Odds of winning big vs. small MTT

[zenbitz]

Sed and I have a disagreement about this. He placed 27th in a 1200 person tourney, I place 16th in a 275 person MTT recently.

I argued that, mathmatically - to win an MTT you have to get all the chips, and there are 3 times as many chips in the bigger (example) tourney.

No, that does NOT mean that it's 3 times as hard - because it's really just the number of double ups (not literally) you need to get all the cheeps.

It's roughly 8-9 double ups to knock out 275 people, and another 2 to knock out the next 900-odd

2^8 = 256
2^9 = 512
2^10 = 1024
2^11 = 2048

So, the question is - are those extra double ups easier or harder than the first 9? If they are the same, then I would argue that the larget tourney is roughly 3/9ths, or 33% harder.

if you think of it like 2 256 person tournies, but one has a long run-up, then you see that it's the first 2-3 double ups that are important.

[Sed]

you just won't let it die will you....

I guess I should have phrased my original comment better which should have stated that "if you have the skills to win a 275 person tourney, you have the skills to win a 1300 player tourney." The hardest part is surviving to where you have a shot at the big money in either tourney. One more double up is essentially the difference between a shot at it in the larger tourneys.

Thats the last time I make a comment without a freaking thesis and statistical ananlysis to back it up.

-sed

[michael1123]

Winning a very big tournament is "harder" in the sense that it'll happen much less often, but the smaller ones are more skill based.

In terms of pure odds, a completely average player (for the field that has entered) has to have a 1 in X (number of entries) chance of winning the tournament.

An extremely skilled player may have, lets say, 4x the chance of winning a tournament as an average player. In a 200 player field that'd be a 1 in 50 chance of winning and in a field of 2,000 that'd be a one in 500 chance of winning.

So in that sense, I think you can say that winning a tournament with 2,000 people is 10x less likely (better word to use than difficult, given the luck factor) than winning one with 200.

That's the way I think about it, at least.

[DavSimon]

I can only speak from personal experience...no real hard numbers to back it up, but generally/philosophicaly it seems reasonable. I have had much more success in smaller MTTs (100-300person) than in larger MTTs (900+ person)

Large MTTs are more difficult, but there is no hard % by how much. There are intangibles that need to be considered such as $ value of the buy-in, Freezout or R&A, time of day, day of the week and duration of the tourney (how long it takes). The more weak players that enter a tourney, the greater chance of you being sucked out on in a critical situation or being dealt a bad beat. Being a solid player you certainl try to limit the coinflip situations you get into, and definately want the best of it when all the chips go in. A thin call is a thin call....and is nearly impossible to avoid all the gamblers in a large MTT....you kinda need them to build a good prize pool and to double you up when needed.

I imagine the lower the buy-in the more beginning players (smaller bankrolls) enter the tourney. We all know there are fish at all levels, but there are far fewer in a $20-$30 R&A or $100 freezeout than in a $5 R&A or $10 freezeout. it just stands to reason that an inexperienced player with a $100 bankroll will be attracted to a $5-$10 large tourney...the potential return on investment is huge "why not buy that lottery ticket for $5....I might get lucky"

I feel that time of day plays a significant part in things as well as day of the week. I have historically done poorly on Fridays...perhaps it is the gambling weekend warriors, perhaps it is nothing but paranioa. I just quit playing on Friday....less frustration, fewer bad beats - I am happier because of it. It also seems that play is significantly looser from 5-8pm during the week...just an impression, but it could be the initial rush of East Coast people getting off work and playing. And very importantly - the smaller MTTs generally take less time overall to play. Try as I might somewhere duing the 3rd-4th hour my attention starts to slip...when I make it past that point and get close or into the money I wake up real quick...but maintaining focus is a factor. The 220 person tourney I won at PR only took about 3 hours. The recent 4th place in the Stars R&A took roughly 6.5 hours, far more difficult to stay focused for that long.

In the end, no matter what size of tourney - it boils down to:
Solid Play + Experience + Luck = WIN The more experience I gain playing in the larger tourneys, the more consistanly I have gotten ITM or close to the money....when you catch a couple critical breaks is when you make the final table. Yes....you can make your own luck, and increase your chances of advancing past most of the field, but in the end if luck does not shine on you - you will not win.

Anyway...there you go, some of my ramblings added....correct or not that is generally how I feel - BTW this is a very interesting topic!

[zenbitz]

Soirry sed - just don't say stuff that makes no sense, and I won't call you on it.

But following along with what Dav said - is it better to play against stronger players or weaker players? Or somewhere in between?

Bad players are inherently (on line, anyway) less predictable. They limp with everything - they might raise for no reason, call all-ins with AX. They are hard to bluff and steal from, and that's critical. On the plus side, if they are loose they will call your monsters.

Good players... well, at least you can figure out what they are doing IF you know they are good. A good player often pretends to be bad... but this only works against mediocre players - and often works very well.

The mediocre players that are the best to play against are the ones that THINK they are good, and think you are an idiot.

So, here are the basic situations in a tourney:

1) Everyone at your table is about even (i.e., the start)
2) You have a small stack
3) You have a desperately small stack (more relative to blinds than table)
4) You have a big stack (2-3x over the typical guy)
5) You have a a huge stack (>3x over everyone)

Of course, how close to ITM/FT, and the number of people with big/small stacks at your table matters too, but these are the basic situations.

So, when do you want to be playing good, bad, or mediocre players? I am trying to imagine when you would want good players? Maybe when you are desperate, and they know it, and you catch cards.

[DavSimon]

Just talking off the top of my head here, but it seems to follow a pretty standard/reliable pattern. The later you get in a tourney the better the competitors are. Of course you will have a smattering of extremely lucky and rock types....but in general when 2/3 to 3/4 of the field are gone - you are left with the good players.

Late in a tourney when you are trying to steal very large blinds, I would prefer to be playing against a good player....namely one who is able to lay down a pretty decent hand, because he can't call with it. I don't want my all-in steal called by some joker that can't get away from K-6s or Q-To.
In an R&A I want the very loose even maniacal all-in every other hand player at my table. It pumps the table full of chips that you can work to take after the first hour. Plus it is easy to play against them. When they are not in a hand you punch all-in....since you have been laying back playing tight people will respect your all-in bet to a certain extent. And when the maniac is in a hand just camp for a great starting hand and put them all in the middle....gamble up time. If you get beat just rebuy and try again.
Freezeouts are different, you just have to play very solidly and try to avoid 1) making a bad play 2) someone getting very lucky against you
until the field get narrowed down somewhat.

[Toasty]

Big - low

Small - not as low


Solved

[michael1123]

is it better to play against stronger players or weaker players? Or somewhere in between?

For me, this is probably one of the easiest questions I've seen on this forum. I love playing against the solid, mediocre, not so aggressive players. My best skill is reading players, and these guys are extremely easy to read for me. Bad players are harder to read because they really don't know what they're doing. Very good players are hard to read because they're aggressive and mix up their play.

Without good reads its hard to bluff and hard to know when marginal hands are good, so I'd much rather play against an average solid player than a complete fish, that makes the game more luck based.