Micros or more expensive tourneys - which are the easiest?

[nighton]

Micro tournaments is easier. More amateur fun players like me easily can take my chips😂😀

 

[R.Melnyk77]

I think that players who pay money, i.e. make a buy-in, play more responsibly, because in fact it is money that they spent from their own pockets (from their bankroll). Players who win a ticket in a satellite, or receive it as a prize, or in some other way, they can play more aggressively and riskier. And there are players who are simply in a state of tilt and try to recoup their previous losses as soon as possible, and probably such players are the most dangerous because they often play all their hands in a row.

 

[Tanamita]

in expensive tournaments, people play more seriously. But everyone has their own cost, for someone even $ 100 is small money, and he plays like a fish

 

[userX]

Obviously, the bigger the buy-in, the more responsibly the participants play. I agree with your observation. But regarding the fact that it is easier to win money in more expensive tournaments, I do not completely agree with you here. In more expensive tournaments, more experienced players, more patient players play, and in my opinion, such players are quite serious opponents.

 

[thwenth1983]

Good afternoon everyone, there is a belief that more expensive tournaments are easier to profit from, because the players know how to play better and don't do so much madness, in micro limits the guy takes any two cards so it's hard to read the villain but actually it's the opposite, in micro tournaments they are much easier to profit than in expensive tournaments.
The secret of profiting in micro limit tournaments is that you only play for value, not bluffing and whenever the villain bets high, he usually has a strong hand, it is one or another good player who will bluff, but in general the villains are very transparent about their bets, strong hand they will bet high and weak hands they bet low.
I know several good players who have already made a lot of money in 2022 and who in 2023 are losing a lot of money because they play in expensive tournaments, that is to say, they are excellent players who prove that expensive tournaments are more difficult.

 

[Macaroon]

I suggest that the reason they are losing a lot of money playing in expensive tournaments is BECAUSE when they are paying a lot to enter, so they lose more when they fail to win. But of course you are right about playing for value in micros. That doesn't stop you losing with aces against K5 offsuit, though, and hitting a flush with the 5 on the river!!!

 

[LaNimmer]

Generally yes, but it all boils down to what players are willing to risk, In freerolls they are risking nothing so they really don't care whether they win or lose, it's just a game to them, and you do get the idiot all-in pushes with any two cards because they don't care.
When you buy into a game, then it becomes more serious because you are basically putting your own money up front, but the buy-ins could still be peanuts compared to what they have in their Bankroll.
Bill Perkins and Guy Laliiberte are millionaires in their own right and play High Stakes Poker all the time, not because they need the money, but they enjoy playing against the best players in the World. So the buy-ins become proportional to what they can afford to lose. I have seen Bill Perkins pay the buy-in for other people, not wanting the money back or a piece of their action, just being nice to someone who would not normally play at those type of levels. The money becomes immaterial to them because they don't need it and I have seen some crazy bluffs from them both.
Poker is a fun game, and I only ever play with money I am not afraid to lose, whether that's £5, £25, or £100 , if I cannot afford to burn it, I simply don't play. Playing with money that you cannot afford to lose, is playing with "Scared Money" and very stupid.

I agree with you totally but I would add that the numbers of registered players and whether there is a re-buy or an add on can change the dynamic of the game quite a bit as well. A lot more chances being taken.

 

[TeUnit]

Micros are much easier.

Its like would you rather play golf against pros or amateurs.

 

[ph_il]

I wonder if the issue some players have isn't if microstakes mtts are easier to beat, but that they can't handle the higher variance in microstakes.

 

[fundiver199]

I wonder if the issue some players have isn't if microstakes mtts are easier to beat, but that they can't handle the higher variance in microstakes.

That is definitely the core of the issue. Many people hate bad beats, and if the opponent played poorly, then ego comes into play, and many people feel, they "deserved" to win, because they played better than the lucky opponent.

