Are micro tournaments worth it?

[ZenGreen]

Ive just come back from being off a year and their seems to be some insane value going on right now (Not sure why most low stake games are starting with 20k in chips but anyways) 1.60 for 600gtd $2.50 for 2k games. If you got the time these are some great value. Hell even $2 500gtd are good

 

[ringworm]

If the micros match your bankroll, they're great. If you have a large bankroll, the micros are more like freerolls and probably a waste of time.

 

[rdpoker5]

If you want to improve,you have to play a lot of tournaments and work on your strategy aswell. Small buy-in tournaments are perfect for that. The variance is pretty big since the fields are very big, but you have to start somewhere. I would be interested to see how some of the pros would do in lets say a 1000 tournaments of 2 usd buy-in.

 

[ObbleeXY]

Only play the game you can beat.

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?

The only game worth playing is the one you can beat.
Part of the problem with the ultra-micro stakes is that it is not a long way from Playmoney, and as such, it doesn't mean anything to anyone. That translates to odd behaviour, and it can be tough to win when anyone can call you with anything.

Basically, if a game routinely has more than 3 people in the pot post flop, then I think there is something wrong.

You can make a lot of money playing good cards heads up, but easy to lose in multiway pots.

If you don't love the game. Don't play it. Find your game. And hone it to perfection.

I stopped playing the lowest stakes tourneys for that very reason.

Often, I'll enter a tourney late on purpose. A lot of the maniacs have been eliminated by the time I join, and people are starting to settle down and play solid poker. (I have a rule for certain low stakes tourneys to fold the first three hands no matter what, since there are often multiway all-ins...and event AA gets busted when there are 5 others in the pot.

 

[Phyrrura]

It all comes to how much you wanna win, and how much you are willing to spend. If you wanna risk low, you play low.

 

[Rob Hobson]

All buy in tournaments worth if you like them and know how to play them.

 

[Sschafell]

in my opinion, they are worth it for those who have a short bank and are starting, to get experience and as the bank increases the buyn increase!

 

[Kudi]

maybe. I don't know

 

[7CardKillR]

The micro stakes are about:
Folding when they tell you to post flop.
Betting like you should.
Global Tendencies.
Not leveling yourself
Not concocting elaborate schemes predicated on their folding "Something".
If they are granting you a late bluffing range why are you paying for one?
Going for value.
Passing for dollars when ITM$
Hand Play-ability

 

[ataraxyan]

Micro tournaments are also worth playing but I admit quite a few people are crazy playing without thinking. But anyway you need to have coping method to deal with them.

 

[monkey23]

if you have a micro roll...sure

 

[Tystick]

Yes they are fun as well!

 

[fundiver199]

Micros can be frustrating in the short term but profitable and an excellent way to build a poker bankroll in the long run. Always try to keep in mind that when you see a lot of bad play at your table, it generally means you’re in a wildly profitable game. This is still true even in the times you call three all-ins with AA and get sucked out on, even though losing that one hand may be frustrating.

Some solid advice there from Katie. Also note that loose play does not disappear, just because you move up, and that this is a good thing, because it allows you to be a long term winner. And if it tilts you to lose a few dollars to a loose recreational player in a micro game, then how are you going to handle it, if you make it into high stakes and lose 230.000$ on a hand like this?

Where micro stakes can be a bit of a waste of time is, if you are already skilled enough to beat higher games. A lot of people get caught up in wanting to build a bankroll from either no deposit or a very small deposit. Like OP, who was playing 25c SnGs on pokerstars. I even fell a bit in that trap myself with my PokerStars bankroll challenge here on CC. I thought, it would be fun to run it up again from a 55$ and later 110$ deposit. But when you have been on final tables, where the winner takes down 300-500$, it just does not stir the loin to compete for 13$ in a 1$ 45 man SnG. So after a 180 or so games, I am probably going to give it up

 

[paulo349]

well to build a roll u have to start at the micros.and sngs are a good way to.and i would purpose to play less variance mtts after it.the smaller the field the better

 

[Freepokerfree]

Hi all!

Everything you do with passion and joy, it serves, it is worth the effort. It is also important that it is profitable.

Kings of life
Rinas of Nature

 

[oakthyago]

it depends what you means with the word worth it. Would you learn to play doing this? probable you will because the level of players on this nivel is already pretty good. Indeed I have a theory the all the buy in level has a considered good level of players.

with the worth that you mean is talking about money than you will need to be a good player and input some volume in this kind of micro games to have some profit.

hope that my opinion could have helped

 

[ryknow666]

it all depends on your bankroll if you have a good bankroll you don't need to play those tournaments

 

[kringoo]

depends a lot on each one because I think the vast majority starts in micro tournaments at the beginning