Would You Play Well At 100x Your Normal Stakes?

[Matt Vaughan]

I happened to stumble on this other thread, which essentially just asks "what was your biggest tournament buy in in 2021 and how did it go?"

https://www.cardschat.com/forum/general-poker-13/your-biggest-buy-in-in-2021-a-495667/

At first I was just chuckling at how the posts mostly went progressively higher with a sort of "one upping" mentality. But several comments saying "I satellited into tournament buy in X that I wouldn't normally play, and I didn't play that well" got me thinking.

If you were able to get into a poker game at 100x your normal stakes. Whether it's cash, tournament, doesn't matter. Would you play well? Do you think you would be playing to maximize your EV, or more so playing to not lose (or min cash, or whatever version of playing it safe looks like for you)?

What I think is so interesting about this question is that in large field tournaments, if you make it down to the very end... at some point you start to play stakes you are not even remotely rolled for financially, mentally, or emotionally.

Let me know your thoughts!!

 

[Nafor]

I find this question a bit odd.
If a person is willing to go through the trouble to win a seat through a satellite, why wouldn't he/she try to play well?

Of course 'playing well' is highly subjective matter. One might be playing well by one's own standards (in that extraordinary and demanding situation), but it still might be totally inadequate when compared to one's opponents.

It is only natural to contemplate one's shortcomings after the game, and say that I didn't play that well. Most of us are the harshest critics of ourselves.

What would be the 'best play'?
Lets consider a bankroll of a micro stakes player. To me that represents 200 buy-ins. The min cash of the 100x game would probably be close to the buy-in amount. So even the min cash would increase my bankroll by 50%. Relatively that would be a big win.

 

[ATL2000]

The cash game example of this would be ridiculous. Assuming they were playing their own money, a 1/2 NL player used to having $200 on the table would be completely freaked out sitting with $20,000 at 100/200 NL. Hell. even if they were staked it would probably be too much pressure.

 

[1984]

I happened to stumble on this other thread, which essentially just asks "what was your biggest tournament buy in in 2021 and how did it go?"

https://www.cardschat.com/forum/general-poker-13/your-biggest-buy-in-in-2021-a-495667/

At first I was just chuckling at how the posts mostly went progressively higher with a sort of "one upping" mentality. But several comments saying "I satellited into tournament buy in X that I wouldn't normally play, and I didn't play that well" got me thinking.

If you were able to get into a poker game at 100x your normal stakes. Whether it's cash, tournament, doesn't matter. Would you play well? Do you think you would be playing to maximize your EV, or more so playing to not lose (or min cash, or whatever version of playing it safe looks like for you)?

What I think is so interesting about this question is that in large field tournaments, if you make it down to the very end... at some point you start to play stakes you are not even remotely rolled for financially, mentally, or emotionally.

Let me know your thoughts!!

As i posted in your other topic, lets comment here, too. First of all - like most of us - don't play them regularly - always ready for card dead, variance f*ckery for that one higher stakes tourney (what anyway often happens if i play a bit higher level) -, so obviously tried to play them tighter - except one from the several, what i clearly messed up, i wasnt in poker mood, did stupid moves, relegated fast - i could play like that.

I played the first in this year after 8-10 years off from the 100$+ BI tourneys, so wanted to reach ITM, like always as first target. In ITM bubble i could triple up my stack with preflop allin with AKs, but the pusher had a bit higher stack than me - i had top 20 stack around 150 paid places -, so i fold it preflop for ITM. Any other tourneys what i regularly play, i don't care AKs is a call. Like this i relegated on the 3rd, or 4th ladder instead of reaching at least last 2-4 tables.....

I don't think so, i would play well. Micro, low levels are a bit (very) different + the variance. If i couldnt get tickets to higher BI tourneys through satties for cheap, i never would play them. But yes, play more tight, and try to reach ITM, usually i did it as a short stack, tried to come back, but never really could, so yes reaching the ITM is more important, than take much higher risk to go as deep as i can, meantime paralelly deal with higher chance to relegate early phase, before money....

And i don't know the mindset, if someone financially totally independent, and able to play 100-1000$ tourneys regularly without stressing out the money part, how i can play micros, lows..... + as i never played them regularly, have no sample about it... dont know at all the field in any rooms on that level...

