BRM £100 MTT

peter27

All the experienced players talk about just how important BRM is, so I wanted to get a better idea of what limits should be used.

Let's say for example that an MTT player (that's what I usually enter) has £100 in his account. What is the maximum entry fee he should be paying for a tournament to follow good BRM?

Thanks,
Peter

harding10

In Response to BRM £100 MTT:

All the experienced players talk about just how important BRM is, so I wanted to get a better idea of what limits should be used. Let's say for example that an MTT player (that's what I usually enter) has £100 in his account. What is the maximum entry fee he should be paying for a tournament to follow good BRM? Thanks, Peter
Posted by peter27

Sensible answer is probably £1, but certainly £2 tops.

Batkin88

I started with playing 5% of roll max so £5, however this was and still is an aggressive BRM.

However if you say 5x £5 BI's then from £75 you drop to £2.50 until back over £100 I don't think that's bad

TeddyBloat

Batkin88 bends mtts over and spanks their behinds before breakfast.  Us mere mortals need to be more savvy.

If you crush then yah go for a 30-40 buy in. Otherwise stick to 60-100 buy in depending how comfortable you are.

If you can easily replace your roll with your wages then be more aggressive and if you're playing bounty hunters then be more agrresive as they are lower variance due to the head prizes.

Cheers, 

TEDDY

Talon

 The other thing to consider with this type of roll is satellites. This gives you the chance to play in some bigger buy-in events quite cheaply and therefore increases your potential winnings.

 For example on a tuesday the satellites are around the £2 mark for a 1 in 5 chance of playing in the main event.Always a good option

Batkin88

Play as many tournaments as possible and never go over 5% regardless of how amazing you think the tournament is it just isn't worth it!!!!!

Don't play over 5% loads of people will as they say it is ok to have a punt in a big MTT you won't get the chance again, guess what, you will get the chance online poker isn't going anywhere just play within your roll.

Finally sat into the ME's where possible, if you sat in for just £1.60 then min cashing is like winning a low BI tourney but far far far easier.

I would recommend not entering any tournaments and only sats with the £100 tbh, playing 100 £1 tourneys wouldn't interest me, I would much prefer to sat into a tourney for a couple of quid and then go for the min cash until your roll is big enough to just always go for the win.

Another point, players always say what's the point in playing if you are not trying to win. This is probably one of the most annoying things ever said to me, a win to you could be different to a win to someone else. Going for min cashes is fine if that's what you set out to do. If you want a decent roll and quickly then sat in and go for min cashes, once you get your min cash then ladder.

This is going on but finally a good strategy to follow would be having target stacks, if you are in a tournament of 500 runners and the top 80 get paid. (Starting stack is 200 say) then from the off aim for 10-13k once you achieve it sit on it and get your min cash.

rancid

^ good advice from Batkin - your goal should be relative to you

a £40 min cash for a £100 BR is massive

end of the day if the min cash is a big % of your br then playing for the min cash is fine when you sat in

Lambert180

The only thing I'd say though is that imo in terms of BRM, you can't treat a £2 satellite the same as a £2 freezeout for instance.

If a £2 satellite pays 1in5 and we know we're good enough that it will take us an average of 3 goes to win our seat, then you have to view it as you essentially playing a £6 MTT because that's how much it's costing you to play the game where you can actually win £££.

For instance, you play £2.20 deepstacks, you'd have to bust 45 MTTs without a cash to go bust.

However, play purely £2.20 (1in5) sats and IF (which is a big IF imo) you're good enough to win your seat 1in3 times so (£6.60 per ME), you get 15 shots before you're busto.

Also I disagree that it's far far far easier to mincash a ME which will probably have 300+ runners (and some better players) than it is to win a small £2 MTT which may only have 30 odd runners (and often weaker fields). Not sure which is easier but I doubt there's much in it.

On top of all that... the only ME where you could do a £2 to get in direct is the £11 Turbo which is not a game I'd advise playing with a small BR anyway cos it's basically a massive cr@pshoot. All the other ones that are £33 or £55, you'd have to pay your £2, win a 1in5, then win another 1in5 just to get to play a game where you can win £££ so it'll probably end up costing you more like £15 per ME so you'd have less than 10 shots at making your min cash.

