Are the small 0.25¢ buy in tournaments worth playing?

I find these very difficult to play but don't know whether a higher buy in tournament would be more difficult.
The micro tourneys seem full of maniacs going all in constantly.

Is it better to play in larger buy in tournaments where you start with a bigger stack?

Which events are you talking about, and what is your reason for playing them? For me I dont think, you absolutely have to start THAT low, if you are able to make a deposit, which allow you to play just a little bit higher.

On PokerStars for instance a reasonable place to begin is the 45 man SnGs, and while they do have a 25c version of these, its not exactly like, it will break the bank, if you skip that and start practicing with the 1$ version instead. Which can reasonably be done with a 70-100$ bankroll.

With that being said learning to deal with "wild" players is also part of the game, and this does not become any easier, just because you move up. Maybe there are a few less of them, but they are the players, who a lot of your profit comes from, so you need to learn to love rather than hate them.

Originally Posted by fundiver199

Which events are you talking about, and what is your reason for playing them? For me I dont think, you absolutely have to start THAT low, if you are able to make a deposit, which allow you to play just a little bit higher.

On PokerStars for instance a reasonable place to begin is the 45 man SnGs, and while they do have a 25c version of these, its not exactly like, it will break the bank, if you skip that and start practicing with the 1$ version instead. Which can reasonably be done with a 70-100$ bankroll.

With that being said learning to deal with "wild" players is also part of the game, and this does not become any easier, just because you move up. Maybe there are a few less of them, but they are the players, who a lot of your profit comes from, so you need to learn to love rather than hate them.

I was picking those as I naturally assumed this is where I should be starting off as a very very basic amateur.
I will consider moving up the stakes slightly as I agree with what you're saying.

I think I definitely need to learn to embrace these players.
Any advice for dealing with them?

Originally Posted by johnoman

Any advice for dealing with them?

Most of all patience and a understanding of the long term nature of the game. Sometimes they will beat you in the most surreal ways, but in the long run they can not fight math against you

Originally Posted by fundiver199

Most of all patience and a understanding of the long term nature of the game. Sometimes they will beat you in the most surreal ways, but in the long run they can not fight math against you

I'll definitely just stick with it and keep grinding.

Similar position to you, I'm trying to go with a $25 bankroll (100 buy-ins at the 25c stake). My outlook is if I can't win at the lowest stakes why should I assume to do better higher up. The bad beats are the worst though.....

If you can multi table them and cash...definitely

Originally Posted by nwhitney118

Similar position to you, I'm trying to go with a $25 bankroll (100 buy-ins at the 25c stake). My outlook is if I can't win at the lowest stakes why should I assume to do better higher up. The bad beats are the worst though.....

Definitely see what you're saying.

My biggest weakness has been giving in to the manics shoving all in constantly early on. As a result I have busted out on a number of occasions.
I'm now being much more patient and thinking through what my line is.

I have started playing in the $1 SNG on Pokerstars as was suggested earlier up in this thread. You should give one of them a try - I noticed a huge difference in the style of play.

Originally Posted by johnoman

I have started playing in the $1 SNG on Pokerstars as was suggested earlier up in this thread. You should give one of them a try - I noticed a huge difference in the style of play.

They are relatively reg-infested, even they are only for 1$. But maybe this does actually give a better learning environment, since its more like, what you will find in MTTs for say 3-5$. And as I said already, it does not exactly break the bank for most people, if they end up losing a bit of money in 1$ tournaments. In a sense anything below that should perhaps be called nanostakes rather than microstakes

I find the micro tournaments you get a lot of donkey's that don't take it serious in the beginning if you can't navigate through to later stages you have a better chance of winning.

Well it depends, if you are playing for fun its definietely worth it, why not. It is true that there are a lot of players that play very agressively. If you go to a little bit higher buy-ins, there will probably be less of them, that does not mean it will be easier tho.

I don't think it's worth it, a lot of the time there are few prizes.But this is just my opinion

The biggest issue with these tournaments are a lot of players don’t care and will call with anything. Which is great when you hand holds up but the sheer number of times you get into these situations you will eventually lose. The other issue of course is the payout is quite small for the time you put in. Less than minimum wage, and that’s if you win.

That said, you have to play at the levels that fit you skill and bankroll. You can win more at higher stakes but you can lose lot more too.

