I was talking with a couple of people who play a lot of small tournaments around town (Las Vegas) and online. There was also another player in the conversation who plays mostly small cash games, in which she thinks she has a better earn and more control than she has in the small tournaments. She asked, "Should I play in these tournaments?"
I responded, "Why do you play poker?"
This resulted in a very spirited discussion. In order to give you some ideas about this topic, I am going to interrupt this series by beginning with a brief diversion on motives. I am going to divide the reasons for playing poker into two categories – financial and nonfinancial. Most poker books assume that you are playing purely for financial reasons – to make money. What about non-monetary motivations?
A lot of people play poker for camaraderie and companionship. How can you be lonesome when surrounded by people? It is a great setting for meeting with friends on a regular basis, and most home games focus on exactly that – having fun with a group of friends. Even casino games provide a social setting for a group of regulars to mingle with some strangers. If you fall into this category, make sure that you find games you enjoy with people you like. There's nothing wrong with a group of folks drinking beer and playing the craziest game the dealer can dream up. In fact, it may be a lot more fun than grinding through a typical major tournament's 14-hour day, which starts at noon and ends with the chips finally bagged for the night at around 2:15 the next morning. These crazy games also will improve your ability to adapt to strange situations and leave you better able to cope with whatever new games become popular.
A lot of people like playing poker as an intellectual activity, like chess, bridge, or solving puzzles. Given a choice between watching situation comedies on TV and playing online, a lot of people find that poker is vastly more entertaining. It is a great way to keep the mind active while having fun. You can let your motives influence your decisions, too. You may think folding is slightly better than calling in a certain situation. Go ahead and call. It is more fun to be part of the action, and your curiosity about what your opponent really has will be satisfied. So what if you give up a little equity.
There are those who love the competition. And, of course, there are those who thirst for fame and glory. Win a big tournament, and you're on television. The top poker players are more recognizable than an all-pro defensive lineman or an Olympic gold-medal-winning water polo player. If you are playing for glory, your choice of venue should reflect this. Play in televised tournaments. Play to win or at least make the TV table, not to maximize your equity.
If you are one of those who play wholly or partially for nonfinancial reasons, don't be ashamed. It is a perfectly valid reason to play. The list of poker players who have played primarily for enjoyment includes presidents, billionaires, writers, and performers. Some of these players are very good. They might easily become professional players were it not for the fact that most of their focus is on other areas.
The obvious reason that many people play poker is for the money. This is true even of many losers, who are hoping to become winning players when their skill or their luck improves. Almost all poker literature is devoted to the players who play for financial reasons. It even goes further than this, and assumes that you want to maximize your equity. This means that you select the play that, on average, will win the most or lose the least. This is very simplistic. Maximizing equity makes sense when you are playing regularly in games that you can easily afford. But, the reality of the situation is that many players are undercapitalized.
Many players take a shot in a satellite to get into a tournament, hoping to hit the jackpot. When they do win a seat in a big tournament, their main priority is to cash. If you told them that their equity would increase by 10 percent by taking more risks close to the bubble, they would say you were crazy. They'd be right, too. If they have a choice between two plays – one of which virtually guarantees that they'll be in the money even though they'll be so short-stacked that they won't have a good shot at a big prize, and the other a play that will frequently get them eliminated before the money but will significantly increase their chance of winning a big prize – they correctly choose the former. Guaranteeing an $18,000 return for the $220 they paid to enter a satellite (even though their equity is only $25,000) is much more sensible than increasing their equity to $28,000 by making a play that is much riskier.
I try to treat gambling like a portfolio manager. I want to maximize return but minimize risk. I walk into Bellagio and see a choice between a nice $200-$400 mixed game and a shorthanded $2,000-$4,000 game with one weak player. In the small game (which is not so small), I believe that I can average winning $150 to $200 an hour, and that a bad loss might be around $10,000. In the big game, I might average twice as much, but a bad loss would be 10 times as large. I'd almost certainly choose the small game, even though my equity is only half as much. This assumes that I have evaluated the situation correctly. If my ego has gotten the best of me and I am overrating my skills, that faulty assessment might mean that I'll only break even in the small game and will get buried in the big one. (Since I'm a human and a poker player, I won't even bother wondering if it is possible that I have underestimated my skills and passed up a humongous increase in equity.)
This gets us back to the initial question: "Should you play in small buy-in tournaments?" If your primary motives for playing are nonfinancial, they can be a lot of fun. The rapid escalation of the blinds produces a lot of action, but without a big commitment of either time or money. Try some, and if you like them, keep on playing until you start to get bored with them.
If your primary reasons for playing are financial, these tournaments are probably not a good way to maximize your immediate gain. They can be great for improving such tournament skills as short-stack play, reading strange opponents, and adjusting to changing structures.
In my next column, I'll get back to issues more directly related to playing in small tournaments. For right now, though, I urge you to examine the reasons that you play poker. If you aren't very clear about why you are playing, it is hard to know what games to choose and what strategies to follow. 
Steve "Zee" Zolotow, aka The Bald Eagle, is a successful games player. He currently devotes most of his time to poker. He can be found at many major tournaments and playing on Full Tilt, as one of its pros. When escaping from poker, he hangs out in his bar, Nice Guy Eddie's on Houston and Avenue A in New York City.