Micros or more expensive tourneys - which are the easiest?

[Macaroon]

I've played online for nearly 20 years, on several sites, and found that, without exception, the more you have to pay to play a tournament, the easier it is to win money. I know it's the opposite of what I have read in magazines and online, but I have found that the more you pay the less likely you are to see players taking massive chances such as going all-in with K-2 offsuit in the early positions when they don't need to (and then picking up two 2s), which happens all the time in the micro stakes. Play in tourneys costing only, say, $5 is less chaotic, and more considered. Has anyone else found this?

 

[ninocabral]

I think that the easiest ones are the micros, because they have many recreational devices, the more expensive ones also have recreational equipment, but less

 

[pentazepam]

Lucky for you!

Now you can play all the High Roller Tournaments you can find and totally dominate.

Seriously of course the lower the stakes the easier the game. Luck evens out.

 

[Pavel1203733]

Hello. I think it's more easier to play more high level tournaments if you have enough knowledge and experience.
There are too many strange moves with winning results at the low limits.

 

[black and]

It really is. The more expensive the tournament, the more adequate the game at the tables. It's not often that bingo players are willing to pay a buy-in of say $11 or $22 and play with any garbage, although there are of course exceptions

 

[Gallarado777]

Of course, where you pay less, there are a lot of weak players and they don't play well but it also says they're crazy and they just play without thinking what prevents a good player from thinking about his range of hands and you can make a mistake against such a player when you play high limits you know that you're playing more or less a player who thinks a little and you already know he won't do stupid things but of course there are bad players but less

 

[dreamer13]

Micro limits tournaments are filled with inexperienced and novice players. There are more than enough amateur players here. The large playing fields and extraordinarily wild action that are the norm in these competitions can be frustrating for a beginner poker player.

 

[Snake2007]

I think micro tournaments are easier because the stakes are not that high.

 

[fundiver199]

but I have found that the more you pay the less likely you are to see players taking massive chances such as going all-in with K-2 offsuit in the early positions when they don't need to (and then picking up two 2s), which happens all the time in the micro stakes.

We win in poker, when our opponents make mistakes. So the more mistakes, they make, the easier it is to win. Yes variance will be higher, if there is a lot of wild players at the table. But the worst hand dont ALWAYS win, so what you write here is utter nonsense. Bad beats are part of poker, and the more of them, that happen, the easier it is to win. You just need to work on your mental game and adjust your expectations. Of course its fine to move up a bit and play for instance a $5 SnG, which is still pretty low stakes. But you need a better reason to move up than falsely believing, its easier to win, when your opponents make less mistakes.

 

[pentazepam]

We win in poker, when our opponents make mistakes. So the more mistakes, they make, the easier it is to win. Yes variance will be higher, if there is a lot of wild players at the table. But the worst hand dont ALWAYS win, so what you write here is utter nonsense. Bad beats are part of poker, and the more of them, that happen, the easier it is to win. You just need to work on your mental game and adjust your expectations. Of course its fine to move up a bit and play for instance a $5 SnG, which is still pretty low stakes. But you need a better reason to move up than falsely believing, its easier to win, when your opponents make less mistakes.

Let them move up. They obviously have to learn the hard way.

Higher stakes are easier to read

 

[Macaroon]

We win in poker, when our opponents make mistakes. So the more mistakes, they make, the easier it is to win. Yes variance will be higher, if there is a lot of wild players at the table. But the worst hand dont ALWAYS win, so what you write here is utter nonsense. Bad beats are part of poker, and the more of them, that happen, the easier it is to win. You just need to work on your mental game and adjust your expectations. Of course its fine to move up a bit and play for instance a $5 SnG, which is still pretty low stakes. But you need a better reason to move up than falsely believing, its easier to win, when your opponents make less mistakes.

I never said that the worst hand always wins - of course that is nonsense.

 

[almir nicolau]

Regarding the showdown with marginal hands that happens in micros (there are recreational, amateur, inexperienced players) in tournaments that are a little more expensive, eg low limit, there will not be these showdowns because there are people who play and study more regularly and who do not go leave dead money for the field, so your profitability will go down a little more if you don't hit those limits.
micro limits you can earn a lot of money because there the guys make a lot of mistakes in the beginning and final straights where in limits above your life will be much more difficult!
With study and willpower you get there!! glglgl.

 

[Sschafell]

for sure micros, there are more recreational players!