Originally Posted by fundiver199

They are relatively reg-infested, even they are only for 1$. But maybe this does actually give a better learning environment, since its more like, what you will find in MTTs for say 3-5$. And as I said already, it does not exactly break the bank for most people, if they end up losing a bit of money in 1$ tournaments. In a sense anything below that should perhaps be called nanostakes rather than microstakes

I've played in a couple since your suggestion and I think you gave me very good advice.
They play a lot better and definitely creates a better environment for beginners.

Originally Posted by Psyanide14

The biggest issue with these tournaments are a lot of players don’t care and will call with anything. Which is great when you hand holds up but the sheer number of times you get into these situations you will eventually lose. The other issue of course is the payout is quite small for the time you put in. Less than minimum wage, and that’s if you win.

That said, you have to play at the levels that fit you skill and bankroll. You can win more at higher stakes but you can lose lot more too.

Very sound advice - hopefully I'll be able to play a few more higher stakes in the coming months.
I'm trying to get a lot of study in off the table too

Originally Posted by kucu2014

I don't think it's worth it, a lot of the time there are few prizes.But this is just my opinion

Which sized buy ins do you normally opt for?

yes, microstakes are worth it.

if you're an inexperienced player, just starting, or maybe you want to work your way up the stakes, the micros is a great place to start for a number of reasons:

• it helps you get down the basic fundamentals
• you go through negative/positive variance
• you experience bad beats, learn how you react (negatively or positively) to them, and you can work on how to get over them
• you can experiment with different concepts like opening wider in late position, adjusting strategies with different stack sizes at different stages of an mtt, hand reading, board reading, etc, etc etc.

and you can do all that at a very low price. honestly, i would rather play and lose 500x $1 mtts as i'm learn and improve than i would to play and lose 500x $20 mtts as i learn and improve.

as someone that has been playing for a while, i play the microstakes mtts because i'm a casual player and i enjoy playing the lower stakes. in fact, i have more fun playing $1 mtts than i did when i tried playing $11. and it wasn't because of the skill level gap between the two buy-ins, it's because i get the same excitement playing and running deep in a $1 mtt as i do an $11 mtt, but i can play 10x as more mtts with the lower buy-in.

now, i'm in no way telling anyone what to do with their money but i have a big belief that, if you aren't able to beat the worst players at the lowest levels, you aren't going to beat the better players at the higher levels. it just doesn't work that way for majority of players. so, if you're having trouble with the micros and it's players, then there is room for improvement on your part. also, keep in mind that 'beating' micros or any level isn't about winning every mtt or every hand you play, it's long term profiting. if you play .25 mtts and you have a 15% itm, 20% roi, and you're making $25 a month in profits, you're beating it. mtts is a fun game where the best players bust out of more games than they cash, but they still have huge profits overall. so keep in mind that winning in mtts isn't just taking 1st place in an mtt, but also profiting in the long run. would you rather be the person that never wins an mtt but has $500 in profit after 1000x $1 mtts or would you rather be the person that has won an mtt but is still -$500 after playing 1000x $1 mtts?

as far as dealing with the maniacs in early stages, just fold majority of your hands and get it in when you have a huge equity edge. it's so simple and you don't need to play a ton of hands to do well in a mtt, especially at the start of a game that's going to last 2-3+ hours to finish. honestly, who cares if your table jams every hand for the first 2 blind levels and you have to fold, say, 50 hands in a row? how much did folding 50 hands and giving up your blinds affect your stack size? probably very little. if you started with 100 bbs, you might be down to 80-90 big blinds, which is still playable. has your chance of winning the mtt decreased any? no. in fact, it's increased because there are now less players. who cares if you're now 99/400 (out of 600 starting) players because you had to fold a ton of hands at the start. you're still in it, you still have the chance to do well.

and when you get your big hands, don't be afraid to play for you stack. don't be afraid to lose against maniac players that will call of with 27o when you aa for 100 bbs. the things is, you're going to lose with big hand sometimes. the more players you're up against, the more often you'll lose, but you also win a lot more often than they do. and not only that, you're earning so much in value when you get in with your big hands. in the end, results don't matter. you lose with aces an an mtt, oh well. it's variance, it's bad beat (if you see it like that), and it's going to happen a lot when you play. what's important isn't the fact that your aces lost, it's if you made the right decision and 99.9% of the time, getting it in with aces is never a bad decision. yeah, it sucks and it's hard to keep that mentality when you get it in good and lose with aces, but it's a long term game and you have to think about how your decision affects your results in 100 games, 1000 games, 10k games, etc.

