By playing with fewer players, your chances of profiting are higher, but the amount is proportional to the number of players, on the other hand, in multi-table tournaments, with little investment the prize amount is higher, but the probability is lower, and the difficulty is greater. . What do you prefer when making money ... few players or multi-table tournaments?

I personally like bigger fields but that is a personal choice. Smaller fields should have less variance but not always. I tend to think that larger fields will have more bad players and those are the players you really profit from. Yes there will be more good players as well but I will take that chance to have a better chance of having bad players at my table. I also like the larger tournament fields since the guarantees are higher for that buy in and you have a shot at larger money. Again, I think this question does not have a right or wrong answer but more along the lines of what you feel comfortable playing.

Originally Posted by 007Leon

By playing with fewer players, your chances of profiting are higher, but the amount is proportional to the number of players, on the other hand, in multi-table tournaments, with little investment the prize amount is higher, but the probability is lower, and the difficulty is greater. . What do you prefer when making money ... few players or multi-table tournaments?

Of course tournaments with huge prize money seem promising, but this is a big trap! a huge number of people play in them, and the luck factor for winning them is higher. it is quite another matter when there are 100-200 people in the tournament. with the proper skill and a small element of luck, you can earn on them steadily. I personally prefer the second option

For me, it depends on how much time I want to invest. If I want to kill several hours, I'll probably aim for a large mtt, where I have a chance to score many times my entry. I know more players means more times I have to win the luck factor. Even AA only wins most of the time. With many player mtt, it is best to risk your stake as few times as possible, even when the odds are with you. It is near impossible to win every time during these large games.

Heyyy

Defenitely the bigger prize
I used to like sit n gos, but the touney prizes are so big, especially when you win one or two.

Poker is a hobby for me
If it isn't Id choose sngs

gl gl gl

I prefer MTTs with no more than 200-300 players. In STTs there is very little time to outplay your opponent, and since the rake is usually the same or even higher than for MTTs, I find it difficult to even generate a long term profit. There is also not much excitement in winning back your buyin at most 4 times. Then you might as well play cash games, so for me STTs are only for practice or for chilling out.

Very large field MTTs like most of those on PokerStars on the other hand are to difficult to final table in, and they also take to long to complete, unless they are turbos. For me I would rather win 200-400$ at a time for a 10$ buyin than look at a luring 2.000-4.000$ first price, which in reality I never get anywhere near.

There is no dought though, that large price pools get many people playing, so they are good for poker and for the site operators. However oddly enough many of the same people, who are attracted by the prospect of potentially turning 5$ into 2.000$ seem to completely forget about this, when the bubble approach.

Now its suddenly very important for them to mini-cash for 10,76$, and to acheive this they actually reduce their chance of winning that 2.000$ first price, which got them playing the tournament in the first place. End of random rant

My personal choice is playing large field on MTT's and risking little amount of my bankroll. I feel comfortable that way as I treat as fun and entertaining.

Against a few players, you have very little edge. I mean if you are a good player. If you are a beginner, a weak player (no offense), the ICM will "work" for you. If there is a ICM. If there is not (winner takes all), this is just, like a cash game. If you are good, you will have a big edge.
The more players is better. Let's say, you double up. You play $5, now your chips is $10, double stack (without ICM). You play against weaker field ($5), they will do the same mistakes (for $5). Also , you "pay rake" for 5$. If you play against more players (MTT), the ICM will be a small factor. At the early stages. This is an edge. "Possible" edge. If you are good...
MTT is very, very profitable. Not like SnG. Not even close...But there is a huge variance. And the big edge not helping much. If you play 3k-4k tournament and you are good, you will have amazing ROI. "Theoretical"...Something like 200-300%. Huge one...But the luck is such a huge factor in this tournament, with many people. And your ROI just don't matters. This is still a "toto", "bingo". "lottery". MTT with 200-500 players is "perfect", but still it comes with a huge variance. Big roll needed...

I am for big fields. There are more prizes)

Originally Posted by 007Leon

By playing with fewer players, your chances of profiting are higher, but the amount is proportional to the number of players, on the other hand, in multi-table tournaments, with little investment the prize amount is higher, but the probability is lower, and the difficulty is greater. . What do you prefer when making money ... few players or multi-table tournaments?