Basically you wrote all the things why your question cannot be answered by most of us: i dont know how is to be financially in that state, nor emotionally, mentally.

if we talk about generally a single tourney, obviously not, i wouldnt play okay. just wrote an example above. on my regular level, i can afford that a 3 way preflop allin lost, simply move on, next time i will win that hand and go deep, but on a 100x BI, everything is different. It is hard, not possible to compare to anything, nor jobs, sports, because it is about money, and money is the god in this world and most of us slaves for the money, so obviously that effects mental, emotional state if you play 100 times higher BIs.

Anyway - exactly because i play rarely on that level -, choose the smallest field tourneys, never over 1k regs, a bit reduce the variance, playing higher fields pointless, then instead of playing satties for high BI, high field tourneys, i would rather buy lottery tickets - both same, thrown off money...

But the main point, never would play them regularly, and play once a 1k-10k$ tourney sounds waste of time and money.... and i am not that guy who plays it for participation, fun only - even if nowadays more like that, still not entirely like that -, so pointless to give a shot. How i wrote, if i want to gambe - play a single high stake, high field tourney is nothing else just pure gambling -, then i buy lottery tickets, or play roulette... not poker...

 

[Matt Vaughan]

I find this question a bit odd.
If a person is willing to go through the trouble to win a seat through a satellite, why wouldn't he/she try to play well?

Of course 'playing well' is highly subjective matter. One might be playing well by one's own standards (in that extraordinary and demanding situation), but it still might be totally inadequate when compared to one's opponents.

It is only natural to contemplate one's shortcomings after the game, and say that I didn't play that well. Most of us are the harshest critics of ourselves.

What would be the 'best play'?
Lets consider a bankroll of a micro stakes player. To me that represents 200 buy-ins. The min cash of the 100x game would probably be close to the buy-in amount. So even the min cash would increase my bankroll by 50%. Relatively that would be a big win.

The question isn't would you "TRY" to play well though. It's a question of whether one COULD bring their A game to bear.

I also think it's worth considering the extremes and then moving on toward the middleground, which represents the reality. In my experience a lot of players actually end up playing significantly worse just 1-2 "levels" up. Representing say, a 2x increase in stakes. But most would SAY "I play just as good/the same as normal."

So I think it's worthwhile to examine the extreme where most of us can agree the money would absolutely go to our heads.

 

[Matt Vaughan]

I don't think so, i would play well....

if we talk about generally a single tourney, obviously not, i wouldnt play okay. just wrote an example above. on my regular level, i can afford that a 3 way preflop allin lost, simply move on, next time i will win that hand and go deep, but on a 100x BI, everything is different. It is hard, not possible to compare to anything, nor jobs, sports, because it is about money, and money is the god in this world and most of us slaves for the money, so obviously that effects mental, emotional state if you play 100 times higher BIs..

I think this is really well said. Yes I made this a really hard question to even consider because 100x is ridiculous. But that's the point of the thought experiment. Ask a tough question and maybe learn something that can be applied to your regular games (or just moving up in general).

 

[mushthebush]

Thought I'd jump into this quickly.

I think it just depends how stable you are as a poker player. And I guess we're talking tournaments not cash. If it were cash at higher stakes, I don't think I would play well and I would likely lose it all eventually and it would affect me emotionally. If you gave me money to play at high stakes I would rather play it at affordable stakes.

However, tournaments are another story altogether. Personally, I would play the same as I play any tournament. I usually play "not to lose" and I usually don't lose. First target is ITM, second target is moving up the ranks up to the final table if possible and I do play a risky game of hanging onto each BB and I often do turn it all around in my favour even when others would give up.

So, if I were offered the opportunity to play higher buy-in tournaments, I don't think I would disappoint but I wouldn't impress either because I aim for frequent returns, be they low with the occasional higher reward.

Unfortunately, I cannot afford to play any tournaments with a higher than $4 buy-in and I never played satellites or was never given the opportunity to play. I also don't have enough data to put together a business plan in order to ask for staking. Will surely see in the future if I stand by my words or what I said is total BS.