Originally Posted by ohshootmybad

yes, microstakes are worth it.

if you're an inexperienced player, just starting, or maybe you want to work your way up the stakes, the micros is a great place to start for a number of reasons:

• it helps you get down the basic fundamentals
• you go through negative/positive variance
• you experience bad beats, learn how you react (negatively or positively) to them, and you can work on how to get over them
• you can experiment with different concepts like opening wider in late position, adjusting strategies with different stack sizes at different stages of an mtt, hand reading, board reading, etc, etc etc.

and you can do all that at a very low price. honestly, i would rather play and lose 500x $1 mtts as i'm learn and improve than i would to play and lose 500x $20 mtts as i learn and improve.

as someone that has been playing for a while, i play the microstakes mtts because i'm a casual player and i enjoy playing the lower stakes. in fact, i have more fun playing $1 mtts than i did when i tried playing $11. and it wasn't because of the skill level gap between the two buy-ins, it's because i get the same excitement playing and running deep in a $1 mtt as i do an $11 mtt, but i can play 10x as more mtts with the lower buy-in.

now, i'm in no way telling anyone what to do with their money but i have a big belief that, if you aren't able to beat the worst players at the lowest levels, you aren't going to beat the better players at the higher levels. it just doesn't work that way for majority of players. so, if you're having trouble with the micros and it's players, then there is room for improvement on your part. also, keep in mind that 'beating' micros or any level isn't about winning every mtt or every hand you play, it's long term profiting. if you play .25 mtts and you have a 15% itm, 20% roi, and you're making $25 a month in profits, you're beating it. mtts is a fun game where the best players bust out of more games than they cash, but they still have huge profits overall. so keep in mind that winning in mtts isn't just taking 1st place in an mtt, but also profiting in the long run. would you rather be the person that never wins an mtt but has $500 in profit after 1000x $1 mtts or would you rather be the person that has won an mtt but is still -$500 after playing 1000x $1 mtts?

as far as dealing with the maniacs in early stages, just fold majority of your hands and get it in when you have a huge equity edge. it's so simple and you don't need to play a ton of hands to do well in a mtt, especially at the start of a game that's going to last 2-3+ hours to finish. honestly, who cares if your table jams every hand for the first 2 blind levels and you have to fold, say, 50 hands in a row? how much did folding 50 hands and giving up your blinds affect your stack size? probably very little. if you started with 100 bbs, you might be down to 80-90 big blinds, which is still playable. has your chance of winning the mtt decreased any? no. in fact, it's increased because there are now less players. who cares if you're now 99/400 (out of 600 starting) players because you had to fold a ton of hands at the start. you're still in it, you still have the chance to do well.

and when you get your big hands, don't be afraid to play for you stack. don't be afraid to lose against maniac players that will call of with 27o when you aa for 100 bbs. the things is, you're going to lose with big hand sometimes. the more players you're up against, the more often you'll lose, but you also win a lot more often than they do. and not only that, you're earning so much in value when you get in with your big hands. in the end, results don't matter. you lose with aces an an mtt, oh well. it's variance, it's bad beat (if you see it like that), and it's going to happen a lot when you play. what's important isn't the fact that your aces lost, it's if you made the right decision and 99.9% of the time, getting it in with aces is never a bad decision. yeah, it sucks and it's hard to keep that mentality when you get it in good and lose with aces, but it's a long term game and you have to think about how your decision affects your results in 100 games, 1000 games, 10k games, etc.

That is an excellently crafted response which I thank you very much for taking the time type out.

I definitely take on board what you are saying and do agree with you. I just need keep that positive mentality in my head about long term edge and let the maniacs battle it, keeping my patience.

Thank you again! Hopefully I can transcribe a lot of that to the tables.

Yes they are worth it took a break from playing many $100+ buy ins on one site today excluded myself responsible screenshot 1.jpg

HI There
Of course if you have a BR of 70/100,00 then it is not worth playing 25/50 cents
but if yout BR is in the lows 10/15.00 then it is the best way to go up
Rgds

Originally Posted by johnoman

That is an excellently crafted response which I thank you very much for taking the time type out.

I definitely take on board what you are saying and do agree with you. I just need keep that positive mentality in my head about long term edge and let the maniacs battle it, keeping my patience.

