monkey23
Visionary
Silver Level
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.
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.
R
Ron112355
Legend
Loyaler
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.
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.
ObbleeXY
Visionary
Bronze Level
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
S
sundizzel
Enthusiast
Silver Level
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.
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.
Adi8877
Visionary
Silver Level
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....
S
Suzana2304
Rock Star
Silver Level
I agree with you , but there are no so many freeroll turbos and you should be patient at all tournaments
Luvepoker
Lost in the twilight zone
Community Guide
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.
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.
J
jonnybegoode
Enthusiast
Silver Level
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
M
MakTrue
Visionary
Silver Level
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.
Katie Dozier
Poker Expert
Silver Level
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!
Newzooozooo
Legend
Loyaler
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.
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.
Amanda A
Legend
Bronze Level
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.
Matt_Burns88
Legend
Loyaler
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.
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.
P
popstani
Visionary
Silver Level
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.
P
Pokerboss1000
Rising Star
Silver Level
More players more money less player less money
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
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