Tournament V Cash

Fatboydim

Ok I'll admit it... I'm not a very good cash player. Hey I'm probably not a very good tourney player either... But if I'm asked I'll always say I'm better at Tourney's than cash.

So I thought I'd start a thread about Cash play versus tourney play. For the sake of argument Tourney play here means deep stack, long clock, expensive buy in.

For example is middle pair on the flop stronger when playing cash than in tournament play?

Four flushing - push on the flop? Guy goes all in in front of you call or fold.
[In a tourney I fold if the player all in has 50% of my stack - unless we are both monster stacks and calling and losing keeps me above average stack]

What are the common mistakes tourney players make when moving to cash?

Should you play even tighter?

Lets get some tips from those who know what they're doing.

valor

For Joe : Suited connectors are better in cash games

ocallagh

The main difference between tournaments and cash games is the average amount of BBs.

If the amount of BBs is the same, then there is really very little difference IMO. You might get a bit more folding equity in a tournament because people put a value on their tournament life, so shoving with draws or bluffing might be slightly better in a tournament.

You will notice in big buy in tournaments, with decent players, the first few levels play very similar to a cash game.

Fatboydim

You will notice in big buy in tournaments, with decent players, the first few levels play very similar to a cash game.

Do you know Niall - That is the best bit of advice. You're so right there now that I think of it.:D

zuutroy

I much prefer tournaments from a competition point of view. There's a definite goal and an end. Cash games for me are just grinding out money. I think I'm way better at tournament play, especially when M's are around 10 and below.

rag2gar

This is an interesting topic. I find the two variables very different and not sure which I prefer. They both have their merits but to me there is more luck I feel in any one given online tournament than in a similar sitting playing online cash. Perhaps Im wrong, thats just what i think

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

zuutroy

Yeah, but if you look at the big picture you can have as good an hourly rate from tournaments if you're a good player.

ianmc38

zuutroy wrote:

Yeah, but if you look at the big picture you can have as good an hourly rate from tournaments if you're a good player.

No

zuutroy

ianmc38 wrote:

No

Really? I've read a lot of blogs from people who claim the contrary.

jimmii

Negreanu posts very detailed poker accounts on FCP I doubt you will find any other high stakes player who will disclose that amount of information. If there was as much money in tourneys as there was in cash games you wouldn't see the biggest names playing cash games night after night with the occassional tourney thrown in. In the Card Player OPOY (online player of the year) rankings the top players haven't even cracked $500k for the year and that is just a typical daily swing for the big cash game players.

cardshark202

Most of the biggest tourney players are breakeven or small winner over the longterm, even losers. No way can you make as much money from tournaments unless you get really lucky and win one

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

Jesus Wept

ianmc38 wrote:

No

wrong.

---

This thread gives me deja vu.

It seems to me to boil down to this. Most cash players are far better at cash games than tournaments (well that's probably why they are cash game players ),
Because of this, they prefer to believe that tournaments are 90%+ luck/donkfests where no one can really have a much greater expectation than anyone else over time,
and anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves and that cash games are far far far more skillful/worthy of respect/whatever/etc/etc/etc/the list goes on/etc.

Also, they clearly are not able/willing to weather the difficult runs you can face when playing tournament poker (not that these don't happen in cash, they just often can be even more barren in when playing tournaments exclusively).

It is also far more noticeable/garners everyones attention more and gains more media coverage if some donk wins $200k/$2million/etc in a televised tournament than when 10,000 donks (probably more) outdraw people in cash games on a given day, every day, for on average $500 pots. (The numbers are probably way higher )

The argument is tiresome as it's rarely fueled by anything but ego and disillusionment, so stick to your cashaments if you can't get a decent winrate in tournaments, and stfu crying.

cardshark202 wrote:

Most of the biggest tourney players are breakeven or small winner over the longterm, even losers. No way can you make as much money from tournaments unless you get really lucky and win one

Don't agree with the above statement....

But on that note, I do find it irritating how they throw around things like 'x player has $3.2million in tournament earnings', when the cost of buyins are not taken into account.
It would be a nice if a system was in place where all tournaments buyins were deducted from tournament winnings on sites such as the Hendon mob. Only then could you get a true picture of players true live earnings.

cardshark202

LuckyLloyd wrote:

That's not entirely true. There is a whole host of online tournament pros who are hugely profitable over extended sample sizes.