Just grind the small MTTs imo

calcalfold

In Response to Re: BRM £100 MTT:

Another point, players always say what's the point in playing if you are not trying to win. This is probably one of the most annoying things ever said to me, a win to you could be different to a win to someone else. Going for min cashes is fine if that's what you set out to do. If you want a decent roll and quickly then sat in and go for min cashes, once you get your min cash then ladder.

IMO this is pretty horrid advice strategy. Just because you are starting out does not mean you should be aiming for min cashes.

If you are looking to get in a large sample size of MTTs, you want to avoid chickening out of making aggressive moves. As long as it is the correct poker move to make of course. Being scared to lose a min cash is not the correct way to be thinking - in terms of long term ROI.

Due to the non linear payout structure it is going to be more profitable long term to make the moves in order to get higher up the finishing positions.

The times you bust out will be well compensated by the times you dont.

hhyftrftdr

In Response to Re: BRM £100 MTT:

In Response to Re: BRM £100 MTT : IMO this is pretty horrid advice strategy. Just because you are starting out does not mean you should be aiming for min cashes. If you are looking to get in a large sample size of MTTs, you want to avoid chickening out of making aggressive moves. As long as it is the correct poker move to make of course. Being scared to lose a min cash is not the correct way to be thinking - in terms of long term ROI. Due to the non linear payout structure it is going to be more profitable long term to make the moves in order to get higher up the finishing positions. The times you bust out will be well compensated by the times you dont.
Posted by calcalfold

It's all relative. If someone binks a seat into a ME cheaply, from a roll of £100 or so, then a min cash for that person is going to be a significant boost to the roll. And you can't begrudge them holding on to make the money. These min cashes can help build a roll, in which you'll then be able/more comfortable going for the chunkier prizes up top.

Players like Mattbates, TommyD and Batkin probably have little interest in a min cash, but these are very experienced tournament players. 

calcalfold

Why is experience relevant? [sic - it isnt]

You will get a better ROI long term by going for the higher places, if the poker play is sound.

Lambert180

It doesn't happen very often but I agree pretty much completely with CCF.

I can see arguements for hanging on for a min cash like Harry said if you happened to get in a ME cheap or maybe even won free entry to a ME on 861 or in some forum comp, that's fine.

BUT to deliberately try to satellite into a ME with the sole intention of trying to min cash for £30 is pretty ridiculous imo. You can play a £2 MTT with much softer and smaller fields, much less outlay (as I explained above about how much it would actually cost to get in) and have just as good a chance of cashing for £30.

Like if I binked a cheap seat into the roller... think a min cash is like £220 in that, so round the bubble time if I was short ish I probably would be a bit more cautious cos it's a decent min cash but I would never dream of trying to satellite in with the intention of actually TRYING to mincash.

Jac35

I don't think people actually mean that you should play in an attempt to purely min cash, Paul and Calcalfold 

I'm guessing, but I think they're saying that around the bubble if our tournament will be at risk, there are situations where even if its +ev to play a hand, folding is not always terrible.

Lambert180

You know I don't usually agree with CCF Jac but to be fair, Batkin did say...


"I would recommend not entering any tournaments and only sats with the £100 tbh, playing 100 £1 tourneys wouldn't interest me, I would much prefer to sat into a tourney for a couple of quid and then go for the min cash until your roll is big enough to just always go for the win.

Another point, players always say what's the point in playing if you are not trying to win. This is probably one of the most annoying things ever said to me, a win to you could be different to a win to someone else. Going for min cashes is fine if that's what you set out to do. If you want a decent roll and quickly then sat in and go for min cashes, once you get your min cash then ladder."

hhyftrftdr

What Jac35 said.

