Why do you play MTT's?
Recently I've been thinking a lot about why I play in MTT's, and whether I should keep playing them. While any tournament with 2 or more tables would technically be an MTT, for the purposes of this discussion I will define them as over 100 players (although usually they are in excess of 500), with the top 10-20% being paid. This includes both online tournaments and the larger live tournaments (such as WsOP or WPT).
When starting to play for real money a few months ago, I discussed the profitability of MTT's with magithighs. During our discussion, he asked me what my EV in a tournament really was. Initially, this made me think about how many players I would consider myself to have an edge in skill in any given tournament. However, as we continued to talk, some other issues such as field size and luck started to surface.Â
Field size comes into play especially when you think about the payout structure. In most tournaments, you'll only get a few buy-ins back unless you make the final table. For example, even if I consider myself in the top 10% of players (I don't, but just as an example
), in a 1000-person tournament that still means I only expect to finish around 100 (which on Stars would pay less than 0.2%). This still isn't enough to be profitable.
Luck is even more important as you keep adding participants. In a tournament that size there are so many times where your best hand needs to hold up (or you need to come from behind), that the normal probabilities are against you. In short, most players simply do not have enough of an edge to be profitable in tournaments. You also have to be "lucky" enough to avoid that one hand where "monkey mind goes blank" and you donk off a bunch of chips.
According to the 2+2 MTT faq (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=4202217&an=0&page=0#Post4202217):
Dave Scharf had an interesting post about calculating your tournament EV (http://pokerforum.ca/forum/index.php?topic=2283.0) and I also read a good article on knowing your win-rate (http://www.casinogamblinggold.info/60097.php). However, while these look at your actual EV, they don't seem to address your "opportunity EV". For example, if your win-rate is 100 (you win 1 out of 100), the purse is 1000 times the buy-in, and each attempt takes 5 hours, this means that you net 900 buy-ins every 500 hours. However, if you could make 1BB/hour meaning 50 hands/hour and 2BB/100), you could be making 500 BB without the same risks as a tournament. Unless I'm missing something, even a +EV tournament player doesn't have enough of an edge to compensate for the time they are losing in their normal games (unless they get lucky ).
Now, if the above is true, why do we keep playing tournaments. I'd be interested in feedback, especially from some of you who play a lot of tournaments (SirWatts ). Some of the things I'd love to discuss and learn about are:
- long-term profitable tournament players - are you out there?
- why non-profitable players keep playing
- for skilled ring players (Dave Scharf, magithighs), what are there thoughts on the trade-off of "ring game time" for tourney time (the "opportunity EV")
When starting to play for real money a few months ago, I discussed the profitability of MTT's with magithighs. During our discussion, he asked me what my EV in a tournament really was. Initially, this made me think about how many players I would consider myself to have an edge in skill in any given tournament. However, as we continued to talk, some other issues such as field size and luck started to surface.Â
Field size comes into play especially when you think about the payout structure. In most tournaments, you'll only get a few buy-ins back unless you make the final table. For example, even if I consider myself in the top 10% of players (I don't, but just as an example
), in a 1000-person tournament that still means I only expect to finish around 100 (which on Stars would pay less than 0.2%). This still isn't enough to be profitable.Luck is even more important as you keep adding participants. In a tournament that size there are so many times where your best hand needs to hold up (or you need to come from behind), that the normal probabilities are against you. In short, most players simply do not have enough of an edge to be profitable in tournaments. You also have to be "lucky" enough to avoid that one hand where "monkey mind goes blank" and you donk off a bunch of chips.
According to the 2+2 MTT faq (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=4202217&an=0&page=0#Post4202217):
 I also remember reading that even the top players only have a win rate of around 2%. I don't know if this information is correct, but it's what I could find. There isn't a lot of hard data on the losses for the top winning players, but from what I've read the general consensus is that all but the very best MTT players are barely above break-even. I've also heard that many pros are at the tournaments partly for the potential win, but largely due to the juicy side-games (so the tournament is merely an expense).6. What is a good ROI/ITM%/FT%? ... any positive ROI is a good one, 100 is solid. As for ITM, anything over 10% is good
Dave Scharf had an interesting post about calculating your tournament EV (http://pokerforum.ca/forum/index.php?topic=2283.0) and I also read a good article on knowing your win-rate (http://www.casinogamblinggold.info/60097.php). However, while these look at your actual EV, they don't seem to address your "opportunity EV". For example, if your win-rate is 100 (you win 1 out of 100), the purse is 1000 times the buy-in, and each attempt takes 5 hours, this means that you net 900 buy-ins every 500 hours. However, if you could make 1BB/hour meaning 50 hands/hour and 2BB/100), you could be making 500 BB without the same risks as a tournament. Unless I'm missing something, even a +EV tournament player doesn't have enough of an edge to compensate for the time they are losing in their normal games (unless they get lucky
).Now, if the above is true, why do we keep playing tournaments. I'd be interested in feedback, especially from some of you who play a lot of tournaments (SirWatts
). Some of the things I'd love to discuss and learn about are:- long-term profitable tournament players - are you out there?