I did say most. And I was generally referring to live tournament players, but it basically holds true for online aswell

opr

Disclaimer : None of this is to prove any kind of point as i think the thread is silly and has been done to death but since i was reading these today. Alot of very profitable tourney players are losers due to cash games.

Its seems gigabet is now a losing player and supposely this is in large part to playing huge cash games where he is a big loser. I can't find the thread on this but i did read it today so its around on BBV somewhere here is another with Mr Booth who only last season bought into HSP for 1 million and is now playing 10/20 !!

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=11545766&an=0&page=1#Post11545766


Opr

ianmc38

The-Rigger wrote:

wrong.

---

This thread gives me deja vu.

It seems to me to boil down to this. Most cash players are far better at cash games than tournaments (well that's probably why they are cash game players ),
Because of this, they prefer to believe that tournaments are 90%+ luck/donkfests where no one can really have a much greater expectation than anyone else over time,
and anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves and that cash games are far far far more skillful/worthy of respect/whatever/etc/etc/etc/the list goes on/etc.

Also, they clearly are not able/willing to weather the difficult runs you can face when playing tournament poker (not that these don't happen in cash, they just often can be even more barren in when playing tournaments exclusively).

It is also far more noticeable/garners everyones attention more and gains more media coverage if some donk wins $200k/$2million/etc in a televised tournament than when 10,000 donks (probably more) outdraw people in cash games on a given day, every day, for on average $500 pots. (The numbers are probably way higher )

The argument is tiresome as it's rarely fueled by anything but ego and disillusionment, so stick to your cashaments if you can't get a decent winrate in tournaments, and stfu crying.




Don't agree with the above statement....

But on that note, I do find it irritating how they throw around things like 'x player has $3.2million in tournament earnings', when the cost of buyins are not taken into account.
It would be a nice if a system was in place where all tournaments buyins were deducted from tournament winnings on sites such as the Hendon mob. Only then could you get a true picture of players true live earnings.

Disagree.

Its nothing to do with the poker skills of people who are predominantly cash/tourney players. Its sustainable winrate. I would think the average cash game player can make more money than a tourney player of equal skill using comparable limits ie cash game levels against a comparable tourney buyin.

I am open to alternative viewpoints though

cardshark202

Also, most of the players who I've played tournaments with who have impressed me most are players who would generally be seen as cash game players.
A good example is my OPR ranking. My stars account was in the top 0.8% of online tourney players last time I checked, and I'm not even a big tourney player by any means. I've had only 2 cashes of 5k or more and I haven't played that many tourneys. What does that say about the majority of tourney players?

cardshark202

There is no chance that a really good tournament player could sustain the same winrate as a really good cash game player. Its just impossible.

Theresalwaysone

cardshark202 wrote:

There is no chance that a really good tournament player could sustain the same winrate as a really good cash game player. Its just impossible.

Agreed.

NickyOD

The longer I play poker the more I realise that being a winning player long term is 20% skill, and 80% smart money management and table selection.

When it comes to my most profitable tables, I'm way more profitable from STTs lately than cash games but I'm still reasonably successful at cash.

Fatboydim

This has kind of strayed off topic. If you look at the original post it's not about Tournament players v Cash Players. It's about how the styles differ. Tips relating to cash play.

i know talking with many pros for example that they advocate [online at least] playing abc tight aggresive poker looking mainly to fill sets and make a killing on hands they hit big.

As Nicky says above... Money management - Table selection are really important - and certainly in tournaments table selection is something you have no control over.

So to get back on topic lets have some more tips.

OPR - You strike me as a very negative person - I hope you're happier in real life.:D

Theresalwaysone

Live Cash Poker, Anywhere in Dublin against general drunk, recreational, new players. 70%+ of the players. Obviously the better players will sniff this out.

Play Tight Abc Poker. You will get paid off every time. Even if you sit there for 6hours not playing a hand and suddenly come in for an UTG limp reraise with your long awaited AA. And you WILL GET CALLED BY QJoffsuit.