Thank you again! Hopefully I can transcribe a lot of that to the tables.

you're welcome.

another thing you can try, if the games offer it, is late registering. i late register in all my games now and have had great results. i didn't late register because the early stage maniacs, but because i am an early stage nit and fold 99% of my hands. so, i figured, why not just use that 30 minutes of hand folding i'm going to be doing already to do something else, and then hop on later?

if stacks start at100 bbs and you late register with ~75 bbs, you still have a healthy stack to play with and you skip over most of the early stage maniacs.

now i start with 15-25 bbs when i late register and i'm comfortable to doing so. i admit, running deep at such a disadvantage takes a lot of luck on my part, but there are also a lot of weak mid-late stage players that i can take advantage of. so, for the most part, it works out. if i'm being honest, i didn't start seeing big mtt results until i started late registering and made some minor changes to my game.

best of luck to you.

Freerolls are the worst tournaments. And I believe the level raises with the buy in. Not easier our harder, but better. You wont see bingo movies

Great post! Thank you all guys for sharing you vision, specially to ohshootmybad. I will move on to high buy-ins. At the moment I'm only playing the Freerolls and up to $1. It seems the time to move on. Cheers!

Originally Posted by johnoman

I've played in a couple since your suggestion and I think you gave me very good advice. They play a lot better and definitely creates a better environment for beginners.

Great that my advice was usefull! There is also a 1$ 180 man and a 1,5$ 90 man knockout SnG on Stars, and these are also great for getting MTT experience. They have 15 minute blind intervals, and this mean, that in the late stage, when you get in the money, and blind increases slow down, they are pretty much like a regular MTT with average stack sizes around 30-40BB. The 45 man has 10 minute blind intervals, but because blinds go up fast, it is actually a semi-turbo format compared to regular MTTs.

After this however there is not so much upside potential. There is a 3,5$ 45 man, but this mostly run in the turbo version, and the turbo SnGs on Stars are to fast in my opinion. They are almost exclusively push-fold games, and this makes it difficult to find edge. There is a 4,5 $ 36-180 man "on demand", which has 45 minutes late registration, so its kind of a SnG / MTT hybrid, which is a great idea. It is however very reg infested, and you can definitely find softer 4-5$ MTTs on other sites than PokerStars.

Rigth now I am playing MTTs on 888 Poker, and just to give an example, in one of the tables I have a VPIP 71 / PFR 44 / 3-bet 18 over 102 hands on my right. This is a 5$ R+A, which mean, that my average investment is going to around 15$. First price is typically 200-300$ in these events. And yet you still see some people playing like this.

I think , if you want to play for living (or "semi), you must play at least $5, $3 rebuy or hyper. As minimum. If you play smaller MTTs for "money", not for fun, they just not worth it. Compared to cash games and SnG. And I think this is impossible, even at $5, if you play only in one room. At least four...You must have at least $800. And with this $800 you can play NL25, SnG $10-$15. You can do the math. You can find rooms with leaderboards, rakeback. Even at $5 MTT is pretty hard to justify your choice. But who know, maybe you are very good at MTTs. You need a roll, mate. Huge one...To play MTT...

Originally Posted by UkoChebuko

I think , if you want to play for living (or "semi), you must play at least $5, $3 rebuy or hyper. As minimum. If you play smaller MTTs for "money", not for fun, they just not worth it.

Definitely agree with this. Any kind of micro stakes games and especially the lower end of the micros like 1-2$ tournaments or 2-5NL cash is either for fun or practicing. Its not for making money and actually not even "to build a bankroll", as so many people do. If OP gets to a point, where he feel, that he is beating those 1-1,5$ 45-180 man SnGs on Stars, then his best option in my opinion is to withdraw his funds and deposit 500$ on another poker site like 888 Poker and then start to play 2-5$ MTTs there. The point being, that even if he lack say 200$ for the proper bankroll, there are much faster ways to earn those money than by playing 1-2$ MTTs. At least this is true, if you live in a country with decent salaries.

I did the same thing at first and always hit all in to the maniacs
I am now playing in the 45 SNG on pokerstars and I have managed to finish 1st 2 times, so definitely the patience is the key.

Originally Posted by johnoman

Definitely see what you're saying.

My biggest weakness has been giving in to the manics shoving all in constantly early on. As a result I have busted out on a number of occasions.
I'm now being much more patient and thinking through what my line is.