You should try them all and see which ones you have the best success at.

Multi Table Tournaments and also Single Table Tournaments.

Good luck !

i play there and there.For me there is no difference, I am happy with any prizes, both small and large

I prefer bigger fields. Especially when there is some big series played and the event is 2- or 3-days

I like the bigger fields but get a higher profit on the smaller ones.

Originally Posted by FF2586

Heyyy

Defenitely the bigger prize
I used to like sit n gos, but the touney prizes are so big, especially when you win one or two.

Poker is a hobby for me
If it isn't Id choose sngs

gl gl gl

Exactly! The massive prize pools are so alluring to us recreational players because of the chance to strike it big. Most pro players make their money on rakeback, so more tournaments = more money. From that perspective, the most lucrative option would be double-or-nothing SnG's because you have less to risk and generally break even while grinding rake.

There's so much variance in MTTs, but it's such a rush to get deep in one.

I think without a doubt 90% of players will choose a large prize pool (from 5-10. 000$) and will not think about the number of players and I think this is right, no matter how many players are playing against you, if you play correctly without gross mistakes, with a good analysis and understanding of the situation at the table, a large number of players is just more time of the tournament When you can get to the top 100 in a tournament with a huge prize pool and beat 3-5,000 players, it's an amazing emotion and adrenaline rush

Tournaments when you play 100 people and Yes you win will never bring you such emotions But I choose an average Lol from 700 to 1,500 players this is the best solution and the prize money is distributed very evenly (PokerStars)

I prefer tournaments with a large number of players because the prize will increase and there are more positions in ITM, however there will be an increase in variance. On the other hand, in a tournament with few players there will be fewer paid places.

I like to play big tournaments, but when I have little time I enjoy playing single table sit and go

Depends. If an MTT and a GTD prize pool - less players means higher chance of an overlay which increases our value for buy in cost. However big tournies, esp without GTD prize pool can increase our edge as there may be more poor players (and prize pool has potential to be bigger than a smaller MTT).

Of course, it is better to play a tournament with a small player. Even ambassadors prefer these tournaments

Good afternoon, where there are a lot of players it is harder to get into good money, so for beginners I would recommend tournaments with a small number of players!

The bigger prize of course , because all of us playing for it and it is on the first place.

My good friend has a nice phrase that obviously favors the second option, and I agree with him: "More cows - more milk ..."

Originally Posted by 300HPGOD

I personally like bigger fields but that is a personal choice. Smaller fields should have less variance but not always. I tend to think that larger fields will have more bad players and those are the players you really profit from. Yes there will be more good players as well but I will take that chance to have a better chance of having bad players at my table. I also like the larger tournament fields since the guarantees are higher for that buy in and you have a shot at larger money. Again, I think this question does not have a right or wrong answer but more along the lines of what you feel comfortable playing.

I couldn't agree with you more. The larger the field the better the odds of being able to get to money if you can be patient and play smart. Just watch how fast the tables thin out and remember that even great players will take a hit from shear number of bad players as if you have 1 good player for every 8 bad, they have to dodge all the horrible draws which is extremely hard when they just keep coming from all directions. My problem tends to be my patience runs out

Originally Posted by 300HPGOD

I personally like bigger fields but that is a personal choice. Smaller fields should have less variance but not always. I tend to think that larger fields will have more bad players and those are the players you really profit from. Yes there will be more good players as well but I will take that chance to have a better chance of having bad players at my table. I also like the larger tournament fields since the guarantees are higher for that buy in and you have a shot at larger money. Again, I think this question does not have a right or wrong answer but more along the lines of what you feel comfortable playing.

Yes I had it and it was a glorious flop of a hand. I had QJ of spades and checked my BB with 3 or so other players in the hand... playing on Full Tilt back in 2005 I think. Flop came out AKT all spades and the pot was a whopping 8 or 9 cents. I checked and of course everyone else did too. Turn came, I checked again to a table of checks. Same on the river as I was hoping someone would try to steal but I wanted to just show that I had it. Got a lot of congrats from the table but felt cheated that all I got was less than a dime.

i like small field mtts because i'm garbage and there is no way i'll do well in large field games.

at least smaller fields gives me somewhat of a chance to do well.

