Are some games just not worth it?

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
I gave the advice I gave because the structure he describes levels the playing field far too much. Of course, if this is the only game to be found, play on and have fun. However, my guess is that you can't win enough to make this worthwhile. Tournaments are already high variance, and this just increases it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an important point, but it still doesn't change the fact that this is probably a high-EV as well as high-variance situation. There are other considerations too, namely, if you play 100 times and finish net negative by quite a bit, are you going to get discouraged and give up poker? If so, then don't play them -- play something else that's lower variance. Is playing this +EV, high-variance situation keeping you out of a more +EV ring game, sit-and-go, or MTT? Or one that's roughly equal EV but lower variance (which ring games or S&Gs will usually be)?

Also, the rake in some small tournaments can be outrageous, although I got the impression the OP was talking about a home tournament. I often play the $1+0 rake Pacific nightly tournaments with 5-minute rounds. It's a crapshoot, and if I don't get a decent hand by round 3 I'm probably dead (because people will call if I push with 4xBB), but it's fun and certainly must be +EV. I'm not so sure about their $1+$0.50 MTTs with 5-minute rounds, though.

All of these are valid considerations, and I would even say that if the OP isn't used to taking high-variance gambles with the best of it, he should just stay away until gaining more experience. But of course even a total crapshoot where you have the best of it is a good gamble, if you can afford it and no better gambles are around.

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]
That's an important point, but it still doesn't change the fact that this is probably a high-EV as well as high-variance situation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Right, gotcha. This is an important distinction. I still hate the structure. I'm going to play with this over the weekend to see if I can see how this is a +EV situation.

Regards,

T

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

That's an important point, but it still doesn't change the fact that this is probably a high-EV as well as high-variance situation.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't agree that this is high variance. People often say SNGs are high variance, but they are not. The variance is significantly lower than in many other forms of poker. The variance of the tournament does not greatly depend on how people play each hand.

Large downswings can happen due to luck, but they can also happen because you are not playing well. If you identify flaws in your opponents' games, that doesn't mean you are making the proper adjustments. If you try to bluff a calling station, you are getting outplayed. If you fold a mediocre hand once again to a maniac's raise, you are getting outplayed.

Against 14 weak players, even with rapid blind increases, I think I would expect to win about 3/15 of the time. 80% of the time I would not win, but this is much safer than playing against decent opponents.