Use your position like a Hammer: I find that live dublin players fold far to much to positional C-bets. I know somepeople are telling me to slow down on the c-betting, even some good posters on this forum but i always feel like not C-betting after being checked to is a missed opportunity.

When they Check the Turn:
I find a flat call on the flop and and open check on the turn is always so weak.

When you float the flop: ( obviously pick your spots)
And bet out on a non scary turn card for some reason it scares the bejeeeeeesus out of most players. I don't know why.

opr

Fatboydim wrote:

OPR - You strike me as a very negative person - I hope you're happier in real life.:D

lol thanks man. I'll be honest and say when i see this kinda thread i have a very negative attitute towards them. I would have thought someone posting here as long as yourself has seen dozens of these threads

The topic is so broad and unanswerable its just silly.

Like this :

Fatboydim wrote:

Should you play even tighter?

What , when , where ....... i mean are you comparing how tight you should play in the bubble stage of a tourney when you have a 10 bb stack against maybe how tight you should play 200bb deep on the button in a cash game?
Poker is poker and this kind of thing is control by things like the situation , your stacks, your style , position and not if your playing a tournament or cash game.

If you want to learn how to play cash games better well try some of these :
Go to 2+2 guide in sticky on this forum find the threads to do with cash games and read : Money mangement , Game selection etc etc. It has a wealth of knowledge with each topic dicussed in amazing detail.
Read Fuzz's tips on playing 6max games.
Read hand histories , post hands you have problems with.
Anyalise your play with poker tracker.

Alot of the concepts that make you a winning tournament player can be translated to cash but at the risk of getting flamed i think the evolution of all poker players who want to become better is from tournaments to cash. So i think the differnce is you need to become better and more skilled to make money at cash as you play deeper , you make more decisions , forced to play more streets , things like tilt control become big issues etc etc etc

As i already pointed out earlier in this thread and if you talk to pro's they will tell you the same : Its hard for a winning tournament player to become a winning cash game player but i think its fairly easy for a winning cash game player to become a winning tournament player and their is a reason for this.

Opr

nicnicnic

opr wrote:

easy for a winning cash game player to become a winning tournament player and their is a reason for this.

Opr

can you name a few. not being smart here but I think this is a common opinion of players who have learned the game playing cash. they start playing tournaments with the idea that its going to be easy. I guarantee most get a rude awaking without cashing in there first 10 or 20 tournaments.


I have a mixed opinion here but in general feel good players are good players whatever chosen field.

cash players will generally play deeper and because they play more later streets feel that more skill is involved. in general good cash players have a better theoretical knowledge of the game. Also in cash games the donkey and luck factor is easier negated by the reload so variance is not going to be as much a factor as in tournaments.

I think good tournament players are better situational adaptable then cash players. A +Ev situation in a cash game is simply that. In a tournament the few % edge can be diluted by so many other factors.

As for sustainable profit, well cash is going to be easier and more profitable. I'd say 10% of cash players are profitable and 1% can probably make a living wage from it ; while probably less then 1 in 1000 tournament players can. This is just the nature of the beast in 2005 el blondie topped the European rankings and broke even for the year. the top online players hit a roi of 130% but if you look at it its cashed for 230k with 100k entries. this means a few big hits and running well the top cash players are probably knocking out this a month. so such information must clearly point to cash as a more sustainable form of the game for profit.

however this doesn't mean that cash are better players then tourney players. I personally think if I could pick four of the best perceived tournament players to play a 200bb non blind raising stt against the 4 best cash exclusive players here and they would wipe the floor with them. Why because they would understand what is required in a holistic sense of the game rather then any specific hand.


I want to put a disclaimer in with this post as I'm well pissed

The Al Lad

nicnicnic wrote:

can you name a few. not being smart here but I think this is a common opinion of players who have learned the game playing cash. they start playing tournaments with the idea that its going to be easy. I guarantee most get a rude awaking without cashing in there first 10 or 20 tournaments.


