Better than Tournaments?

[Dov]

I have seen a number of posts lately about people 'taking a shot' at a bigger game, running lucky, and ending up with a bankroll.

It seems to me that this is not unlike a tournament where you basically win when you get lucky. (In any one event)

I have noticed that most of the small buy in events like 20+2 MTT's usually have about 600-700 players and a 1st prize of around 2500-3000 dollars.

The odds of winning the whole tournament (1st place) are relatively low, but the odds of cashing for a good player are pretty good. I believe that the $20 tourny is worth between $100 and $250 to the average winning player at this level.

That said, I've been thinking about 'simulating' a tournament by using the cash game limits.

Example:

Start with $25 at a 25NL table. If you lose, you're done, and you go back to your normal cash game.

If you get to $50 (or more) you move up to a 50NL game. Keep going until you either bust or don't feel like playing anymore.

I just tried this with limit starting at 2/4 with $100. It took me 6 hours to move up to 20/40 and I made about $1500.

I'm going to try it later with NL.

I realize that there are better players at the higher limits, but that happens in the tournament too. At the final table, you are facing the toughest players in the event. In this system, you can hunt for fish at each level, quit a bad game, or just stop and keep your profits.

Not only that, but your chips retain their value even as you accumulate them.

I'm starting to wonder why anyone would play a tournament that paid less than $20K to 1st place.

What's wrong with this idea?

BTW, I understand that you need to be basically a winning player at each level to ensure success. But that's just the point. You will probably be against better players in the tournament anyway.

Am I crazy or could this be a good way to run up a roll quickly for a skilled player?