Definitely have more than 100 buyins if you are depending on this for income or want to build a roll. If have other income then I'd take a shot at a higher buyin but smaller field. I'd much rather do a 100 freezout with 400 entrants than a $50 with 2K entrants I remember when I had a 5 K roll I was trying to qualify for the 2500 wcoop. Spent like 1500 trying to qualify, didn't, then said f$% it and bought in for it. I busted like 600 with 460 paying or something with my AA vs JJ all in pre J on turn. BR management ftw.

Sick not very hidden brag about having 100K.

No, seriously, I agree with you that 100K is better than 1 million 1/10 times, but I'd disagree that having $100 is better than having $1K 1/10 times, or that having 1K is better than having 10K 1/10 times. Life-changing money is different for everybody; I remember that first four-figure score better than most of my five-figures. 100K IS pretty life-changing for a lot of people and has a lot of utility, whereas $100 doesn't. At least in my opinion, when we take your logic to the extreme, it breaks down

Something in my gut tells me that Average buyin shouldn't be calculated as $ spent on tournies/#tournies, just as billy pointed out above, I think your "shots" should be within some range maybe 2-5x your normal buyin depending on how many buyins you have. I wish I could figure out how to calculate average buyin in such a way that really factors in RoR when you consider widely varying buyins. Basically if you have 100buyins for your normal level and you take a shot with in a tourney that's 2 or 3 times bigger that's ok every once in a while. If you have 250buyins and you take a shot in something 3-5x as big as your regular buyins that's probably also ok.

I remember seeing a really good explanation of how taking shots affects your variance even if your ABI stays the same. Perhaps one of the math guys (hi Billy!) can give us an explanation the rabble can understand.

thought this was the other skier, was gonna say don't plz

the definitive argument on taking shots: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC--NX8252c

I dont think this is what people are advocating. Its more like if you mostly play $20 MTTs and are adequately rolled for this, is it ok to take a shot at a $100 MTT once in a while (throw it into the mix). Nothing wrong with that at all.

I think for a large number of players who satelite into the main event, playing in it and not just taking the cash is probably a verrrrrrrry bad BR management decision, probably doesnt even make sense to play the satelites to begin with. But, worth a shot, imo.

NOW YOU TELL ME!!@#@$_*#$)(*#)($*#)(

On a serious note, I ve had both good and bad experience with taking shots. On my first big MTT which was shot taking, I almost Fted but even then the money were enough to radically boost my bankroll and give me valuable breething space.

OTOH, I find that I take shots to stuff like the 36/180s when my BR allows it and my BR usually allows it after I ve experienced some positive variance; this usually means I experience regression to the mean while I am paying higher buy ins...

Brag tho - first "shot" i took was the 109 30k on ftp and i won it. ez game.

dont do it

yeah, true, but on the other hand, it alwasy feels strange to play tourneys on FTP I got only 30 or 40 buy ins for, because most of my roll is on PS.

A question to you, because of your location: Me and some friends are planning to go on a long weekend trip to prague. Can you recommend a place for playing SS to MS poker there?
thanks

FWIW, this is why the token frenzy tournies on FT are awesome. They are generally very lucrative, and they give you an excuse to take a shot at a bigger tourney when you hit in one .

Couple thoughts:

If you are doing some serious grinding, 'shots' can include FPP entry/sats into big events. For example, you can enter the Sunday Mirrion for 13.5k FPPs which is about 1k 12/180s if you're at Platinum. If not, there are 400+R turbo FPPs and a 750 FPP DS to the Mirrion and the Warmup. There's also a 5000 FPP qualifier into the Sunday 500 and I'm pretty sure it's like 1 in 6 payout or something. Most of these are turbos, so if you're familiar with turbo 180s you're going to have a decent edge.