 

[Vrotebal]

there are a lot of beginners at the micros and it is easier to play with them, they part with chips very easily

 

[Cooking]

It's not easy. I've play some $109 tournaments (winning the tickets from satellites) and it's definitely not easier to win than microlimits. Microlimits games are full of recreational players that don't mind in losing $5, $10 and just call with any 2 hands. You just need to wait for the right time to act.

 

[Academico]

that's how it works yes, in the lower ones you will find many more risky people and fans just having a good time of fun and creating uncomfortable situations and on the other hand at higher entry levels I think the players take more care of their money and are even more serious playing for juicier prizes, there is not so much madman risking his stay in the tournament with garbage hands, of course, those levels are much more competent, more difficult to overcome or at least for me.

 

[yetbam]

I totally agree with you, playing tournaments where the buy-in is higher, primarily it is only available to players who can afford it, good players who have accumulated good winnings through poker, usually they are good players who are not going to throw in the their money first hand, unlike the free tournaments that, as you mention, anyone will go all in with K2 or 32.

I think that is the big difference between recreational players and professional players.

greetings friend

 

[Luan]

my friend you have to see that not even a tournament is easy or you play with skill or you play with luck to beat your cards!

 

[iceheart888]

I've played online for nearly 20 years, on several sites, and found that, without exception, the more you have to pay to play a tournament, the easier it is to win money. I know it's the opposite of what I have read in magazines and online, but I have found that the more you pay the less likely you are to see players taking massive chances such as going all-in with K-2 offsuit in the early positions when they don't need to (and then picking up two 2s), which happens all the time in the micro stakes. Play in tourneys costing only, say, $5 is less chaotic, and more considered. Has anyone else found this?

At high stakes players play their hands more correctly, but you can find gamblers there too, after you arrive in late is more easy

 

[balo]

Just watch how the pros does it, streaming on Twitch. Buy-in up to 10k USD , okay they have a huge bankroll and can afford to bust, but you rarely see a lot of crazy hands being played , but they also mix up their gameplay and can bluff in big pots that you might not would do yourself as an amateur.

My suggestion would be, if your bankroll allows it to focus on mid stake tournaments, from $10 up to $50. If you consider yourself an above average player.

 

[Pokerpoet2]

I've played online for nearly 20 years, on several sites, and found that, without exception, the more you have to pay to play a tournament, the easier it is to win money. I know it's the opposite of what I have read in magazines and online, but I have found that the more you pay the less likely you are to see players taking massive chances such as going all-in with K-2 offsuit in the early positions when they don't need to (and then picking up two 2s), which happens all the time in the micro stakes. Play in tourneys costing only, say, $5 is less chaotic, and more considered. Has anyone else found this?

Generally yes, but it all boils down to what players are willing to risk, In freerolls they are risking nothing so they really don't care whether they win or lose, it's just a game to them, and you do get the idiot all-in pushes with any two cards because they don't care.
When you buy into a game, then it becomes more serious because you are basically putting your own money up front, but the buy-ins could still be peanuts compared to what they have in their Bankroll.
Bill Perkins and Guy Laliiberte are millionaires in their own right and play High Stakes Poker all the time, not because they need the money, but they enjoy playing against the best players in the World. So the buy-ins become proportional to what they can afford to lose. I have seen Bill Perkins pay the buy-in for other people, not wanting the money back or a piece of their action, just being nice to someone who would not normally play at those type of levels. The money becomes immaterial to them because they don't need it and I have seen some crazy bluffs from them both.
Poker is a fun game, and I only ever play with money I am not afraid to lose, whether that's £5, £25, or £100 , if I cannot afford to burn it, I simply don't play. Playing with money that you cannot afford to lose, is playing with "Scared Money" and very stupid.

 

[ph_il]

microstakes mtts are easiest to beat.

 

[bowserdon]

Micros more fish

 

[Igor G]

I agree with you. I noticed this pattern as well. In more expensive tournaments, players play more deliberately and the game in general becomes more strategic. Of course, sometimes there are maniacs, but it doesn't happen so often

 

[takinitSLEAZEE]

Face it folx, the days of fish everywhere are over, imo. The better players go where the fish are at and right now most of them are in the micro to low limits. Sure, you'll find that there are easy games at higher stakes but it's the same for all stakes. Ever play in one of these CC freerolls? There not exactly paying out life-changing $ around here but the players are going to play their asses off to get the 100, 25, or whatever 1st place is. Trust me, it's all about the experience/variance of the players in the trny w/you (yours included) that matters whether you cash, not the stakes. That's just my opinion but I think it's somewhat spot-on.