How many MTT's should one play before deciding to stick with one's home game? (1 Viewer)

[Beakertwang]

I've only played a few at local casinos, 2 $100 games, and one $35. Haven't done well yet, and I can usually attribute it to one significant mistake, and maybe a typical cooler. Obviously, it's a very different mental game than playing online, or with my poker buddies with whom I'm very comfortable.

Taking into account variance, and the learning curve, how many MTT's should I play to get the feel for it, or realize they're not for me?

 

[Mr Tree]

I've only played a few at local casinos, 2 $100 games, and one $35. Haven't done well yet, and I can usually attribute it to one significant mistake, and maybe a typical cooler. Obviously, it's a very different mental game than playing online, or with my poker buddies with whom I'm very comfortable.

Taking into account variance, and the learning curve, how many MTT's should I play to get the feel for it, or realize they're not for me?

MTT’s are a lottery ticket. In the short run you shouldn’t get too beat up by having some bad results and not too excited if you go on a hot streak.

 

[detroitdad]

MTT’s are a lottery ticket. In the short run you shouldn’t get too beat up by having some bad results and not too excited if you go on a hot streak.

This........

What do you have more fun doing? Stick to that. Unless your looking to mix things up every now and then.

 

[Quad Johnson]

In my opinion, to see success and profitability in MTT's requires serious volume which imo translates better to online. One good score will shoot the moon on your ROI. Just a matter of getting there and how long it takes.

Live I much prefer the steady grind of cash.

 

[Rhodeman77]

Any tournament over 2-3 tables is going to take some degree of luck. Which will include winning several flips at least and usually a few suck outs too.

As part of building a bank roll casino MTT should be a very small portion of your bankroll portfolio. Much like your retirement investments you should have a small portion is speculative stocks that could hit a home run, but most likely will be break even or worse most of the time.

As mentioned, play them when you feel like it, or not at all.

Personally I’ve never played in one and have no desire too.

Once in a while I’ll play in a 4-5 table home game tournament and even those are a major grind that afterwards I always feel wasn’t worth the time/energy I invested.

 

[detroitdad]

Once in a while I’ll play in a 4-5 table home game tournament and even those are a major grind that afterwards I always feel wasn’t worth the time/energy I invested.

I play in a once a month 20 player tourney league. I only do it because I enjoy the people. Nothing worse than playing for 4 hours and finishing on the bubble.

 

[upNdown]

MTTs are absolutely not a lottery ticket. Yeah, you do have to get lucky to win one, but a good player will put himself in position to cash in on that luck when it comes. And when it does come, the payoffs are big.
I’m a winning MTT tournament player. I’ve had my soul rushed by suckputs and bad beats in 5 out of my last 6 tournaments (and the other one I just had cold cards.) Newsflash - bad luck and bad streaks happen in poker.
I wouldn’t get discouraged by a few losses. But I also wouldn’t assume that you’re a decent tournament player just because you’re a decent cash player - they’re different games for which you need to develop different skills.

 

[Quad Johnson]

MTTs are absolutely not a lottery ticket. Yeah, you do have to get lucky to win one, but a good player will put himself in position to cash in on that luck when it comes. And when it does come, the payoffs are big.
I’m a winning MTT tournament player. I’ve had my soul rushed by suckputs and bad beats in 5 out of my last 6 tournaments (and the other one I just had cold cards.) Newsflash - bad luck and bad streaks happen in poker.
I wouldn’t get discouraged by a few losses. But I also wouldn’t assume that you’re a decent tournament player just because you’re a decent cash player - they’re different games for which you need to develop different skills.

Skill absolutely does come in to play but you have to run good. Always getting your money in as the favorite isn't always guaranteed.

Dan Harrington said the year he won the Main Event he was all in for his tournament life 40 times throughout the event. And that's with huge stacks and the longest blind levels in the world as a very conservative player. Most MTT's force you into spots where you have to make a move much more often/frequently.

 

[v1pe]

Burke stated in SFWs most recent video that a winning player is only going to even cash 20-25% of the time in large field MTTs, and that's just a min-cash.

Skill definitely plays a role in MTTs but variance is huge. I personally would only consider playing in casino/card room tourneys if they are less than 5% of my bankroll and the structure is condusive to skilled poker. That rules out almost every casino MTT for me, so I only pretty much play my 2 table $10 rebuy that I host, and another $30 rebuy 3-4 table home game (poor structure, but fun players and I think my edge is good).

I find most of the casino structures to be too shitty to play unless the buy in is huge (as measured as a percentage of my measly roll).

 

[v1pe]

I will say that the field is generally softer in tournaments, so if you can afford the variance (in $$, time, and mentally) they are going to be worthwhile.

 

[upNdown]

Skill absolutely does come in to play but you have to run good. Always getting your money in as the favorite isn't always guaranteed.

Dan Harrington said the year he won the Main Event he was all in for his tournament life 40 times throughout the event. And that's with huge stacks and the longest blind levels in the world as a very conservative player. Most MTT's force you into spots where you have to make a move much more often/frequently.

Absolutely. And if you want to say the Main Event is a lottery ticket, I’d have a hard time arguing with you.
I play MTTs that are 5-10 tables. It’s a numbers game - play enough of them well and you’ll win over the long term.

 

[Mr Tree]

posted in error

 

[BukNaked36]

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8ydBWZPsbA3jkoeDVZW5VA

Boski is an interesting to watch and has a good tourney mind set.

 

[Mojo1312]

I've only played a few at local casinos, 2 $100 games, and one $35. Haven't done well yet, and I can usually attribute it to one significant mistake, and maybe a typical cooler. Obviously, it's a very different mental game than playing online, or with my poker buddies with whom I'm very comfortable.