 

[alien666dj]

It all depends on how good you feel at the table with the pros. Although I have seen badly playing players in the $ 10,300 tournament more than once.

 

[Nafor]

The question isn't would you "TRY" to play well though. It's a question of whether one COULD bring their A game to bear.

Well then, the only honest answer to this is - I wouldn't know for sure before it happened. Probably I would be too scared to make mistakes.

But if we are talking e.g. "only" 100$ ish tourneys, then the money on top is hardly life changing. Nice lump sum for sure but not enough to mess our heads.

If the buy-in would be in four or five figures, then yes, that would be disturbing cause the field would be so small that even luck might carry me into the money.

 

[Matt Vaughan]

The cash game example of this would be ridiculous. Assuming they were playing their own money, a 1/2 NL player used to having $200 on the table would be completely freaked out sitting with $20,000 at 100/200 NL. Hell. even if they were staked it would probably be too much pressure.

Sure. Where do you think the line is that most people wouldn't be "totally freaked out though"?

I think most players moving up 1-2 levels from what they're used to in quick order would claim that the money isn't affecting them. So I'm curious where you think the line is.

 

[natsgrampy]

I typically play micro tournaments. I have on occasion played tournaments with bigger buy ins. The largest being $1200.

Last Sunday, I played a $109, $33 $3.30, $2.20, and 2. freerolls.

I feel I definitely played different in the 2 larger buy in games. I feel I was playing not to lose. There were several hands I would have played more confidently. I was absolutely pushed around by the bigger stacks. Smaller stakes I would have pushed back.

I feel in the higher buy ins I give the other players too much credit.

That being said, I didn't cash in the big buy ins, yet I FT the $3.30, taking 3rd, cashed in the $2.20, cashed in both freerolls. One of which I took 1st place

 

[Piligrin66]

I think many would play if they had money for it, for some poker is a form of earnings, for others it is just a game if people were rich and, say, the players had millions on their account, I think many would stop playing poker, but simply enjoy life, specifically, as for me, I would play poker, even if I were a millionaire.

 

[ATL2000]

Sure. Where do you think the line is that most people wouldn't be "totally freaked out though"?

I think most players moving up 1-2 levels from what they're used to in quick order would claim that the money isn't affecting them. So I'm curious where you think the line is.

I guess it depends.

Personally, I am a bankroll nit so I think I would notice a change even at 2X or 3X my normal level. I am sure that others would have to get to 10X to really notice a change in their approach to the game.

 

[cowboybebop]

Wow if it would happen to me I would not play my normal game,actually a lot far from one.Reason is theres just too much pressure to handle,and then id play way too passive,or id get angry and just play stupid hands.Either way,im sticking with micro tourneys.

 

[pavel1111111]

yes I am very comfortable at any stake I would play , I have formed a fairly efficient style of play , I say , in addition I do not play money that I can not afford to lose and I treat everything as a game such it is

 

[MishkaZL]

I happened to stumble on this other thread, which essentially just asks "what was your biggest tournament buy in in 2021 and how did it go?"

https://www.cardschat.com/forum/general-poker-13/your-biggest-buy-in-in-2021-a-495667/

At first I was just chuckling at how the posts mostly went progressively higher with a sort of "one upping" mentality. But several comments saying "I satellited into tournament buy in X that I wouldn't normally play, and I didn't play that well" got me thinking.

If you were able to get into a poker game at 100x your normal stakes. Whether it's cash, tournament, doesn't matter. Would you play well? Do you think you would be playing to maximize your EV, or more so playing to not lose (or min cash, or whatever version of playing it safe looks like for you)?

What I think is so interesting about this question is that in large field tournaments, if you make it down to the very end... at some point you start to play stakes you are not even remotely rolled for financially, mentally, or emotionally.

Let me know your thoughts!!

I'm sure that in such conditions I would not be able to play normally. High stakes would put extra psychological pressure on me, so I would definitely play badly. The higher the stakes, the more difficult the game is emotionally and psychologically, at least for me.

 

[makisaa]

From a first view it seems it would be more difficult to play in a game 100X the normal stakes. But then I think that it is a new and unexplored field and a new experience and I play more loose and I try to behave like in an stake I use to play.