I have started playing in the $1 SNG on Pokerstars as was suggested earlier up in this thread. You should give one of them a try - I noticed a huge difference in the style of play.

Originally Posted by johnoman

Which sized buy ins do you normally opt for?

7.50 USD. Or bigger, but I'm trying to get into it satellite

Originally Posted by Mvr96

I did the same thing at first and always hit all in to the maniacs
I am now playing in the 45 SNG on pokerstars and I have managed to finish 1st 2 times, so definitely the patience is the key.

That's good! Well done to you for sticking that out.

There is hope! Haha

Micro tournaments are a waste of time, it is better to qualify for a major tournament via a satellite. Who has a lot of time, micro tournaments can play,but for me it's a waste of time

sure it is , you start with small ammount and then if your good you can go to bigger tournaments and then .....
thats what i do

I always start my bankrolls using freerolls and micro stakes tournies. If something "black-fridayish" happens again I never have any of my own money at risk. So to me they are definitely worth it even if only to build a bankroll.

You can take shots at bigger buy-ins, less random there. Mix it up! Play all buy-ins

Originally Posted by johnoman

Are the small 0.25¢ buy in tournaments worth playing?

I find these very difficult to play but don't know whether a higher buy in tournament would be more difficult.
The micro tourneys seem full of maniacs going all in constantly.

Is it better to play in larger buy in tournaments where you start with a bigger stack?

Friend, everything that you think is a better solution or decision you should experience for yourself, if you notice in your thread the answers are varied, some in favor and others against. Playing at a low level, you need to adapt to everyone's games including maniacs, each level has its own strategy. Play, experiment and where you feel best stay there and adapt.

Originally Posted by Jim Rivas

Friend, everything that you think is a better solution or decision you should experience for yourself, if you notice in your thread the answers are varied, some in favor and others against. Playing at a low level, you need to adapt to everyone's games including maniacs, each level has its own strategy. Play, experiment and where you feel best stay there and adapt.

Thanks for that :-)

Originally Posted by johnoman

Are the small 0.25¢ buy in tournaments worth playing?

I find these very difficult to play but don't know whether a higher buy in tournament would be more difficult.
The micro tourneys seem full of maniacs going all in constantly.

Is it better to play in larger buy in tournaments where you start with a bigger stack?

I think it's best to avoid such tournaments as soon as possible and move to a higher limit. they are worth attention only if you really have no opportunity above. if there is one, go for $ 1 and more

I think that it is worth playing them in order to gain experience and gradually move up the limits. While playing regular tournaments, not turbo, hyper turbo, super hyper turbo.

I think if you feel comfortable at that Buy In level, they are worth it.
I recommend that you be very tight at first, as this is when all maniacs do any type of movement just for fun. And when you have a medium or strong hand, put all your chips.
As the stages go by, the more serious players remain and it is already a more playable poker.

Originally Posted by johnoman

Are the small 0.25¢ buy in tournaments worth playing?

I find these very difficult to play but don't know whether a higher buy in tournament would be more difficult.
The micro tourneys seem full of maniacs going all in constantly.

Is it better to play in larger buy in tournaments where you start with a bigger stack?

It depends how high your bankroll is.... low buy in tournaments are still worth playing in my opinion.

I think that your chances of winning do not depend on the cost of the tournament, but on your skills and experience. Even if you play in a $ 10 buy-in tournament, that doesn't mean you won't meet a maniac at the table.

LBI micros are about getting your chops down and getting familiar with the interface. sure you can grind out a few pennies playing them but they are way more about practice than the money. Plus they are a great source of laughs. Nothing wrong with putting A "C" note on there and spinning it up. the biggest problem is almost impossible to get any kind of volume because until your playing like 1.50s on ACR+ a few others you just cant find enough games to play to overcome normal variance. the high side is the players are unusually bad and your unlikely to find players as bad at any other stakes. I feel the freerolls at cards chat and jackpot are a better source of practice than $.10 to $.50 micros

Originally Posted by johnoman

Are the small 0.25¢ buy in tournaments worth playing?

I find these very difficult to play but don't know whether a higher buy in tournament would be more difficult.
The micro tourneys seem full of maniacs going all in constantly.

Is it better to play in larger buy in tournaments where you start with a bigger stack?

yes, you are right, there are many players at micro stakes who go all in. Best of all, the game at micro stakes takes place in the MTT bounty for 0.55
if you want to play micro stakes

Originally Posted by johnoman

Are the small 0.25¢ buy in tournaments worth playing?

