Tournament buy-in strategy question

[Dark Army]

Do we need to consider how much the buy-in is compared to what the pay-out is for the position that we are most likely to finish in?

For example: Let's say I play 100 tournaments. I look at my finishing results in all 100 of them and figure out that on the average I'm finishing in the top 7% (This might be way off, but I'm just creating an example.)

Because I know that I'm likely to finish somewhere in the top 7%, I then figure out exactly which spot is at the 7% cutoff.

400 people in tournament x 0.07 = 28th place.

Since the tournament costs $55 to buy-in and on the average I won't finish worse than 28th place, should the prize for 28th place be at least $55 in order for me to justify playing?

I understand that because of late registrations it's hard to determine just how many people will be in the tournament. But still, we can estimate it.

 

[5pAce_C0wb0y]

You wont find many tournaments with prizes less than the buy in. I've only ever seen this a couple of times in bounty tournaments.

 

[Dark Army]

You wont find many tournaments with prizes less than the buy in. I've only ever seen this a couple of times in bounty tournaments.

Then do we not play if the min money spot is too far inside of where we're likely to finish?

 

[5pAce_C0wb0y]

Personally my aim isn't to cash it's to win so I wouldn't make this consideration.

 

[Dark Army]

Personally my aim isn't to cash it's to win so I wouldn't make this consideration.

But how often are you in the money when you don't win?

And when you are in the money, what position do you finish in relative to the rest of the field?

It's just like making any other decision in poker or gambling in general.

We don't make bets where the odds of winning is worse then the pot odds.

Let's say the tournament costs $215 to enter but the least amount of money you can win is $480 in 13th place. That's a profit of $265. So if you do get in the min money, at least you're going to show a profit.

There's 97 people in the tournament and 13 places are paid. Those 13 places are the top 13.4% of the field.

But lets say you've figured out that on the average you end up in the top 15% of any tournament you play. If that's the case, you're less probable to cash.

On the other hand, if the tournament was paying the top 18% of the field, your good to go.

 

[playinggameswithu]

Calculating a poker tournament with something that can be called precision is like calculating The Universe as an actuary told me. You never know where you will finish in an MTT don't give up and blow it,i'v come back with less than 1 BB and so has Debbie to make a significant score. Don't tilt.

I suspect your mind set is flawed though I am not a professional actuarial scientist. sharkscope usually recommend 350 buyins or more on their stats page on a player.

Also as a long term casual gambler, which is what an MTT player is, I jam all my money into sats into big tournament or buy in directly.....not much luck so far...still correcting my mistakes.

 

[5pAce_C0wb0y]

But how often are you in the money when you don't win?

And when you are in the money, what position do you finish in relative to the rest of the field?

It's just like making any other decision in poker or gambling in general.

We don't make bets where the odds of winning is worse then the pot odds.

Let's say the tournament costs $215 to enter but the least amount of money you can win is $480 in 13th place. That's a profit of $265. So if you do get in the min money, at least you're going to show a profit.

There's 97 people in the tournament and 13 places are paid. Those 13 places are the top 13.4% of the field.

But lets say you've figured out that on the average you end up in the top 15% of any tournament you play. If that's the case, you're less probable to cash.

On the other hand, if the tournament was paying the top 18% of the field, your good to go.

Being in the money when I don't win for me is irrelevant. What I do track is my ROI. This is done as an overall figure but i also break it down into types of tournament. So i can tell you my ROI for hyper tournaments is nowhere near as good as that for standard tournaments which tells me to avoid hypers rather than avoid tourneys that don't have a deep enough pay out structure for me to cash. Also it's hard to judge what the final payout structure will be til the end of late reg by which time your already playing or skipped the tourney as the original payout structure wasnt good enough for you.

In summary there are a lot of factors more important to consider than if on average you'll cash. Game type, blind levels, how long late reg is, stack size. You'll notice most tournaments you need to final table to make a decent score so always aim for that. I'd prefer to win 1 tourney in 5 than min cash in 5 out of 5.

 

[Dark Army]

Being in the money when I don't win for me is irrelevant. What I do track is my ROI. This is done as an overall figure but i also break it down into types of tournament. So i can tell you my ROI for hyper tournaments is nowhere near as good as that for standard tournaments which tells me to avoid hypers rather than avoid tourneys that don't have a deep enough pay out structure for me to cash. Also it's hard to judge what the final payout structure will be til the end of late reg by which time your already playing or skipped the tourney as the original payout structure wasnt good enough for you.

In summary there are a lot of factors more important to consider than if on average you'll cash. Game type, blind levels, how long late reg is, stack size. You'll notice most tournaments you need to final table to make a decent score so always aim for that. I'd prefer to win 1 tourney in 5 than min cash in 5 out of 5.

