mtt question

[turnipmonster]

I am probably going to get flamed to high hell for asking this, but I was talking with a friend about this and am curious.

my question is, are there many people who actually play just MTTs for a living? (note: the following is a broad sweeping generalization based on an extremely small sample size [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ) because it seems like except for chris ferguson, with most "new tourney pros" I hear about the cycle goes something like:
1) play a bunch of tourneys
2) win between 1 and 3 tourneys
3) go "pro" and play lots of tourneys
4) go broke/stop playing

it seems to me like the variance of these things is way too high to make a consistent living playing just large MTTs, but again I don't know what I am talking about. so how many of y'all are playing large MTTs with a +EV, and how many ppl are in general?

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
it seems to me like the variance of these things is way too high to make a consistent living playing just large MTTs

[/ QUOTE ]

i think the bigger problem is that you can't play enough to know if you're really +EV. also, if you're just talking big buy-in big field tournies, there aren't enough going on. you're sitting on your hands most of the day and then 8-tabling on sunday afternoons. this is an even bigger problem if you're trying to play live (but the big ones are bigger, obviously).

i don't make my living from poker exclusively (yet...) but i play STT's when no good MTT's are available and play some mix when there's a good MTT.

i believe MLG plays MTT's exclusively.

btw, if you wanted to start hanging around the MTT board instead of those sally mid/high cash boards, you'd be more than welcome.

[MLG]

I do basically play MTTs exclusively. I just find them more fun/exciting than cash games. Or, more accurately, I'd have to play higher than I feel comfortable doing in cash games to get the same rush I do from going deep in any tournament. As for your question, yes the varience is insane. Most people who win one early in their playing career never fully grasp how hard it is to do, and thus don't manage their bankroll correctly after they win. Either they either play too mang big tournies and blow it, think they are gods gift to poker and blow it at cash games that they aren't equipped to play, or they dont money in 10 tournies in a row and get frusterated.

Varience is a different animal in tournaments than in cash games. In cash games its all about swings, but a gnereal upward trend. In tournaments its long periods of slowly losing money followed by one huge evening (online) or (weekend) live. It takes a strange breed to deal with it.

I hate talking smack in this forum... but here it goes.

To solidify your point... look no further than Tuan Lee. Tuan has good card sense, and great reades... but he will never last.

He used to play at the Bike in the highest limit game he could find. He didn't feel comfortable unless he was playing well beyond his means. Finally he found people to back him and/or stake him in tournaments... then he went on his little rush with those two huge WPT wins.

Unfortunately, with taxes, 50% to backers, and getting himself out of year of hawk and debt repayment.... he is right back where he started a couple years ago.

These are the type of players that are usually at the final table of the WPT and then go broke shortly there-after.

You're right that the variance in MTTs is much higher than in cash games or SnGs, but it's still possible to make a living off of them. I think the people on these forums who do this play very many tournies to both maximize profits and lower variance.

[turnipmonster]

this is interesting thanks for your response. a related thing that I am curious about is MTT game selection. I am assuming a number of factors would influence what makes a good MTT vs. a bad one (i.e. length of level, starting stack size, size of field, payout structure).

my question is basically, what are all these factors?

[Exitonly]

Sirio does all MTT's too. (I think he might teach parrt time still, but that can't be necessary anynmore).

I play all MTT's too, i don't make enough yet for a standard 'living', but i pay for the few expenses i have w/ them.

Online you can play a ton of tournaments, the variance is huge, but you can play so many that it balancese out. Even 'big' buyin tournamnets, there are a few tournamnets each night with more than 10k to first. (45k, Stars 150, Party Supers, Paradise 60k, etc).

[MLG]

Well, online some tournaments certainly have stronger fields than others. Generally high buy-in tournaments that do not have sats run for them have the most difficult fields. So, many live 5k events (when they will be followed by a 10k event) have difficult and small fields. In my opinion the bigger the field the better, since I think I'm better than the vast majority of players in a tournament each extra player that is added gives me more EV since they have a smaller chance of winning than I do. While its nice to have longer levels and bigger stack sizes given that those factors impact the whole field equally I don't worry about them too much. While slow structures do allow for more play, short of a complete crap shoot most structures dont reduce your edge over poorer players enough to make them not worth playing.

My theory... and it may be totally off base...

You have to play well AND catch good cards to win any tournament style (1 table SNG to WSOP $10K events).

If I'm going to play my A game and get good cards... i'd rather have it be against a huge field with the biggest buy-in / prize pool I can afford.