- why non-profitable players keep playing
- for skilled ring players (Dave Scharf, magithighs), what are there thoughts on the trade-off of "ring game time" for tourney time (the "opportunity EV")
Comments
My stats only go back to November when I started playing online. I've played 120 MTT's with an ROI of 80% and an ITM of 27%. However, if I remove my one big win (a 3rd place), my ITM doesn't really change, but my ROI becomes -30%. I think I am a pretty good tournament player, but I am not a profitable one. I keep playing MTT's even though I'm losing money because I love them. To me, tournaments are what it's about. I make money in ring-games, but they feel like work. I lose money in tournaments, but those are enjoyable and relaxing. So basically, I'm willing to pay for my entertainment, and my lost "opportunity EV" is the same as a weekend off work - sometimes I just want a break
I play tournaments for the big payday and for a change of pace. Besides, with so many -EV players in tournaments these days, playing in MTT's make it +EV.
Also, the WSOP is of course all tournaments. While playing strictly cash games may make you more money in the long run or more money per hour, you are missing out on the opportunity to sell yourself. Poker has become so popular mainly because of it being televised. If you don't play in these big tourneys, you're missing out on many endorsement opportunities and that's why many high limit cash game players like Chau Giang (who strictly played cash games up until a few years ago) have entered the tournament poker scene. Also, the prize money has also grown to be so huge and winning millions of dollars for a little investment doesn't sound like a bad idea.
Now for us "little leaguers", I guess we mainly play tourneys to sharpen our skills at playing in tournaments. When we finally have our shot (winning a seat to the WSOP main event), we know what to do and how to play in many scenarios/hands/positions. I know my dream is to win the WSOP main event one year... Isn't that your dream? And it just so happens to be a tournament.
That being said, I decided last week spend $100 on satellites to try and win my way in to the Grand Prix event on Pokerroom.
Try #1: 13 places from a buyin, my 88 went down to A8 when he hit his gutshot straight on the river. Sigh.
I like playing the large field events once a week on the weekend (low stakes), and I play a few of 1-3 table SNG's. I am just starting to try out the 180-person SNG's at Stars.
Tournies are fun.
I find them relaxing and good "value". The 3+.30 at 7:05 on Stars especially. I got lucky once, finished 2nd for 664.00, that pays for a lot of 3.00 tournies.
SNG's and MTT are the closest thing to "fun" poker. Ring games are a grind and almost always feel that way. I rarely feel that way in a MTT.
That said, it is nice to be in the money.
I have done well over the last year. In the last 12 months at port perry, I have 4 final tables. 2 thirds, 1 fourth, 1 tenth.
On line poker tournaments I have not done nearly as well, but I keep trying.
I love ring games and that's where the bulk of my time is spent playing. I love every hand in that it's like a little 'murder mystery' with clues, likely suspects and the killer (hopefully me!). I might be strange -- seems like I'm an oddity (I like that) in that I love online play and I love online limit ring games.Â
I used to love limit tournaments, but maybe I just like limit poker too much. I don't like limit tournaments any longer because people try to play them like NL tournaments and it's too frustrating.
I found NL tournaments harder to manage from a psychological standpoint -- boredom, bad beats etc. But, I wanted a shot at the big prize money. So, I worked on my game and became better. Now, my time is split 80/20 with 80% spent on limit ring games and 20% on NL tournaments.
The interesting thing that happens is the less specialized I become, the better I become. My limit game got a huge jolt in performance after my first WSOP entry. And, as I developed confidence in my limit game, my NL game improved.Â
Beanie, I'm confused when you say you have an 80% ROI and you're losing money -- I'm not sure I get the math. Â
Cheers
Magi
Where do you find these? I find the micro MTT's usually have thousands of players?
I play MTT's to find out just how angry I can get by either making a stupid mistake late to finish just out of the money or by getting sucked out by a player who calls my AA all-in with Q6 and hits a runner-runner flush, straight, or just plain flops a boat.