I think you need to start playing tournaments with fewer players to gain experience.

In general, in most cases I prefer Sit & Go tournaments or MTT tournaments. Both of these options are perfect for me and most importantly I really like them.

I prefer to play and
there is no big or small difference, the main thing is to be in the prizes. Experience comes with time. Good luck to all poker players!

IMHO, games with less amount of players can give you more, because more players = more time to finish and it`s hard to be 100% concentrated all the time

i play on SwC...a very small player pool...on the cash tables at my stakes half are regs ( semipros) half are recreational players.
one has to be very choosy who with and how one plays pots. The regs all have notes on eachother of course...so adaptability and unpredictability are key to winning.

the tourneys are different of course...but its usually the same cats on the final tables.

I prefer this..it suits my game well...the tourneys I play...between 1k and 5k gtee usually have around 50 players...and i know/have notes on more than half of them.

big mtts...ok...but too much variance in the long haul for my liking.

This is why I tend to stick to multi table sit n go’s for my daily grind.
The 45 player is perfect for me because I know approximately how long it takes to complete so I can plan my sessions better. But when there are huge guarantees like the micro millions then will always take a stab at the big paydays.

Originally Posted by 007Leon

By playing with fewer players, your chances of profiting are higher, but the amount is proportional to the number of players, on the other hand, in multi-table tournaments, with little investment the prize amount is higher, but the probability is lower, and the difficulty is greater. . What do you prefer when making money ... few players or multi-table tournaments?

There is no question that I win more often in two-ring and smaller games. That makes sense, statistically. My ideal size is 18 - 48 players in terms of win-rate.

But it is hard not to dream a bit and have a go at larger fields and larger potential prizes.
But right now, I'm just moving money around from the smaller games to the larger games!

Cheers,
ObbleeXY

I'm pretty new to poker and haven't really played many of the smaller field tournaments, mostly because they tend to have quick blind levels that I'm not used to.

However, I think if there were an answer to this question, at least for someone who is grinding many tournaments per day and is seriously trying to earn money, it would be somewhere in the middle. In exactly the same way that one must increase the volume of tournaments played to compensate for the game's inherent variance, one should also diversify the types of tournament structures played during a session.

Regardless of whether you prefer large field or small field tournaments, it would certainly behoove you to mix in some of what you do not like to play for the benefits many have already mentioned.

The others have mentioned that large fields have high variance but high rewards, so mixing one or two of these into your daily session might allow for a big score every once in a while, and big scores are crucial to a climbing bankroll.

On the other hand, others have mentioned that smaller field MTTs or SNGs have lower variance and lower rewards but offer more consistent returns on your investment. Therefore, mixing one or two (or more, since they are inherently faster) of these into your daily session can mitigate some up-and-down feel your bankroll may experience if your primarily play large field MTTs.

from 100 to 500 buyins are ideal for me, less chance, or call "variance" find me on river with the 1-2 outs, and kick me out after long hours. That is why I prefer turbos, even hyper turbos... as playing the normal, slow ones result the same, but takes double time....

Originally Posted by Adi8877

from 100 to 500 buyins are ideal for me, less chance, or call "variance" find me on river with the 1-2 outs, and kick me out after long hours. That is why I prefer turbos, even hyper turbos... as playing the normal, slow ones result the same, but takes double time....

I agree with you , but there are no so many freeroll turbos and you should be patient at all tournaments

Fewer players are more likely to win. But I play any tournaments, because I don't know which one I can play well in.

I personally think it is a preference to what is better. You should play what you like. I admit I like the bigger tournaments as I find they fun as hell and the thrill of making a final table is great when against playing 3000+ players. The problem of these larger events is the variance. If you win one you will have a positive ROI for a very long time. The problem is you may never win one. Even if you play every day you on average should make the final table once every 333+ tournaments. For smaller events you will never win as much cash but the variance is so much smaller. Even if you go on a downturn one or 2 good tournament could bring you back to a positive ROI again. I dont have time to play the bigger tournaments but I do play one 3 to 4 times a week on average that's a turbo with about 720 players and is not easy knowing that at the pace I play i should only make a final table once every 5 or 6 months. While making a final table is nice its only for about 8.5 buy ins won if I finish 9th and that does not really make up for all the times I missed the money of cashed for less. Yet the 129+ buy ins for the win is nice. You just need you realize how rare it is to win one.

