MTT tip: filter your mtt results by field size

P

ph_il

...
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Total posts
10,128
Awards
1
Chips
25
I'm using sharkscope. You can probably do it on some type of poker tracking program, but I don't know because I don't use those.

This tip is useful for knowing what field sizes you are best/worst in, which can be useful in knowing what mtts you should (likely) be playing more/least often. For even better results, look your tournaments list and adjust by 'finish position'. This will show what games modes [re-entry, pko, turbo, etc] and their buy-ins for your final table finishes, giving you and even better idea of what games you do well in and should play more often.

I find this especially useful if I'm on a downswing and just haven't made a final table run in a while. I want to be sure I'm playing the games I have the best chance of getting good results with. I did this the other day when I was a pretty bad losing streak. It had been 19 mtts since my last final table run, which isn't a lot of mtts but it also took me 14 days to play those 19 mtts. On top of that, I only cashed in 3/19 games. Low volume on top of a downswing isn't fun, so I filtered by field size and played an mtt that fit my best results and ended up winning the tournament for a small gain. I'm still down overall from the 19 game downswing, but I cut my losses in half.
---

For fun, here are my results filtered by field size:

Best final table results
  • 5 - 100 players
  • average field size: 71.4
  • 120 mtts
  • average buy-in: $1.03
  • itm: 26.3%, roi: 53.6%,
  • final tables: 23, wins: 7
  • profit: $110
Best profit results:
  • 101-200 players
  • average field size: 147
  • 157 mtts
  • average buy-in: $1.43
  • itm: 29.6%, roi: 69.6%
  • final tables: 15, wins: 4
  • profit: $215
Decent results:
  • 201-300 players
  • average field size: 254
  • 61 mtts
  • average buy-in: $1.03
  • itm: 29.5%, roi: 49.3%
  • final tables, 5, wins: 0
  • profit: $61
Worst results:
  • 301-400 players
  • average field size: 348
  • 88 mtts
  • average buy-in: $1.05
  • itm: 22.3%, roi: -16.1%
  • final tables: 2, wins: 0
  • profit: -$31
As you can see, if I want a better chance of increasing my bankroll (profits) and/or a better chance of making more final table runs and winning more mtts, I should stick with tournaments with field sizes between 70-150 players. Since my edge is greater, I would be more willing to re-enter/re-buy in this games. In the field size between 201-300 players, I still have decent results, but I am less willing to put a lot of volume with these field sizes. These are games I'll play if there is nothing else available, but will be less willing to re-enter/re-buy as my edge isn't as strong. Finally, I should avoid playing mtts with 250-300+ players as much as possible.

Since I put in such little mtt volume and I want to build up my bankroll, I'll be using this to focus my free time on the games I excel at and avoiding the games I don't.

That's it. Of course, make sure you practice good bankroll management as well.
 
A

alien666dj

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 7, 2020
Total posts
1,308
Chips
0
Excellent data processing. Good luck in the game.
 
F

fundiver199

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Total posts
13,267
Awards
1
Chips
262
Its definitely a good idea to keep track off, where you are losing and winning money, if you play different games. But with that being said we also need to be aware of variance, and how it relates to sample size, so we dont end up drawing false conclusions. And samples of 61-157 MTTs are so small, that we cant really conclude much if anything at all. It does seem from your results, that you are doing worse in MTTs with more than 300 players, but having played only 88 on them winning one would completely change the picture.

What we can say though is, that variance increase with field size. So if you are looking to build up a bankroll, then playing in smaller fields makes a ton of sense. Not because you expect a higher long term ROI, but because you will get to the final table and win decent prices more regularly. Which both reduce the bankroll requirement and gives you more final table practice.
 
S

SharkyShark1

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 3, 2021
Total posts
55
Chips
0
That is an interesting aspect I never considered, filtering data by the size of the tournament. Looks like I need to start tracking that too, so I can figure out where my edge is. One question though, do you think the same would apply to higher levels of tournaments? I see your average buy in is around a $1 and wonder if this would be the same if you go up a couple of buy-ins.
 
Luvepoker

Luvepoker

Lost in the twilight zone
Community Guide
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Total posts
5,294
Awards
23
US
Chips
436
Good data and shows a lot of what I have said for years. Bigger the tournaments the wider the swings. You have not played a lot at every level but it's the bigger ones that will be off the most at this point. Keep up the good work
 
1

1984

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 19, 2021
Total posts
407
Chips
0
I'm using sharkscope.

For fun, here are my results filtered by field size:

Best final table results
  • 5 - 100 players
  • average field size: 71.4
  • 120 mtts
  • average buy-in: $1.03
  • itm: 26.3%, roi: 53.6%,
  • final tables: 23, wins: 7
  • profit: $110
Best profit results:
  • 101-200 players
  • average field size: 147
  • 157 mtts
  • average buy-in: $1.43
  • itm: 29.6%, roi: 69.6%
  • final tables: 15, wins: 4
  • profit: $215
Decent results:
  • 201-300 players
  • average field size: 254
  • 61 mtts
  • average buy-in: $1.03
  • itm: 29.5%, roi: 49.3%
  • final tables, 5, wins: 0
  • profit: $61
Worst results:
  • 301-400 players
  • average field size: 348
  • 88 mtts
  • average buy-in: $1.05
  • itm: 22.3%, roi: -16.1%
  • final tables: 2, wins: 0
  • profit: -$31
That's it. Of course, make sure you practice good bankroll management as well.



I used to use it, but even for this purpose, it is confusing. I really don't get it how they count the ROI, as you see on your results, example your best profit result ROI shows 69,6%, but based on the other details - same nonsense for me, too - it shows totally different numbers.

157 mtts x 1,43$ = 224,51$

roi should be counted net return/total investment. In your case: 215$ / 224,51$ = 0,9576 so your ROi would be 95,76%, what anyway clearly visible based on numbers, it is near to 100%

and sharkscope has usually this number in the statistics, but they call it Total ROI. So I have no idea what the ROI they show in the main line stand for, if you search for yourself or anybody else. Do you know how they count it? or maybe am i missing something poker specific thing about Return of Investment count? because what they show as ROI is clearly not that one, but under Total ROI it is.

What is the ROI they show us, how do they count it:confused::confused::confused:
 
Top