I have a mixed opinion here but in general feel good players are good players whatever chosen field.

cash players will generally play deeper and because they play more later streets feel that more skill is involved. in general good cash players have a better theoretical knowledge of the game. Also in cash games the donkey and luck factor is easier negated by the reload so variance is not going to be as much a factor as in tournaments.

I think good tournament players are better situational adaptable then cash players. A +Ev situation in a cash game is simply that. In a tournament the few % edge can be diluted by so many other factors.

As for sustainable profit, well cash is going to be easier and more profitable. I'd say 10% of cash players are profitable and 1% can probably make a living wage from it ; while probably less then 1 in 1000 tournament players can. This is just the nature of the beast in 2005 el blondie topped the European rankings and broke even for the year. the top online players hit a roi of 130% but if you look at it its cashed for 230k with 100k entries. this means a few big hits and running well the top cash players are probably knocking out this a month. so such information must clearly point to cash as a more sustainable form of the game for profit.

however this doesn't mean that cash are better players then tourney players. I personally think if I could pick four of the best perceived tournament players to play a 200bb non blind raising stt against the 4 best cash exclusive players here and they would wipe the floor with them. Why because they would understand what is required in a holistic sense of the game rather then any specific hand.


I want to put a disclaimer in with this post as I'm well pissed

thats an awfully long post for 6 o'clock in the morning

HalfBaked

nicnicnic wrote:

I want to put a disclaimer in with this post as I'm well pissed

Is this part of your signature Nicky?

Fatboydim

opr wrote:

The topic is so broad and unanswerable its just silly.

LOL - It's for the odd gem that comes out. - You might as well say that there's no point in ever buying another book on game theory. -

I think the game is fluid and moves all the time and therefore it's worth asking the same questions over and over after a period of time. Sure I'm not as bad as I make out I have winning days and losing days. But a thread like this can often produce one or two diamonds. Like I just really like Niall's answer because it's so simple and easy to remember.

Iago

I know it's off-topic to the question asked, but it's on-topic to the conversation that's followed.

For the last 3 years I'm a slight overall winner in MTTs, a very big overall winner in STTs, and a very big overall loser in cash games.

For a long time I thought the fact that I was consistently losing in cash games made me a bad player. I'm not saying I'm not a bad player, but I'm no longer convinced that the fact I can't seem to win in cash games makes me a bad player. I still believe that if I could master cash games I'd make a far higher hourly rate, but I'm happy enough working away at the STTs for now.

incidentally I also find that I win a reasonable amount at 8-handed and 10-handed cash game tables, but really suck at 6 seaters!

maybe I am a bad player after all!

ozpoker

I don't generally like to get involved in these type of discussions, but ocallagh had the right take: poker is poker, NLH is NLH. The stack sizes relative to the blinds are a huge factor in how to play a hand, and the relative short stacks of tourney play make it a preflop and flop game. The relative deep stacks of cash play make it more of a turn and river game. But you can be in a short stack situation in a cash game just as you can be in a deep stack situation in a tourney. A good player understands the ramifications of each and plays accordingly.

Good tourney players can make a very acceptable hourly rate playing in the big tourneys (and many do), but nothing compared to the astronomical rates the best players make in the biggest cash games. The simple reason is that there aren't enough losing players willing to pony up a $50K buyin to make tourney play as profitable.

The reason tourney players often get crushed in high stakes cash game is that the ultra aggressive preflop and flop style that works so well in tourneys isn't a winning deep stack strategy. This is the main reason high stakes "cash" players heap derision on "tourney" players.

-Oz-

ianmc38

I'm predominantly a cash game player but I would estimate that my ITM finishes in the tourneys Ive played on Ipoker are comparable to any of the better tourney players on the network albeit over a smallish dataset as I only play them for fun or if theres a bigger one on.

Similarly, the few STTs I've played I have done quite well. I think its easy to adapt to STT/MTT play once you understand the fundamental workings of the different structures and the implications of increasing blinds etc.

Marq

lol donkaments.

CelticPhantom

I have seen a lot of posters on different forums (fora?) say that they win at cash then try tourneys and lose, or win at tourneys and then lose at cash.