F_Ivanovic

Kind of funny here that a cash player has given better advice than a tourney player! I completely agree with Lambert's post in that it's not the best of ideas to be satelliting into tournaments to then just go for the min cash. A satellite of £2 as pointed where 1 in 5 win a seat is effectively paying at least £6 (if your very good) which means your buying into a tournament more than 5% of your BR. (which you even advised against Batkin)

I mean this is fne if we don't mind about losing the £100 but if we're playing to not go bust then it's just a horrible thing to do.

Basically there's a lot of factors though that are involved in deciding what your BRM should be. If your aim is to not go bust your average tournament BI should be £1. But if you don't mind going bust you may only want 30-40 BI's so you can avg £2.5 on a tournament. A lot of this depends on as well though the size of the tournaments you enter and the type. As someone said with a BH tournament you don't need as many BI because you'll win something fairly often. Also in a smaller sized tournament you will cash more often than in a larger tournament.

calcalfold

In Response to Re: BRM £100 MTT:

I don't think people actually mean that you should play in an attempt to purely min cash, Paul and Calcalfold  I'm guessing, but I think they're saying that around the bubble if our tournament will be at risk, there are situations where even if its +ev to play a hand, folding is not always terrible.
Posted by Jac35

Jac,

As Lambert has highlighted (or rather bolded) in his post at 7:03 PM, this was exactly what was said (By Batkin I think), and it is bad advice.

Yes, of course folding is not always terrible, we all know that. What is terrible, is folding purely to hold on to a min cash, when getting involved in the hand could result in a much higher placing.

As I stated before, the non linear payout scale means we want to be aiming as high as possible, and not worry about busting out as long as we have played the hand in a way that is long term +ve.

rancid

think people are taking this too far


if you are in a postion where u have sat in and have a cash locked up for a large % of your BR you would be foolish to enter into high varaince spots where you could drop that %


too much bravdo in this thread, if any of you was on the bubble and a cash was a large % of you br you would foolish to flip for it ?

hard to imagine obviously but the situation may arise one day

guy playing PCA sat in for $1 or something - what was min cash ? $20,000 dollars - imagine throwing that away with AK btw he made it to the final table

hhyftrftdr

Rancid sums it up quite nicely. I'm not sure many people who sat into a big tournament will immediately think ''right I just want a min cash''. However, if you are approaching the money (which is a big % of your roll) and reasonably comfortable in terms of chips, or there are quite a few shorties kicking about waiting to bust, then folding to the cash is never a bad idea. I wouldn't advise folding AA or KK but we don't need to go broke so close to the money with something marginal.

Like I said before, which was dismissed by CCF, experience comes into this (along with other factors). But if you're an experienced player in and around bubbles then you can play them accordingly (find the weak spots/bully the short and medium stacks/know when not to go to war). Someone who is playing their first bubble won't be aware of these factors probably.

Lambert180

I completely agree with the big % of your roll bit and like I said, if I was on the bubble of the roller and a min cash is like £220 then I'd probably avoid marginal spots, I obv wouldn't be folding AA/KK or anything, but might avoid some spots where I'd otherwise 3bet jam some less than premium hands. THese will often be decisions we can make due to ICM no matter how well rolled we are. If someone has 1xBB then it's just stupid to bust in a marginal spot whether you've got 1000xBIs or 10xBIs

I think it's a problem though if (as suggested by Batkin) you ONLY play satellites to events where a mincash is gonna be a big deal cos it means you're basically gonna play the entire MTT scared imo.

I still stand by the fact that it's not really worth it or good strat either... mincash on Tuesday about £20... mincash on a £33 BH (which is most nights) is about £30 cos half the prizepool is on heads. The only decent mincash is the Primo for about £100 and I think the £11 rebuy is £60ish but...

1) The Primo would be ridic to regularly satellite into from £100 imo.

2) The £11 rebuy is really a £33 so unless you satellite in 3 times every week to win 3 x £11, you won't be able to play it even close to optimally.

Grinding smaller MTTs /> /> />>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just satting into MEs imo.

peter27

Wow, never expected so many responses - loving this debate!

Thanks to everyone who replied, lots of good points! For the record, I can afford to be aggressive with my BRM - however obviously not having to re-deposit is always good. Great hearing your views on how much is acceptable though!