 

[kaynbergo]

I've played several tournaments above the micro limits, but I've had enough experience to agree with you. At micro limits, studying the theory of some strategies becomes completely unimportant when a person from the previous one decides to introduce 82 different suits and he will get 82 and there are a lot of such situations at micro-limits, I hardly saw it at stake older

 

[ph_il]

That is definitely the core of the issue. Many people hate bad beats, and if the opponent played poorly, then ego comes into play, and many people feel, they "deserved" to win, because they played better than the lucky opponent.

their biggest opponent is themselves.

if they learn to get pass the higher variance and accept that it's part of the microstakes, both good and bad, then they would likely start to have better results. especially those who focus on improving their game.

 

[ph_il]

I've played several tournaments above the micro limits, but I've had enough experience to agree with you. At micro limits, studying the theory of some strategies becomes completely unimportant when a person from the previous one decides to introduce 82 different suits and he will get 82 and there are a lot of such situations at micro-limits, I hardly saw it at stake older

82 different suits? club, spade, heart, diamond... what are the other 78 suits?

 

[poxerator78]

microtournaments have more chips than full tournaments, it all depends on your skill level if you consider yourself an average player and the bankroll allows you to play better in full tournaments

 

[gravii2011]

Micro tournaments are easier for me, because if it doesn't work out, at least it's not so disappointing.

 

[ednaroza]

Yes, there are a lot of players 'taking massive chances' at micro stakes as you say, but that doesn't mean this makes those stakes harder to play. Because even if they catch two pairs on the flop with any two preflop as you say, they can't do that every time. So you would still win most of the time if you play correctly. Thats where chances come to play - even if you play corectly, you still can't win them all.

 

[steve01991]

I agree with you, it does seem the more your buy in , the better the players are. And if you are skilled, you will make money.

 

[makisaa]

It is easier to win in higher buy in tournaments, because there are less players and they are more rational in their game and in their choices. So the moves are more predictable and the game is clearer.

 

[Nikon10000]

The choice between micro tournaments and more expensive tournaments depends on your goals, resources and skill level.

 

[R.Holynskyi]

The more expensive the tournament, the greater the chances that the players will behave appropriately and play poker instead of bingo. Your observation is true, I too have repeatedly noticed this pattern.

 

[CataRouillet]

I think the easiest would be the micro limits, it is where you find more recreational players. Especially in PKOs. It's my opinion anyway.

 

[budweiser74777]

micro tournaments are easier - full of idiots and it's not a pity to lose a penny

 

[Macaroon]

I think a lot of the posters are not thinking about whether it's easier to win money or not in higher entry fee tourneys. They do seem to agree that it's easier to lose at micros because the players have less to lose. budweiser 74777 sums it up - "it's not a pity to lose a penny". But that's not my original question. However there have been some very good posts on the subject.

 

[Edu1]

Face it folx, the days of fish everywhere are over, imo. The better players go where the fish are at and right now most of them are in the micro to low limits. Sure, you'll find that there are easy games at higher stakes but it's the same for all stakes. Ever play in one of these CC freerolls? There not exactly paying out life-changing $ around here but the players are going to play their asses off to get the 100, 25, or whatever 1st place is. Trust me, it's all about the experience/variance of the players in the trny w/you (yours included) that matters whether you cash, not the stakes. That's just my opinion but I think it's somewhat spot-on.

very true

I think a lot of the posters are not thinking about whether it's easier to win money or not in higher entry fee tourneys. They do seem to agree that it's easier to lose at micros because the players have less to lose. budweiser 74777 sums it up - "it's not a pity to lose a penny". But that's not my original question. However there have been some very good posts on the subject.

I don't have experience in expensive tournaments, so the only answer is, low buy-in is easier

 

[micalupagoo]

Well I’d say micros,
I’ve final tabled so so many small buy in games
I’ve played tons of bigger buyin ones as well ($22-$109) and never reached the final, lucky to make top 50, even lucky to min cash…
Wild donkey players are frustrating but theres nobody better to play against, because in the long run, you will win more👍