GrannySmit77 said:
Free tournaments are good when you start to learn poker and don't want to risk any of your own money when you don't even know which poker hand is best. However, once you know to play poker, they become a bit annoying. You have idiots shoving all in against AA or AK and occasionally they win. It's part of the poker variance but I find that very tilting. So I play either very restricted freeroll, like the freerolls offered by CC or low buy in tournaments. If I want to play bigger buy in tournaments, I'll play live ones.
That’s a very honest take — and a lot of experienced players feel the same.
Freerolls are great at the beginning. They teach the basics without financial risk. But once you understand ranges,
equity, and tournament structure, constant random shoves can feel frustrating. Seeing someone jam 72o into AA and spike can definitely test your patience.
But like you said — that’s variance. In freerolls, variance just shows up more often because ranges are insanely wide. The key shift is mental: instead of seeing it as “idiots winning,” try to see it as “long-term value.” If they keep shoving garbage into premium
hands, you’re printing over time.
Your approach makes sense:
- Restricted freerolls (like CC ones) = more controlled fields
- Low buy-ins = more realistic dynamics
- Bigger buy-ins live = deeper experience and stronger structure
That’s actually a very balanced poker ecosystem.
At the end of the day, the goal is to play games that are both +EV and mentally comfortable for you. If a format tilts you too much, it’s not worth it — even if it’s technically profitable.
Good players don’t just select hands. They select environments.