Should I buy into a Main event?

[renodoc]

Just want some opinions.

My resume:

I'm a budding recreational player with about 18 mos experience now. I cash or win local weekly tourneys with some regularity and recently made two final tables in events with 200 entries at the Peppermill.

I won a seat to play in the WPT event at the Hilton last year ($5100) and managed to bust out after about 3 hours with some horrible weak-tight play. I was nervous and intimidated.

I'm debating buying in this year and taking another shot. I'm a much better player than I was this time last year, but obviously don't have much experience playing at this level. With a goal of making it through the first day with an average or above chip count, who would advise that I go for it, and who thinks its a waste of my time and money. Gaining experience at this level might be worth the buy-in??

Please spare me the "we need fish like you in the tounery" comments....

[shadow29]

Can you afford it?

Oh and:

[ QUOTE ]
we need fish like you in the tounery

[/ QUOTE ]

[renodoc]

I can afford it.

I guess I'm trying to get to what the EV of this play is for me. There is some analogy to a golf tournament or perhaps a #13 seed winning the NCAA tourney. I'm not sure exactly.

So we have the immediate small expectation of cashing in this tourney + the long term expectation that my game will somehow improve if I pay this $5100 lesson + the miniscule chance I would get face time on the travel channel (which of course would have all kinds of +EV from an ego standpoint)

[eurythmech]

Aren't the side tournaments about the same in experience but a hell lot cheaper though?

[SpeakEasy]

What the hell, go for it. You only live once.

I've worked up the bankroll in about 12 months to play in a smaller buy-in WSOP NLHE event this year (Event #9, plane tickets in hand), and I'm shooting to play in the big event next year.

You gotta set goals to achieve them, baby.

[MLG]

why not just play some sats?

[renodoc]

Well, the sats are essentially the level I've been at for the past 18 months. My learning curve is still going, but flattening a bit.

I'd like to try to get an idea of where I stand in comparison to the competition. Since I have a dayjob, if my ROI is barely positive at the level I am playing I am happy with that for now.

The question I am trying to ask is: How does one know he's ready to move up???

[MLG]

for 99% of the population the idea of "moving up" to televised big buy-in events is rediculous. the bankroll needed to play in them consistently without backing is astronomical. However, that doesn't mean you shouldn't take a shot every once in a while, play in one WSOP to get the experience and such. Of course you can get that experience a lot cheaper than for 10k by winning a satellite. Play the sats, try and win a seat, and if you do enjoy it.

If you do decide to buy-in treat it as a recreational expenditure rather than a poker one.

[Shoe]

There is so much short-term variance in just one tournament that it is hard to really figure out how you stack up against the competition. A bad showing may make you think you are worse than you really are (or it might be correct), and a good showing may make you think you are a lot better than you really are.

[PokerPaul]

i have considered this same scenario recently.

And i went to 2 separate big tourney events over last 6 months...1 at fox woods, and 1 at tunica.

In both cases i obvioulsy wanted to play the main events, but just couldnt bring myself to pay the full buyin.

Instead, i played the sattelites that were running there. many of them just $150 to 250 sattelites. And for the most part i did evry well in those and could hold my own.

However, once i won a couple of Act II sattelites at foxwoods, which qualifies you for a $1000 buyin Act III, where 1 big event buyin came in for every 10 participants, the story changed.

In this tourney i very quickly realized that the calibre of opposition increased dramatically. In fact, many of the pros
play in those $1000 sattelites, and many fringe players you never heard of or seen but are nonetheless very good players.

I became a bit more timid and weak tight. whever i got some playable pockets, i rarely got a chance to play them cuz someone else would routijnely come in for triple or quadruple the blinds and i'd have to fold.


Whenever i was on blind, someone would always raise them..IE almost no free looks at flop, only to see my dream flop hit with all kinds of action.

And post flop play became much more intimidating too.

I did learn alot tho, but i am very happy i did not invest into a full buyin for that lesson...those sattelites and bigger buy in sattelits

Here's an example:

I'm in BB with AJs, UTG makes it triple the bet.

All fold to me and i call.

Flop AT6 rainbow.

I think he may have AK, but i fire a bet at pot equal to 2 big blinds to see how he reacts.

He comes over the top of me for 1/3 of my stack...i think but have to fold...not many hands i can beat with him basically saying he's got my ace beat.

I talk to him next day and he tells me he had pocket 4's that hand. He said he took control of betting, and when i bet into flop he knew i had ace, but because i didnt bet strong enough he knew he could force me into fold by coming over top even though he was clearly dominated.

When people start stealing pots off you based on these superior reading and guts to pull that off, you're at a huge disadvantage. Thats what separates the contenders from pretenders.

And until u master that its better to get your practice at something less than full 10000 entry fees.