Larger Buyin - Same payout ??

[theANMATOR]

Hey fellas, and awesome poker ladies!

As I slowly make my way up into higher buyin events (online), while still keeping strong bankroll management as a core of my poker experience, I have noticed something peculiar. Maybe not odd really, but something I just don't know enough about, and I thought I'd reach out to the community to see if I can learn from all you veterans of the game.

I play on average between 2-6 dollar buyins. On ACR the largest buyin in the micros is 4.40 for a 4k tourney.
The next level up on ACR is low stakes - and the buyins there range from 5.50 up to 16.50.

I see a lot of events on the upper buyin level at low stakes 15-16.50 that are 10k thru 50k gtd events.

Looking at the next two higher levels, medium stakes and high stakes, there are events with the same guarantee, but for a lot more cost to participate in said events, ranging from 20 up to 109+ dollars to buyin.


I understand - with a bigger buyin the field is going to be drastically reduced.
For an event that is a 10k gtd for a buyin of 6 bucks, there is going to be no less than 3000-5000 runners.
For an event that is a 10k gtd for a buyin of 55 dollars, there was only 326, for the one that ran earlier today.

So - obviously the field is smaller which amounts to less variance. Another effect of this smaller field is that there are less players who make the money, (min-cash) the payout structure is ?tighter? but that is great for the players at the top - because they get a larger chunk of the guarantee.

The competition is - obviously - better in the larger buy-in, with less "fish" to take advantage of, and since the field is smaller - there is also less players who might consider gambling with a marginal hand going all in on the flop with only one pair, and a prayer.

With the overall field being better, it's safe to assume there is less room to make any mistake at all in the larger buyin events. One bad call down with 2nd pair or a weak two pair is probably enough to send you down in the chip count where it is most likely more difficult to recover from, because the players are better and make less mistakes, so getting it in with a superior hand won't result in as many chips - because there are less gamblers ready to call off their stacks with A/Q off.


Are there any other points about this topic I'm missing?


Is there any other 'reasons' why most better players, with the BR to play in any events they want to, why they don't play in the lower buyin events - that offer the same payout?


I have seen only a small handful of pros playing in lower buyin events - where I'm at. Normally these events are at the upper limits of my buyin level.


Personally - I enjoy the large fields - it's a great opportunity to take advantage of those players who - lets say - are loose with their chips. However there are times when my A/K flops top/top - with the nut flush draw and I get shoved on - and the gambly player with A/6 off suit binks his 6 on the river. THAT is quite frustrating, to be sure.

Since I'm still relatively new myself - I'm also aware I am going to make 1-2 mistakes at least during an event. So having the ability to recover from these mistakes in a field that is not as strong as the higher buyins is a blessing.


Please fill me in on the other elements of this topic - which might be interesting discussion points.

 

[fundiver199]

Even thought the total price pool might be the same, its much more difficult to reach the top places in a large field tournament with a smaller buyin. So assuming identical ROI a winning player will have a higher hourly winrate by playing the higher buyin, because he is more likely to actually win those prices, that matter, rather than min-cash for 13$ or something.

However that being said fields do get noticeably tougher, when you get into, what most poker sites consider "mid stakes". Something like 22$ and up. So the ROI is not going to be identical, and for that reason it can certainly make sense for some winning players to remain at low stakes or put a big chunk of their activity there. If this happen on ACR, and why or why not, I dont know, since I dont play there. But on 888 Poker you certainly see many "regulars" at stakes way below 22$.

 

[theANMATOR]

Even thought the total price pool might be the same, its much more difficult to reach the top places in a large field tournament with a smaller buyin. So assuming identical ROI a winning player will have a higher hourly winrate by playing the higher buyin, because he is more likely to actually win those prices, that matter, rather than min-cash for 13$ or something.

However that being said fields do get noticeably tougher, when you get into, what most poker sites consider "mid stakes". Something like 22$ and up. So the ROI is not going to be identical, and for that reason it can certainly make sense for some winning players to remain at low stakes or put a big chunk of their activity there. If this happen on ACR, and why or why not, I dont know, since I dont play there. But on 888 Poker you certainly see many "regulars" at stakes way below 22$.

Thanks for the input fundiver.

Those 'regs' you speak about playing way below the $22 buyin level. Are they playing in events that are similar in payout to the $22 level? IE playing a 10-15 dollar buyin that is a 20k gtd - instead of playing a $22 buyin - for the same - 20k gtd.

Also - in general at the stakes you play - do you find that a tourney with a higher buyin but with a similar payout as a smaller buyin - but in the same range/level, is tougher or easier to cash - FT?

I regularly play in a 2 dollar 800gtd. I've won it once and made FT several times making top 3. The field is on average between 300-500 runners depending upon the day.

I jumped into the 4.40 800gtd the last couple evenings - and have walked away with FT appearances on both days, earning approximately $50 each night.
Its a terribly small sample size of course, and I'm not saying the larger buyin event is easier, but the field is considerably smaller, and I have - lets say - ample notes on the majority of players.

I see the same 'regs' in the larger buyin - who are also playing the lower buyin events, - but being honest, I think the players in the more expensive event are overall the better players than the rest of the general player pool.

 

[fundiver199]

Regulars are find in almost any tournament except maybe the penny ones. I cant really quite imagine, its any different on ACR, so maybe its just a question of, who you consider to be regulars? I am sure, if you look people up on sharkscope, you will find quite a few long term winners even in your 2,2$ tournaments on ACR.

They might just be relatively new regulars, who are still in the process of building up their bankroll and skills, or they might simply throw in a 2,2$ event now and then while also playing more expensive MTTs. I still do that regularly, even though its mostly 2,2$ R+As. Its always easier to reach the final table in a small field than a large field, even if the small field is tougher. On the other side its easier to cash in a large but soft field, since the percentage, who cash, tend to be around the same in small and large tournaments.

 

[Alekxandrovi3]

I do not know what to write. Fish are everywhere and you can go bankrupt by playing without considering the size of your bankrol.

 

[karl coakley]

I play a larger buy-in when I'm fresh and have time. It is a tougher field. I actually use a LAG in these games, fewer bad calls and you can sit waiting for a premium hand to have everyone fold. I tend to see more flops with a wider range and more 3bets.

Although I see it posted all the time that variance is lower, for me it's not. In a larger field there is more dead money. It is easy to accumulate chips. This allows me to take a beat or make a laydown and keep playing rather than a short field where 1 beat and your done.