Seriously tho.....I find the ring games a grind but very profitable, especially with reload bonuses or rake backs.
I play SNG's on Stars because I do very well at them and in turn enjoy them, for me winning=enjoyment.
I play the MTT's for experience and the payday, like Wolffhound said (and did!), 2nd in a $3 MTT pays well over $600 a big profit on a small investment...I want that!
LOL. Most of the responses here talk about the grind, but you love ring
Very similar to Mike's comment: The only reason I have a positive ROI is due to my "1 big score". Without it, I'm a losing player. Further, if I continue on my current trend (which may simply be normal MTT variance), before too long I will become a losing player even with that big finish.
I'm trying to maintain about the same 80/20 balance. However, going off-topic, I know you also spend dedicated study time. I'd be interested how you (and others who actually study) split your time between playing and study.
I hate having to adjust my game
Adjusting is a huge part of my game -- hence I had a big score winning a $100 limit tournament with Scott Fishman at the final table. He actually hit on me! I just find it frustrating and the scores are not nearly as large as the NL tournaments. The bigger the potential score, the less I worry about frustration.Â
Cheers
Magi
Beanie,
Don't be too hard on yourself. Most of the time it fuels you to get better, but you need to be careful it doesn't hurt you. It took me a long, long time before I won a MTT. Mostly because I'm playing ring games, but it still was many tournaments. You need to focus on decisions. Are you making sound decisions? And this is more than just getting your money in with the best of it.Â
A win is a win and you need to include that in your results. The big question is "do you have enough EV" in the tournaments to make it worth your time playing them? And, this is much like playing poker. It takes many hands (well over 100K) to know you have +EV. So, it takes a time/money committment to see if you can make it -- more of a leap of faith based on the love of the game. So, how many tournaments does it take? Well, if you play in a tournament every day, that's only 365 tournaments in a year. Personally, I think it would take over 1,000 tournaments to determine if you're +EV.  How much can you win? Well say you have an EV of 3. You invest 10 bucks on average and that works out to 30,000.  Not a bad haul, but that really doesn't pay for the time investment IMO.Â
That's why for me it's more ring game play, less tournament. And that will be less and less tournament for me in the next while as well. Good thing I like ring games.
Cheers
Magi
But, tournaments are different. There's a bigger sense of competition and getting there's always that chance that you might win of those and get some nice dollars back, that would probably be my main reason.
However, I find live cash games more fun and lively, much more interesting caracters than online.
That was my small two cents worth!
In short, I've been thinking about this exact same question. And basically, I'd echo the sentiments made by everyone else. It's a change of pace. It's a challenge. It's the chance at a big payday. But it's also makes me question why I spent 3.5-4 hrs playing a $3+0.30 last night to bust around 100th of 2400 players to get a win of like 12 bucks. It seems like such a waste in comparison to a cash game (when you don't hit the big payday, which is quite often).
In short, I think I'm a sucker for punishment...but it's entertaining (albeit frustrating at times)....
Then comes the rest of the time where your monkey brain pushes when you know you shouldn't, or someone else's monkey brain calls when they shouldn't and flops a monster. Or two large hands meet up and you lose.
Live, I play for fun and interaction which is why I drive a few hours to play a $20-$50 tourney in K/W, while it gets far more serious if I buy in for several hundred plus. Besides I like the look on beanie's face when his A-9 falls to my suited Q.......
Pride.
We want to post the beating we laid on 999 other players.
Mark
My goal when I first started playing MTT's was to make it to the first break. The first few times I didn't quite make it. After a few of them I started making it to the second and third break and I was quite pleased with myself. I started off thinking small and realistic and learning from my mistakes. (well some of them)
I then set the bar higher and played with the goal to make the money. I have accomplished this quite a few times now, my best being a 5th place finish in a 280 person $10R MTT. Now my goal is to win one, not a major like the Sunday Stars $1 Million dollar prize pool, not yet anyway. My goal is to win one of the $3R, $5R or $10R. Not long ago I would have thought this goal to be way out of my reach, now I feel that I can accomplish this goal one day too.
And you can be sure the first thing I do is go and find the DING DING DING thread.
I do the same thing. I sit down, don't play much for the first 15-35 minutes, and then make a strategy, and set goals. In huge fields it helps keep you focused. In the end it's about making good decision, not necessarily good outcomes. I love tournaments because it's Survival of the Fittest, and it's always fun to get a huge pay for a small entry fee.
I only wish I knew how to play ring games.