Recently I won this event and the thrill of it for me made it worth the variance but trust me when I say this, Its not easy seeing yourself down 60+ buy ins at point trying to win one of them.

multi table is better for me.

It really doesn't matter to me. I love mtt. More the Merrier.

Smaller field every time. Rather a tournament pay less places but bigger payouts than play for 2 hours to end up with 4c.

I have always found that bigger fields are far better for the game in general. I miss the days where a 10 dollar tournament could yield 30 grand. But everyone is different. Final table money has to be attractive for me to play my best game or to take a tournament seriously even when I am extremely short stacked. This is not the case for me in smaller tournaments early on. But conversely, smaller fields can be great if it's a higher buy in sometimes, especially if you haven't made a final table in a while

Originally Posted by 007Leon

By playing with fewer players, your chances of profiting are higher, but the amount is proportional to the number of players, on the other hand, in multi-table tournaments, with little investment the prize amount is higher, but the probability is lower, and the difficulty is greater. . What do you prefer when making money ... few players or multi-table tournaments?

Good day!
I prefer MTT, the number of participants in which does not exceed 1000 people. I don't like kilo fields. Especially if these are micro-limits. It takes a miracle to make it to a good prize pool or the final table.

Originally Posted by jonnybegoode

I have always found that bigger fields are far better for the game in general. I miss the days where a 10 dollar tournament could yield 30 grand. But everyone is different. Final table money has to be attractive for me to play my best game or to take a tournament seriously even when I am extremely short stacked. This is not the case for me in smaller tournaments early on. But conversely, smaller fields can be great if it's a higher buy in sometimes, especially if you haven't made a final table in a while

I agree with Jonny—those were the days!

More entries (not to mention the common structure of unlimited reentry for an extended period) is going to tend to make it all higher variance. This is great when things are going well but has the potential to make break-even stretches, or even downswings, go on seemingly forever lol.

That’s why I think it’s way more important for us MTTers to have a healthy perspective on variance and to be good at “zooming out” and focusing on the long term!

Hi.
For me, the best option is MTT tournaments. I like when there are a large number of participants, and although such a tournament can last a very long time, but nevertheless, I believe that the prize fund in such tournaments deserves my time and my attention.
Good luck.

I love big fields! It feels so good when you are at final table in a tourney with over 600 entries or more. I do think icm is important though, and it's best to learn by experience. Let's face it, your are more likely to get close to the money and reach FT and have icm considerations more often when playing smaller tourneys.

This really boils down to personal preference.

with a STT, the average player with cash 33% of the time (9 handed). In MTT's the ITM % is normally 15%, but the rake is generally a bit less. In STT's your biggest win will only ever be around 4x your buy-in, whereas in MTT's 1st prize will often be more than 100x your buy-in and in some huge tournaments it can be 10,000x. Of course, only one person can come first and your chances are very slim out of a 25,000 strong field.

The allure of a big cash attract lots of players to the MTT's, while time and convenience is a big plus for STT's.

Personally, I prefer MTT's because it's easier to play more at once. With STT's as soon as you lose a couple of players from each table the decisions come round much quicker and so you miss spots you wouldn't otherwise miss. With MTT's, by the time you are shorthanded I've normally bust most of them so I can concentrate on the few I have left to play.

It’s all depends on my mood, sometimes I play only STT, sometimes I play MTT. I played in Saturday 22$ Blowout series for 8 hours, and continued on Sunday and played 90 min more before busted on 600 place. Field was 65000 players and I could get better place but I played for win and didn’t work out well. Now I can’t play even a spin n go. Like I said I it’s all about my mood.

I like low entry fee MTTs, as I enjoy playing them. Hours of entertainment for little risk / possible high reward.

For me it’s not about the amount of players in a MTT because I personally like to play large field,, butt it’s the level timing. If the level timing is say 20 to 30min apart that’s a long time for online MTT Then players will play slower and cause me to get distracted doing something else

I would much rather play with more people than less. Easier to pick people off and build your bankroll. I think the less people there are .....you have to play a lot tighter.