Taking into account variance, and the learning curve, how many MTT's should I play to get the feel for it, or realize they're not for me?

Quite simply, you should be among the final third, if not, you need to analyze your game. I have finished in the top 16% of the field 8x since I began playing in MTT's at the casino earlier this year. ($110 buy-in with add-on, 25 to 32 players.) That is a 40% win-rate, which includes 2 first place finishes, a second place finish and three - three way splits for second place money.

Success in cash does not mean you will be successful at the other and vice versa.

 

[Beakertwang]

I also wouldn’t assume that you’re a decent tournament player just because you’re a decent cash player - they’re different games for which you need to develop different skills.

Success in cash does not mean you will be successful at the other and vice versa.

I did not intend to imply that I'm a good cash player, only that I'm good in my home game, which isn't saying much.

 

[DrStrange]

The best players have a serous advantage vs the rest of the field in a big dollar tournament. Even then it can take time for the skill edge to show up. It could take a lifetime for a casual player with at most a minor edge to have enough data to know about it.

As the stakes fall, the players get worse and so does the design of the event. Lots of events are intended to be promotional and are so short / blinds so fast that the results get much closer to random chance. Here the casual player gets to play in a lot more events for his/her money but the advantage of the skilled player dwindles quickly. Again, that means it take a long time to sort out the skilled and unskilled if you ever do

If the original post was targeting WSOP events or similar tournaments, it would take years to parse out bad luck from bad play. You might learn you aren't a world class player in a year. If the player is basically close to average, they likely never would "know" winner vs loser mathematically.

Bottom line, do what is fun. A couple of $100 buy-in events a year aren't going to make or break you. < If we are talking about two months in Vegas playing 20+ WSOP events, that is a whole different matter >

 

[v1pe]

Quite simply, you should be among the final third, if not, you need to analyze your game. I have finished in the top 16% of the field 8x since I began playing in MTT's at the casino earlier this year. ($110 buy-in with add-on, 25 to 32 players.) That is a 40% win-rate, which includes 2 first place finishes, a second place finish and three - three way splits for second place money.

Success in cash does not mean you will be successful at the other and vice versa.

No offense meant, but that's a very small sample size.

 

[Mojo1312]

I did not intend to imply that I'm a good cash player, only that I'm good in my home game, which isn't saying much.

I was in a hurry to get out the door. That part of my post was reaffirming the distinction others have made between the two formats.

No offense meant, but that's a very small sample size.

I understand variance and sample sizes, but consistency is also a measure that should be taken into consideration.

Your goal should be to finish in the top third of the field.

I didn't think these lower buy-in three table casino tournaments could be profitable because the structure forces the tournament to reach its conclusion in 5.5 hours. However, the automatic shufflers and decks allow players to see more hands relative to most home games.

A high percentage of add-ons and re-buys is what make these lower end MTT's profitable.
Know what percentage of a players buy-in goes into the prize pool. The re-buys and add-ons are rake free where I play.

If there are few re-buys and the pay-out structure is really top heavy and the casino is taking a substantial cut, the tournament may not be worth playing in, unless it is something you enjoy.

 

[Highli99]

I am a winning player at smallish stakes MMT and losing to break even player at cash games.

A big difference in MMts is that you play at full tables longer so you can play tighter longer. MMTs reward lower variance styles in the long run. A lot of players bust with moves that work in cash games because you can buy in again. In tournaments the fewer mistakes you make the longer you last.

I am personally happy cashing in 1 / 4 tournaments but variance usually means I cash Ina couple then miss a bunch. Keep a long term perspective and play within your bankroll.

Wins will help ROI immensely so keep playing single table tournaments to practice final table dynamics.

 

[UKS]

Ride the poker coaster. This week I had someone Jam over 100+BB pre flop with 52o. Into my KK.

I lost obv. But that is just part of the game.

I enjoy the human component, and also the game aspect. It appeals more to me than cash which can be very dry and mercenary. Since I play for fun, the tournaments have a nice balance.

And you can win huge. My biggest win was 9.5K GBP. (That's about 12K USD) which was nice!

 

[upNdown]

so keep playing single table tournaments to practice final table dynamics.

I'm not sure one has that much to do with the other, but I haven't played many single table tournaments. But to your point, yest, final table dynamics are unique, and I'm not sure there are any books of videos that can prepare you adequately.

 

[BGinGA]

Only time a single-table event will mirror a MTT final table -- at least initially -- is if it is a multi-tiered entry format, where players can choose their starting stack size and pay an appropriate entry fee, resulting in various stack sizes in play immediately.

 

[Frogzilla]

Single table tournaments are a lot different than final tables in two ways:
-stacks start generally deeper in the single tournament and everyone starts even

-final table everyone might be in the money, and will want to ladder up. In other words, 7th is worth more than 9th. This dynamic will definitely affect play and strategy

 

[upNdown]

Single table tournaments are a lot different than final tables in two ways:
-stacks start generally deeper in the single tournament and everyone starts even

-final table everyone might be in the money, and will want to ladder up. In other words, 7th is worth more than 9th. This dynamic will definitely affect play and strategy

So many decisions become so clear to me at final tables. The pay ladder is even more motivation than the bubble was, and when you look at stack sizes, position, and the reads you have (since you’ve got some table time with everybody there,) and a lot of them are at least a little fatigued - it’s worth playing a bunch of tpurnaments, to experience that dynamic every so often.

 

[Highli99]

Only time a single-table event will mirror a MTT final table -- at least initially -- is if it is a multi-tiered entry format, where players can choose their starting stack size and pay an appropriate entry fee, resulting in various stack sizes in play immediately.

This is a fair point. I did t know formats like this even existed.