If you have a modest roll but a heap of FPPs, even a semi-deep cash in any those should be pretty meaningful. imo I would rather dust 5k FPPs trying to get into the Sunday 500 or Super Tuesday than take a shot out of my roll for it...plus it's an incentive to grind out the FPPs. Hell, if you wanted to you could create a separate 'shot' roll if you mincashed it and try and run it up lol...

Also, shots are better off being in big events because it makes for implicitly weaker fields. So Sunday Mirrion, not the 109r.

My experience is with small stakes so im not sure how applicable it is because at the end of the day my poker bankroll is easily replaceable (<$400).

I'd not had any noteable cashes in tournaments i.e. my best was about $180 for 1st in a turbo on partypoker and i also had a few >100 cashes in <$10 tournaments.

The stars SCOOP came on and after some pretty consistent 6 and 11 dollar SnG bankroll building i decided to have a flutter at the small stakes main event ($109(?)) and cashed 2.5k for a disappointing 46th.

This was the biggest tournie ive entered online and i actually found i played so much better and was able to concentrate for the full 12hrs because i was staking such a disproportionate amount of my roll to normal and didn't engage in the usual distractions (pokertube/tv/music) plus i felt 'in the zone' .

I'd also agree with some of the above comments about bigger fields, there was definitely a large amount of seriously awful players, perhaps taking shots as well, similar to the standard you might find in the $3.30 rebuy.

I'd say it's worth it for the potential reward but make sure you don't commit more than you can face losing from your hard-earned roll.

there's no glory in not being a degenerate.

people don't tell phil ivey stories because he goes home to his wife and watches TV after a 12 hour tournament day, now do they?

To make your decision simple, the only reason my bankroll hit over 5K is because I took a shot after grinding so long. grinded 4.40's and others then when i had around 1K i took a shot at a 109 and TID gg, so yeah i say go for it dude! Good luck

Well lots of good discussion here... it seems to me like in the end it's average buy-in that has the biggest effect of bankroll growth... and taking the occasional shot 2-5x bigger than your usual buyin won't have a very big impact on your risk of ruin.

FWIW I did start playing the occasional 36/180 and I was lucky enough to win one yesterday so my bankroll has reached new heights. Boy it's been a great summer for me, and hopefully one that is just beginning (Turning Stone Aug 16-19 one time!)

/brag

i strongly disagree w/ billy here. you can take shots while still having good br management. nobody is saying you should play tourneys that you have 3 buyins for. but for instance small stakes guys should play the sunday million on its big days and mid stakes guys should take the occasional shot at a big ftops, wcoop, etc. the tourneys are the same skill level but for a lot more money. if you have an extra 3k lying around in your account and you are still rolled for your normal games if you lose, why not take a shot at wcoop and early retirement.

I wouldn't call the occasional 36/180 "taking a shot." if you moved up exclusively to 27s/60s, yes. What you're doing is smart, and you will be rewarded many times over with 9th place in every 20th 36/180.

oh wait, that's me.

I'm a fan of taking shots. It's never really worked out but I don't mind, nor have I ever really regretted it. **** 1k 2k and **** Gus Hansen, **** Live Poker and **** staking, but <3 taking shots :-D

Money is just money, I feel like I'm good enough/respected enough(lol?) to be able to get someone to put me into whatever I really want to play so I don't mind taking on the high risks while I'm still young. I don't really need the money that much I could easily live off ~$400 a month if I wanted. Just got to keep aiming for that **** you money, I'll get it someday.

"You never fail until you stop trying."

Didn't mean to brag, just meant that it's possible for a good poker player to turn $100 into a real bankroll in a year or two without ever taking any shots. Why take shots and risk going busto when it you can eventually get there with very little risk of bustoness.

Taking one shot may not change what you're rolled for, but taking several over the course of a year certainly will if you brick them all.

and then you gotta move down. one should never bust themselves, but you can hurt yourself.

I like the idea of taking shots in the following way. Every few sessions play a satellite (within your bankroll) to the Million / Warm Up or whatever and if you manage to win a seat, play it.