I find these very difficult to play but don't know whether a higher buy in tournament would be more difficult.
The micro tourneys seem full of maniacs going all in constantly.

Is it better to play in larger buy in tournaments where you start with a bigger stack?

Hey John, for myself - I have only been playing since Feb of last year. I studied for about half a year before that while playing play money.
So when I started - I felt obliged to grind at the lowest level - to pay my dues, and also to learn to play period. At the lowest level it was very cheap to learn how best to play my game, and also I wanted to have the feeling of "graduating" moving up in stakes.
Even though it was HELL - not going to lie - I felt like I needed to go through that hell because I came into poker so late compared to others. I'm in my 40s - so as a Gen X'er - I guess - I felt I needed to earn my way into better games.

Originally Posted by ohshootmybad

yes, microstakes are worth it.

if you're an inexperienced player, just starting, or maybe you want to work your way up the stakes, the micros is a great place to start for a number of reasons:

• it helps you get down the basic fundamentals
• you go through negative/positive variance
• you experience bad beats, learn how you react (negatively or positively) to them, and you can work on how to get over them
• you can experiment with different concepts like opening wider in late position, adjusting strategies with different stack sizes at different stages of an mtt, hand reading, board reading, etc, etc etc.

and you can do all that at a very low price. honestly, i would rather play and lose 500x $1 mtts as i'm learn and improve than i would to play and lose 500x $20 mtts as i learn and improve.

Great post. In agreement - playing the lowest levels for an entire year I was able to go through the gamut of emotions in dealing with bad beats, coolers, and the crap maniac luckboxes. I've been able to temper my emotions nearly entirely now - when the bad beats hit. The lowest levels are great, cheap experimental and training grounds.

Originally Posted by 7CardKillR

LBI micros are about getting your chops down and getting familiar with the interface. sure you can grind out a few pennies playing them but they are way more about practice than the money. Plus they are a great source of laughs. Nothing wrong with putting A "C" note on there and spinning it up. the biggest problem is almost impossible to get any kind of volume because until your playing like 1.50s on ACR+ a few others you just cant find enough games to play to overcome normal variance. the high side is the players are unusually bad and your unlikely to find players as bad at any other stakes. I feel the freerolls at cards chat and jackpot are a better source of practice than $.10 to $.50 micros

As above - I 100% agree with this spot on post.

I think playing supermicrolimits is really only worth it for selection. (sattelites). In tournaments where there are more than 1000 players with buy in up to$ 0.50, it is impossible to win big money and get real pleasure from playing poker. There are maniacs and super aggressive players in every tournament, at every level of the game, this is a feature of poker , but at a very low level, of course, there are much more of them.

Play, selections for big tournaments with buy in up to 0.50$ this is really a good investment and a great opportunity for a comfortable game and good prize money.

Micro tournaments are good to learn how to play, but there are to
many all ins with junk hands. Didn't cost you much so you got nothing to lose.

Realy?? I mean micros are realy easy to play... Just wait for hand and be ready to start new tournament when have bad beat... But they are good to learn discipline!

Originally Posted by fundiver199

Above all, patience and understanding of the long-term nature of the game. Sometimes they will beat you in the most surreal way, but in the long run they won't be able to fight the math

Originally Posted by nwhitney118

Similar position to yours, I'm trying to call with a bankroll of $ 25 (100 buy-ins on the 25c bet). My perspective is that if I can't win at the lower stakes, why should I assume I'll do better higher? However, bad beats are the worst .....

I am with these two opinions, I have a similar opinion of the situation mentioned in the post

Greetings

I think 0.25$ is a little to low and looking at the time you have to spend for me this is a waste of time. I see only one situation on which such a tournaments are quite worth to play, and i don't think about money, but about relax when you're pissed off, because if you win ok, but if you lose you won't be pissed because you almost don't waste money.

0,25 it's cheap but it's hard to win against the field if you are unlucky, because most of the players have no idea about the regular poker. I recommend you to play 45p 0,25 until you have 100 buy-ins to play 0,50s

I believe they are totally worth it. 1st rule is bankroll management, and if your bankroll dictates micros then that's where you play. For me personally, I came back online in april and started there. I credit my 2 to 3 months grinding the micros for helping me learn ABC poker. The way i figured it, if i couldn't win at these levels how could you ever win at higher levels.