 

[kristersb123]

I dont think that I would play good because other players are much better and I would be scared which isn't good when you play poker. Playing tight and too careful in a lot of spots can be -EV so yeah I think this would happen with most of the people.

 

[Laynester]

No ... 100X Steaks --- try a Hamburger

I never play with a 100X steak.

I like hamburgers without a bun...Thats my game!


Thanks for listening!

..bluff..


:angel:

 

[gwooof]

No I would play really tight not like normal where I play lots of different hands I would only play any high pair or ak just be super patience

 

[filippfilm]

I happened to stumble on this other thread, which essentially just asks "what was your biggest tournament buy in in 2021 and how did it go?"

https://www.cardschat.com/forum/general-poker-13/your-biggest-buy-in-in-2021-a-495667/

At first I was just chuckling at how the posts mostly went progressively higher with a sort of "one upping" mentality. But several comments saying "I satellited into tournament buy in X that I wouldn't normally play, and I didn't play that well" got me thinking.

If you were able to get into a poker game at 100x your normal stakes. Whether it's cash, tournament, doesn't matter. Would you play well? Do you think you would be playing to maximize your EV, or more so playing to not lose (or min cash, or whatever version of playing it safe looks like for you)?

What I think is so interesting about this question is that in large field tournaments, if you make it down to the very end... at some point you start to play stakes you are not even remotely rolled for financially, mentally, or emotionally.

Let me know your thoughts!!

I play badly expensive tournaments because I get worried and there is a completely different style of play to which I am not used either. Very often I fly out there in the beginning from coolers. You need experience in such tournaments to claim prizes there.

 

[Zapahlohotrona]

I would probably play very tight to get into the minimum payout. As usual I would not play, that's for sure.

 

[black and]

I happened to stumble on this other thread, which essentially just asks "what was your biggest tournament buy in in 2021 and how did it go?"

https://www.cardschat.com/forum/general-poker-13/your-biggest-buy-in-in-2021-a-495667/

At first I was just chuckling at how the posts mostly went progressively higher with a sort of "one upping" mentality. But several comments saying "I satellited into tournament buy in X that I wouldn't normally play, and I didn't play that well" got me thinking.

If you were able to get into a poker game at 100x your normal stakes. Whether it's cash, tournament, doesn't matter. Would you play well? Do you think you would be playing to maximize your EV, or more so playing to not lose (or min cash, or whatever version of playing it safe looks like for you)?

What I think is so interesting about this question is that in large field tournaments, if you make it down to the very end... at some point you start to play stakes you are not even remotely rolled for financially, mentally, or emotionally.

Let me know your thoughts!!

Apparently it all depends on the size of the bankroll. That is, I mean the ratio of bankroll to buy-in. For example, if my bankroll was $ 100,000, I could easily, without hesitation, play comfortably in $ 500 or $ 1,000 buy-in tournaments. But if my bankroll was actually $ 500, I just wouldn't be able to adequately play in a $ 100 or $ 200 buy-in tournament.

 

[nutself]

I won't play well at bigger stakes, I will get nervous and even can't read the board properly, poker is a difficult profession for me.

 

[Havik]

I happened to stumble on this other thread, which essentially just asks "what was your biggest tournament buy in in 2021 and how did it go?"

https://www.cardschat.com/forum/general-poker-13/your-biggest-buy-in-in-2021-a-495667/

At first I was just chuckling at how the posts mostly went progressively higher with a sort of "one upping" mentality. But several comments saying "I satellited into tournament buy in X that I wouldn't normally play, and I didn't play that well" got me thinking.

If you were able to get into a poker game at 100x your normal stakes. Whether it's cash, tournament, doesn't matter. Would you play well? Do you think you would be playing to maximize your EV, or more so playing to not lose (or min cash, or whatever version of playing it safe looks like for you)?

What I think is so interesting about this question is that in large field tournaments, if you make it down to the very end... at some point you start to play stakes you are not even remotely rolled for financially, mentally, or emotionally.

Let me know your thoughts!!

I think I would play well, aslong as its not a big portion on my bankroll.