less players less money more players more money

[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?

 

[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.

 

[nuttea]

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

 

[thehangdude]

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.

 

[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

 

[fundiver199]

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

 

[HungryLyan]

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.

 

[UkoChebuko]

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...

 

[madbeeet]

I am for big fields. There are more prizes)

 

[Poker_Mike]

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 !

 

[MAGICUZ]

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

 

[eluwinka0]

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

 

[BobbyMorton]

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

 

[RimworldDoctor]

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. :bandit:

 

[LFC_yllnwa]

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)

 

[wilberth]

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.

 

[frost234]

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

 

[quick]

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).

 

[KeyJey]

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

 

[slais_pro]

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!

 

[Suzana2304]

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

 

[pljosko]

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

 

[theheeb1984]

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

 

[theheeb1984]

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.

 

[ph_il]

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.