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?

[Jerrod Ankenman]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, this is great. I can spend like 3/4 of my bankroll and still make about as much as I do when I play 100 and 200 MTTs now. Plus, I should be even better than "the average winning player at this level."

Seriously, if there are 700 players in a tournament, and there are, say, 40 players (which would seem to fall within "the average winning player) who win 7.5 buyins a pop in these tournaments, that's 300 buyins off the top.So the other 660 players share the remaining 330 buyins (subtracting juice)? That makes for an interesting distribution of expectations across all players.

Or perhaps your estimate of EV is just too high.

As for your other question, about racing up in limits:
If you want to maximize the growth rate of your bankroll, you can evaluate playing two games using the following formula:

stddev(bigger)^2 - stddev(smaller)^2
-------------------------------------
2*(win rate(bigger) - win rate(smaller))

If your bankroll is bigger than this, play the bigger game; otherwise, play the smaller.

Jerrod Ankenman

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that the $20 tourny is worth between $100 and $250 to the average winning player at this level.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a ridiculous overestimate. 5x-12.5x buyin? If $20 tourneys were this easy, they wouldn't stay this easy for long.

As for racing up the limits, it is a reasonable way to build a bankroll if you don't have the roll for the highest limit you can beat. It might have some amusement value. Otherwise, you pay an opportunity cost when playing below your proper level.

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a ridiculous overestimate. 5x-12.5x buyin? If $20 tourneys were this easy, they wouldn't stay this easy for long.

[/ QUOTE ]

This estimate was a kind of guess based on what I've read about the major tournaments being worth around 5x the buy in for world class players.

I was just guessing that your average winning low limit MTT player could do better in these online events with so much dead money in the pool.

I could easily be wrong here, but I doubt it. When they pay down 80 places in a 600 person tourney where only about 100 of them are decent players, I think there is some extra value.

Anyway, that was where the guestimate came from.

I'm not primarily a tournament player so take it for what it's worth. Maybe not much.

Thanks

[John Bedtelyon]

It's an interesting idea, that's for sure. Something along these lines (not a cash game I know) would be the STEPS tournaments on Party. My roommates and I have done quite well playing the mini steps.

If you're not familiar with them visit party poker and look, but here's a basic run down. Sit and go's, first place in step 1 moves to step 2. 1st and 2nd in step 2 go to step 3, and you keep moving up the steps. At step 5 top 3 or 4 players get money.

As opposed to moving up in the steps, there's also numerous spots that get to repeat tournies, or even get dropped to the tourney before or even back to STEP 1.

Anyway, sorry if you're already familiar. These can have a big pay out. Like I said, my roommates and I play the whole gammit, ranging from the $5+1 step 1 tournies to the STEP higher which start at 30 dollars for step 1.

Sorry for ranting, I'll get to the point. Start at step 1 with 5 bucks, end step five in first place with $2000. It's definitely a long shot, about along the same idea. It's a good way to make money, if you're good at sit and go's. We've made it from step1 to the money in step5 five times now.

JMB

[John Bedtelyon]

Oh, another idea. Something I did playing Poker Stars would be start at the $5 + .25 heads up play. If you win, replay a 5, and then if you win that move up to the 10 dollars. This way you're playing with just profit from here out. If you win that, play a $20 heads up tourney. Continue up the ladder as long as you win, until you can't find another player, or you want to stop with your profit. If you're consistant, and want to pull winnings off, maybe stop at $50, or $100, that way if you win, you turn $5 into $200 in a short amount of time.

I didn't have great results with this, and I doubt few would, as heads up is hard play. Take it for what it's worth.

JMB

[SpeakEasy]

Out of everything I have ever read about poker, in all my books, the magazines, 2+2 and other on-line sites, the one thing that has intrigued me the most is this:

In Aces & Kings, in the chapter about Chris Ferguson, it explains that Ferguson deposited $1 in an on-line site as an experiment. He started at the micro-limits (.01-.02) and playing his way up, ending with $100,000. There are very few people that I would believe could actually accomplish this, but Jesus is one of them.

I would really like to learn more about this -- how long this took, how many hours per day/week/year, when did he move up in levels, etc. But the point is, assuming its true (which it probably is) -- it can be done.

[david050173]

[ QUOTE ]
Out of everything I have ever read about poker, in all my books, the magazines, 2+2 and other on-line sites, the one thing that has intrigued me the most is this:

In Aces & Kings, in the chapter about Chris Ferguson, it explains that Ferguson deposited $1 in an on-line site as an experiment. He started at the micro-limits (.01-.02) and playing his way up, ending with $100,000. There are very few people that I would believe could actually accomplish this, but Jesus is one of them.

I would really like to learn more about this -- how long this took, how many hours per day/week/year, when did he move up in levels, etc. But the point is, assuming its true (which it probably is) -- it can be done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Other than being underbank rolled for the low limits, I don't see what is impressive about this. If you assume Chris would be a winning player up to the 100/200 level, it is just a matter of putting in time.