But you will be finishing below 1st place far more often than not. Which means that a large chunk of your ROI (Probably the largest) comes from spots below 1st place.

With that in mind, is it not a good idea to know where you are likely to finish? And once you know that, make sure it's a profitable decision?

If you're tracking your ROI, it stands to reason you have an interest in having the largest ROI possible. Which means it's reasonable to recognize tournaments that will tend to increase your ROI vs ones that won't.

 

[Yanko57]

Personally my aim isn't to cash it's to win so I wouldn't make this consideration.

Exactly my point of view. Most often than not you'll climb many position instead of finishing barely ITM.

 

[Dark Army]

Exactly my point of view. Most often than not you'll climb many position instead of finishing barely ITM.

But if the spot that you're most likely to finish in is outside of the money, don't you think it might be good to realize this?

Don't you want to know which tournaments are likely for you to win something instead of nothing?

Like I was saying earlier in the thread. We make decisions that are profitable for us in the long-term.

We look at the pot odds and compare it to the odds of drawing the out we need in order for our hand to win.

Why does this not apply to poker tournaments?

If we know that on the average we finish no worse than the top 10%, then our odds of finishing in the top 10% is 1:1.

So when we finish the tournament, our winnings should be 1:1 or better.

If we can determine that on the average we'll finish with worse than 1:1 money in any particular tournament, we don't play.

 

[5pAce_C0wb0y]

But you will be finishing below 1st place far more often than not. Which means that a large chunk of your ROI (Probably the largest) comes from spots below 1st place.

With that in mind, is it not a good idea to know where you are likely to finish? And once you know that, make sure it's a profitable decision?

If you're tracking your ROI, it stands to reason you have an interest in having the largest ROI possible. Which means it's reasonable to recognize tournaments that will tend to increase your ROI vs ones that won't.

Yes plenty of finishes come below first however I'm always aiming for that first place or as high finish as possible so working out where I may finish statistically is irrelevant as I'm not aiming to meet an average. It's certainly more profitable to play a tourney type that you achieve higher ROI in than worrying about how many places it pays

 

[Dark Army]

Yes plenty of finishes come below first however I'm always aiming for that first place or as high finish as possible so working out where I may finish statistically is irrelevant as I'm not aiming to meet an average. It's certainly more profitable to play a tourney type that you achieve higher ROI in than worrying about how many places it pays

So where you tend to finish in any tournament is irrelevant because you're aiming to take 1st place?

Everyone want's to take 1st place.

That's no excuse for not knowing out how to maximize your profits when you don't win.

 

[5pAce_C0wb0y]

So where you tend to finish in any tournament is irrelevant because you're aiming to take 1st place?

Everyone want's to take 1st place.

That's no excuse for not knowing out how to maximize your profits when you don't win.

The way to maximise profits is to aim to win. Not playing a tournament because you beat 88% of the field on average but in this tournament only 10% get paid is a losing strategy.

 

[Dark Army]

The way to maximise profits is to aim to win. Not playing a tournament because you beat 88% of the field on average but in this tournament only 10% get paid is a losing strategy.

Playing in a tournament where your most likely to finish out of the money sounds like more of a losing strategy to me than not playing in the first place.

 

[5pAce_C0wb0y]

Playing in a tournament where your most likely to finish out of the money sounds like more of a losing strategy to me than not playing in the first place.

You have to accept that you won't always cash in a tournament. Looking for a solution to find tournaments that you will cash in is going to come unstuck. Enter a tourney aim to win and your ROI will thank you in the long run.

 

[riverokker]

cashing in tourneys

play to win every Tourney. sometimes you still play in a tournament even if you know the structure isnt very good for you. because you can practise until you start cashing and eventually win the tourney. good luck.

 

[eetenor]

Winning is the point.

Do we need to consider how much the buy-in is compared to what the pay-out is for the position that we are most likely to finish in?

For example: Let's say I play 100 tournaments. I look at my finishing results in all 100 of them and figure out that on the average I'm finishing in the top 7% (This might be way off, but I'm just creating an example.)

Because I know that I'm likely to finish somewhere in the top 7%, I then figure out exactly which spot is at the 7% cutoff.

400 people in tournament x 0.07 = 28th place.

Since the tournament costs $55 to buy-in and on the average I won't finish worse than 28th place, should the prize for 28th place be at least $55 in order for me to justify playing?

I understand that because of late registrations it's hard to determine just how many people will be in the tournament. But still, we can estimate it.

You play in tournaments to take first place. Second place is ok, third place not bad. Cashing is fine but there is no way to cash every MTT you play.

You want to get the big wins. That means you have to play maximizing your chances to win which means you will cash far less often. Playing MTT's to break even means when you have a long run of losing you will have no bankroll left.

Think in terms of buy-ins vs wins not finishes.

This is the way the most successful MTT players think.

Good luck