So, my friend and I got into a pretty heated argument, debating which was harder to do.... final table a 400 or less person field, where the tourny buy-in was $150-250, or final table a 1500+ person field, where the buy-in was $2-10.

Obvious facts:

- The smaller field tourny, for a higher buy-in, is filled with "regulars".

- The larger field tourny, for a smaller buy-in, is filled with "donks".

- A couple million chips needed to final table the larger field tourny, vs a couple hundred thousand needed to final table the smaller field tourny.

- More showdowns by the final table of the larger field.

- Harder decisions throughout the smaller field tourny.

What do you guys think?
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

obv the smaller...and its not even close....y dont you think they call the main event a crap shoot cuz it has soooo many but its a 10k buyin... the field size is y its bad youll prob end up running kk into aa or so cooler or beat prob...not many people ft huge fields back to back but lots do smaller ones

Obv the 2$-10$ tourney. Are you guys for real?

 

Originally Posted by MakeMeMaster

Obv the 2$-10$ tourney. Are you guys for real?

i dont think theres much in it, but i'd say the smaller stakes with more players is easier for sure

I'm going to say the large buy in, large field mtts, http://www.pocketfives.com/poker-for...3167/p/5374267

Seriously though, think about it, the larger buy in smaller fields have so many more nuances that it makes it exponentially harder to FT than a large field low dollar MTT. Take a look at the past Micro Mayhem's, there are two or three people making very deep runs each contest. I'm going to say low buy in bigger fields. You're not going to see someone with 100 FTs in micro stakes, because it's a stepping stone, accumulate a bankroll move up buy ins, that's how it is.

lower bi not even close. I am in awe of people who can crush high stakes mtts . But for the rest of us it has to be the lower buyin larger fields.

edit: And I am def not talking about which is easier to FT. ROI wise.

 

Originally Posted by Getumboy

I would def say 2-10 buyin huge fields are harder to FT! You can run very good in these and make top 1% and still not profit shit! If you run pretty good in a 109-215 you more than likely FT it more times that mindfield mtts.

FYP

put it this way.....let's assume that you're a pretty good winning player at the $10 BI level.....you're gonna be better than probably 1450/1500 ppl (al least) in the low-limit donkament.....but you would probably be one of the top 50 worst players in a $150-$250 HSMTT filled with regs IMO

it's a lot togher to pick up pots when everyone (or at least) at the table is more experienced/better than you

 

Originally Posted by ealltheway

so let's assume you are the best poker player in the world...

you play the daily dollar ($1 entry, 5000+ people) 500 times, and the 30k guarantee ($100 entry, ~300 people) 500 times....

which tourny do you final table more?

to me, it is obvious that it would be harder to final table the daily dollar. this has nothing to do with skill level, it has to do with the sheer luck factor involved in final tabling a tourny with 5000 people.

couldn't agree more... the more runners, the harder it is to final table. Got to avoid bad spots and getting unlucky way more often when there are more entrants

 

Originally Posted by JLizard

And I am def not talking about which is easier to FT.

but that was the question, not roi.

400/1000

 

Originally Posted by MarkFSU1

who cares about FTing a mtt, the game is about profit ($$). these small stakes guys play 1000 $150s and have a -75% roi and stuck 100k vs their 1000 $1 daily and have a 50% roi and up a few hundred bucks. How in the world they justify to themselves to play higher buyins makes no sense and is grossly flawed
and as far as field size goes, this is grossly overrated imo too...the dif between final tabling a 500 person field and a 1k person field is 1 double up. If you think its easier to get that 1 extra double up in a $150 vs a $1 then you should really think about what you are saying. also think about why the better players love Sundays? Sundays have huge fields full of donkeys which is much easier to play then the 1ks or 100rs with much smaller fields, this stuff is kind of common sense...

best post, /thread

Haven't read responses... Its obviously easier to final table a tournament with 400 people than a tournament with 1500 people. Not even arguable. However, your roi longterm will be much lower in the tournament filled with regulars than a tournament filled with donks.

Ok... assuming equal skill level you'll final table a 400 person tournament 1 in 44 times and a 1500 player tournament 1 in 166 times. Now lets say you're worse than the field in the 100r and final table 1 in 60 times but you're twice as likely to final table in the micro limits so you final table 1 in 88 times... In this scenario you're still a losing player in the small field and a huge winner in the 1500 field longterm but still more likely to make a final table in the small field filled with regs.

Don't understand whats so hard or even arguable about this concept.

Midstakes mtts on smaller sites like ub and cakke are probably the best bet for "steady" profit. OP is concerned with variance serious posters are concerned with profitability. Another thing you need to realize is where skill and profit equate in mtts. Players with half a clue about holdem will go "deep" almost as often as the best players will. The difference is when the pro gets there he knows how to close. And most of that skill in non 100r and 1k fields is in knowing how to run a table over and applymoney pressure to the amateurs. Let's face it if you do FT a big buyin you won't be able to counter him bc when he assumes the money will affect your game he's RIGHT. So you won't be winning or top 3ing the reg games even if u FT them. But wait...in low (<15)buyin events the longer time investment and fish mentality create one of 2 final table scenarios. Either the field or buyin is too small so the only prizes with realworld utility are 1st and 2nd. So players play to win ( which is correct since all profit comes from top 3 cashes). Or the field was so big that final table payouts are large enough that they actually relieve the money pressure off players ("i'm guaranteed 1k on a $3r anything else is just gravy"). Either one of these scenarios mean you can't leverage $$ vs the players which is one of the best closing weapons available. Midstakes prizepool structures usually have enough realworld $utility between jumps to apply this pressure while also being able to ignore the $ risk and play for the win yourself. Majors do give a lot of $ but that doesn't alleviate pressure once you make the FT bc you are playing for so much more. That's why when all randoms FT a major cards and chip counts determine the winner but when pros do FT a major they almost always top 3 it regardless of their starting chip position. Mods I cannot post from a pc but can from my iPhone. Please advise.