Do you prefer big field tournaments or smaller ones?

Big tournaments are exciting because of the prize pools, but they take a long time and are harder to win. Smaller tournaments feel more manageable and less stressful. I’m not sure which one is better overall. What do you prefer and why?

Certainly with fewer people, less variance and closer to the prize. Although the prize is generally lower.

I prefer smaller field tournaments.
They have less variance and more consistent cashes.
It’s easier to navigate and reach final tables compared to huge fields.
Big fields are great for big scores, but they come with higher swings.

For steady growth and confidence, smaller fields feel better.

Speaking from my perspective, when I’m starting out, I prefer tournaments with fewer players.
I feel more comfortable in them: there’s less chaos, fewer random all-ins, and my chances of making the money are much higher. Especially when it comes to private freerolls that I find through streamers on Twitch or in communities like CardsChat. These are the tournaments I rely on the most to build my bankroll.
I also play tournaments with a large number of players, but I don’t rely on them. I understand that the variance there is huge: thousands of players, lots of random decisions, and it’s much harder to reach the final table. Yes, the payouts are bigger, but the chances are lower.
So my approach is simple: I spend most of my time playing smaller-field tournaments, and I join large-field ones occasionally — more as a shot at a big score than a consistent way to make money.
For me, especially at the beginning, it’s more important to be consistent — making the money more often and gradually building my bankroll rather than chasing one big win.

depends on amount of players and prizepool for me persenally

Absolutely small fields

I'm firmly in the smaller field camp, and I think the reasoning goes beyond just personal preference — there's a strong strategic case for it too.

The most obvious advantage is variance. In a large MTT with thousands of players, even if you're playing your best poker, the sheer number of all-in situations you need to survive to reach the money makes deep runs feel almost lottery-like at times. Your edge gets diluted over hundreds of hands and dozens of opponents. Smaller fields compress that variance significantly, meaning your skill has a more direct impact on your results over a shorter sample.

There's also the ROI argument. Yes, big field tournaments offer massive prize pools, but the probability of cashing — let alone final tabling — is so low that your expected return per tournament is often not as impressive as it looks on paper. Smaller fields typically offer a better ratio of prize pool to field size, and you cash more frequently, which is important for bankroll stability.

From a strategic standpoint, smaller fields also allow you to gather reads faster and use that information more effectively throughout the tournament. In a massive field, you're constantly moving tables and starting from scratch with new opponents. In a smaller field, you spend more time with the same players, which rewards the kind of observational poker I enjoy most.

I enjoy the challenge of larger field MTT's long as they have 10+ min blind levels. Not really a fan of how long late registration is now days or an endless amount of rebuys.

Cheers!!!

I have yet to win so I’ll say the bigger ones because I am not bad at cashing but not coming close to the final table

I have to say the smaller ones..for the sake of my sitting muscles...smaller wins sure, but sitting for 8h+ really takes away the fun for me.