Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local

Small vs. Large Tournament Fields

Reply to Thread
  1. DP388 DP388 is offline

    Posts: 337
    Joined: May 05

    Feb 5th, 2006 (2/5/2006 8:46am)

    Need some advice from people who play on multiple sites. I'm used to playing stars in $20-$50 MTTs and some of the rebuys, so at minimum there are usually 500+ entrants, but usually 1,000+. I've been thinking of moving some money to another site that might have smaller tournament fields.

    What are the advantages and disadvantages to smaller fields? Obviously there is less money in the smaller tournaments, but is there proportionally less variance?

    Obviously my main goal is to make more $$, but I can only play about 5 tournaments a week (or less). I FT about 7-8% of the time on Stars. Do you think smaller tournament fields would equate to a higher FT%, thus more frequent high cashes, thus maybe more $$ in the long run than playing in larger tournaments?
  2. RichCoder RichCoder is offline

    Posts: 12
    Joined: Jan 06

    Feb 5th, 2006 (2/5/2006 12:37pm) in reply to DP388

    Smaller field = more final tables. Your money won should balance out over the long term playing either, but you are more likely to have huge dry spells in the 500+ entry tourneys.

    I like the smaller fields because your chances of getting 1st is better and 1st pays so much more than 2nd on most sites. There is a strong chance not to make first on a huge tournament for a LONG time thereby cutting you out of much of the payback.

    Its really a difference of making small unimpressive take-downs compared to once in while taking down a big score.

    If you consider tournament play a skill unto itself, then those that are great "tournament players" should stick with the big-entry tourneys. Their EV is much bigger because one of their skills is cutting through hundreds of players. They know how to adjust their play at the right times to get to a final table.

    -rich
  3. DP388 DP388 is offline

    Posts: 337
    Joined: May 05

    Feb 5th, 2006 (2/5/2006 3:12pm) in reply to RichCoder

    Thanks, that makes sense. Anyone else have the same opinion?
    Thread Starter
  4. UCBananaboy UCBananaboy is offline

    Posts: 3,947
    Joined: Jan 06

    Feb 5th, 2006 (2/5/2006 7:05pm) in reply to DP388

    I definitely gotta agree that smaller fields equal more Ft's. I actually think that it would be more profitable to play the small tourneys (because most money is all at the final 9 spots). Although if you win, your prize money will be much smaller in a 300 person vs. 1000 person event, you should consistently do well in small field events.

    Also if you are thinking of trying Full Tilt and don't have an account, let me know and I can offer you some money back on your entry fees there.
  5. Ryans77 Ryans77 is offline

    Montreal
    Canada

    Posts: 463
    Joined: Dec 05

    Feb 5th, 2006 (2/5/2006 7:09pm) in reply to DP388

    If you want smaller fields and worse players go to Absolute Poker. They have BY FAR the smallest fields and worse players. They have a ton of rebuy MTT's with guaranteed prize pools also. You can make some nice $ on Absolute Poker, just ask BOTTSKY, he cleaned house on AP in 2005 and won the TLB and a WSOP Seat in doing it.
  6. Dumb Walrus Dumb Walrus is offline

    S Lake Tahoe, CA
    United States

    Posts: 16,512
    Joined: Jan 05

    Feb 5th, 2006 (2/5/2006 7:12pm) in reply to Ryans77

    LARGER FIELDS = MORE DONKS = MORE Dead Money
  7. ianks ianks is offline

    Atlanta, GA
    United States

    Posts: 104
    Joined: Dec 05

    Feb 5th, 2006 (2/5/2006 7:19pm) in reply to Dumb Walrus

    larger feilds = more donks = more bullets to be dodged in order to win
  8. Tom Bayes Tom Bayes is offline

    Antarctica

    Posts: 121
    Joined: Sep 05

    Feb 5th, 2006 (2/5/2006 7:19pm) in reply to DP388

    Smaller fields are a good compromise between being a SNG player and a large-field MTT player. A good player will have a better ROI in small MTTs than in SNGs and more stability in the bankroll than in large fields. If you are a good player (and if you can FT 7-8% at stars, you are), you'll make more money in the big fields in the long-term but you'll have some dry weeks/months, especially if you can't play much. Smaller fields are also good for the ego in that you'll have more final tables and wins, and more importantly more chances to practice closing tournaments.

    While my primary site for MTT play are micro level donk-fests at Stars (with huge fields), I also play some smaller fields at some 2nd and 3rd tier sites (places like 24h,Planet Poker, GamesGrid). Amazingly, the micro MTT players are even worse at some of these sites than at Stars. If you don't want to venture off the major sites, Stars has the 180 player SNGs at the $20 level, UB has $1 and $5 SNGs with 100 players, and I think party has something similar as well.
  9. Nova2000 Nova2000 is offline

    Ny City, NY
    United States

    Posts: 822
    Joined: Jan 06

    Feb 5th, 2006 (2/5/2006 7:24pm) in reply to Tom Bayes

    I personally prefer the smaller tourneys...Depends on your personality, I seem to have ADD so wading through 500-1000 player fields doesn't do it for me...I like UB, their tourneys are usually 100-400 people, depending on the buy-in...Find your comfort zone and go with it...
Reply to Thread

Similar Threads