the plus....

 

[SavagePenguin]

It's silly to say it's impossible to win money at low buy-in tournaments.

Generally the prize structure pays 10% of the field, most of those getting a small payout. The significant money is for the top 1% though.

So if everyone was equal in skill, over a million games everyone would average a 10% loss due to the rake. But anybody who had an 11% skill advantage over other players would average a 1% profit.

In low stakes a good player should have a significant advantage over the field, and should be finishing in the top 1/3 most of the time. I know if I don't finish in the top 1/3 I'm disappointed in my performance, and I don't consider myself to be a MTT player (I lack the patience).

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

Judging by the stats, I'd say those players who make a lot of money playing higher buy-in MTTs versus low-cost ones are doing so because they are playing against more "scared" money. It must be harder to win low buy-in tournaments since your opponents will play a bit crazier, making it harder for you to win by skill alone. People invested in higher cost tournaments will probably try to play safer, making it easier for good players to beat them.

umm you have this the wrong way around. good players profit from bad players.

 

[T_inc]

i cant get the quote right but i think the part what you say about the players at lower buy in play crazier and less carefull sais it all if i really concentrate and can stay focus and not let my emotions get the upper hand i to have an advantage over those players but its hard due to the number of suckouts/bad beats etc but i believe that low buy ins mtt's are a good way to start youre bankroll with if you win its nice if you loose you only lost a bit...
i started playin at pokerstars on oktober 15. variating buy-ins but i feel the most at home on the higher buy-ins... serous poker no namecalling etc etc only downside is that if i loose a couple of times i go broke
i start using the OPR couple of weeks ago as a guideline for oppnts who are at my table i try to use them for analyzing my own game but i dont really know how because of some things i see i dunno what it ishow they calculate youre profit/prizes for example maybe a pro could look at my stats and find out why i keep go busted and i placed some arrows by things i dunno what it is mayb someone who knows?

i just realized after posting this question it perhaps wasnt the right place to ask it im sorry for that mayb it could b moved to the right place!

 

[Goldog]

The problem with MTTs is when you cash but don't get in say the top 5 or 6 (or at least FT). You need to get deep into the $$$ to get significantly more than your BI. Just cashing is not good enough.

As for the BR management, the larger the field the less percent of your BR you can risk. Lets say your BR is $300 and you do well in 1 or 2 table SnGs at the $10 games. If you can regularly cash but don't win often you may have a positive ROI. For a big MTT you'd only want to risk maybe 1 or 2% of your BR so that you can be aggressive near the money and not worry about bubbling out. (Note the example of ATTILIO, AVE BI=$16 Even with a big win he didn't move up.)

In large MTTs those regular cashes just don't add up to enough unless you go deep into the $$$. For instance, in the PS 180 placing 10-18th pays a little less than 2X your buy in. This means a 50% in the money rate is a loser unless you go deep sometimes. These are relatively flat payouts. In the really big fields it's much worse. I just looked at a 650 field; pays 63. Even tenth in that pays only about 6.5 times the buyin. You have to get half way up the money ladder,28-36 to even get 2 X your BI. Can you do that 50% of the time?

The answer I found is to almost ignore the bubble when just squeakin' in only gives you so little return. You've got to aim for the Final Table or at least a payout of lets say 5-6 times the buy-in. So in that 180 man your aiming at 7th or better. Any less than FT is not a cash, just a consolation prize.

I hope this helps

goldog

 

[pfb8888]

i think its less than 10 % who make money ...probably 1-2 % .. and if you arent greedy you can win at the lowest levels but is 1-2 dollars /hour worth it?

 

[RogueRivered]

it could be most of the best players don't play for a low money so just random people win.

Yes, I agree with that. The random winners don't show a positive ROI.

i think its less than 10 % who make money ...probably 1-2 % .. and if you arent greedy you can win at the lowest levels but is 1-2 dollars /hour worth it?

Yes, good point. My hypothesis is only for making lots of money (in the thousands). Those players do better in bigger fields with much higher buy-ins, but not too high. Then you only get the pros and really expert players. Look at all that Chris Ferguson has lost on OPR.

The answer I found is to almost ignore the bubble when just squeakin' in only gives you so little return. You've got to aim for the Final Table or at least a payout of lets say 5-6 times the buy-in. So in that 180 man your aiming at 7th or better. Any less than FT is not a cash, just a consolation prize.

I hope this helps

goldog

I need to learn to do this. I pay way too much attention to the bubble and miss good chances and end up always being the short stack. I'm getting pretty good at nursing those! But I don't know anything about playing with a big stack. I feel really lousy when I go out right before the money, though. After I'm in the money, I figure 2 or 3 double or triple ups, and I'm near the top 10. It's rare, but it does happen.

umm you have this the wrong way around. good players profit from bad players.

Maybe that's why they do better against people who are in over their heads and worried about losing their money. When it's only a dollar, nobody cares that much (except me, of course).

 

[ALphaWolf]

Sitngos are a good way to make some money, my friend sent me 15 bucks, i got up to 1k in 3 days, so I go to blackjack and lose it all in 3 mins, lol, so if u want to makemoney stay away from blackjack!lol

 

[Ice Wolf]

To me making money in the low MTTs is like trying to start a bankroll from freerolls. Its hard to make money that way but it is possible.

 

[CardKiller18]

Looking at the stats on sites like Official Poker Rankings, it looks like it's just about impossible to make a positive ROI in low buy-in MTTs over the long run. Am I wrong about this?

About the only people making money are playing between $25 and $50 buy-ins and only in the large (> 180) players tournaments. Of course that means there are a lot of people losing money at these levels.

Also looks impossible to win anything significant in the Head-to-Head matchups even if you win more than you lose.

Also, it seems to me that most all the money ends up funnelling up the buy-in structures. Low buy-in winners move up in level with their winnings and either lose or keep moving up until they do lose. Only a few at the top end up with any significant earnings.

Anybody agree or disagree?

it is possible... you can watch my stats,, its decent enough i think

 

[RogueRivered]

I guess there's hope. A few big wins really helped your stats. Impressive.

You've definitely done better at the lowest stakes, although the sample size is larger in that category. What are your impressions regarding the level of play from say $1 or $2 buy-in versus $11 buy-in? Any noticeable difference?

 

[nc_royals]

A good friend of mine is a fairly successful low stakes MTT player.
Average Buy-in = $13
Total Profit = $12,227

I looked up his stats. Man I wish i could play as much as he does. But as for me.... Married, 2 kids and a good job prevents me to put in the time he has but I also like MTT's so those stats are encouraging.
Thanks