My take on this is that Cash games are about the fundamentals since they are relatively unchanging (low relative blinds)
a) Tells : you will gather more indepth tells on players over a period of time. This is because you are mostly playing against the same people week in / week out.

b) Play more post-flop : Because of the low blinds relative to your stack, and the option to reload - you should not be forced to go all-in with marginal hands too often.

c) Pot odds are more relevant : Because you play more post-flop, you will be calculating pot odds more often. Because you can reload and keep going, you should always be making +EV decisions - they will pay off in the long run. Playing cards like suited connectors should pay off since the amount you lose when you do not hit will be offset by the time you win.

d) Cash games require a "long run" thinking. You do not get disappointed when a fish sucks out on you, because this means that he will make the same mistake again and you will eventually get all his chips.

e) Patience is the key to cash games. Cash games do not have the "adrenaline rush" of tournaments, and some people may find it a 'grind' to play this way.

Tourneys are about reacting to situations in the tourney. To do this you need to use more advanced strategies.
A) Tells : You need to pick up tells on people much quicker than in a cash game. You may not have played with an opponent before. You will get much less opportunity to use any tells you pick up, as people get moved / knocked out. However, the one time that you do use the tell to your advantage could mean you winning the tournament.

Play tends to be more pre-flop and flop : Especially towards the end of the tourney with higher relative blinds.

C) Pot odds are still relevant, but since you do not play as much post-flop, there are fewer situations where they are relevant. Other tournament related factors may come into play (Survival, Prize money differences, etc.)

D) Short term thinking since the tournament is over in a finite time. Survival becomes a factor.

E) Aggression helps win tournaments. You can take advantage of Tournament Life Syndrome and scare people out of pots

Tournament players need to adjust very quickly to the changing circumstances of the tournament - rising blinds, new players arriving at the table, how the table dynamics change when someone moves or is knocked out. Tournament players need to add more plays such as blind stealing to their arsenal in order to adjust and survive (not to say you do not do this in cash games as well it is just not as relevant and you could do well in cash games without ever stealing blinds).

In conclusion, I feel that playing cash games will not give you the "buzz" you might get from winning a tournament, but will mean that you are practiced in the fundamentals and post-flop play. This will serve you well in the early stages of a tournament and in deep-stacked tournaments. However, you will have to learn to adjust to new situations and people much quicker, and you will need to be more aggressive if you want to switch to tournaments.

In moving from tourney to cash games you will need to be more patient. Your skills in picking up tells quickly will be helpful, but beware people will have longer to study your play and may eventually pick up tells on you. You will have to be more selective in picking your spots for making moves and being aggressive. Some of your moves may not work, or will only get you small pots. Be prepared to play more post-flop and make more pot odds calculations.

NB : This is not a definitive, or even accurate synopsis. This is just my initial ideas on the differences between Cash and Tourney play.

NickyOD

I think the most basic reason why a good tournament player might play poorly in ring games is that he just calls too much on the river or chases and tries to make plays in spots where if in a tournament he'd simply release the hand. That's certainly my problem but only online.

ozpoker

Very thoughtful post CelticPhantom; I'm in agreement with all of this with 2 important nits:

CelticPhantom wrote:

d) Cash games require a "long run" thinking. You do not get disappointed when a fish sucks out on you, because this means that he will make the same mistake again and you will eventually get all his chips.

I would make the case that tournament play is about "long run" thinking also. You continue to make the best +EV decisions you can and the results will follow. But due to the variance in tourney payouts, it takes much more play and many more days to approach your true expectation. We're able to see this idea in action with the truly great internet tournament players.

CelticPhantom wrote:

e) Patience is the key to cash games. Cash games do not have the "adrenaline rush" of tournaments, and some people may find it a 'grind' to play this way.

Patience is a very import trait for tournament players also. In particular 1) during those periods where it's playing like a cash game when the stacks are deep, and 2) when you are short stacked and are in jam or fold mode, looking for the right opportunity. I feel that I have an edge against most tourney players precisely because I have a lot of patience (although some here might argue this point ).

-Oz-

RoundTower

Tournaments are about playing well when you are running hot. Cash games are about not playing badly when you are running bad.

fuzzbox

CelticPhantom wrote:

Tourneys are about reacting to situations in the tourney. To do this you need to use more advanced strategies.

Dont make me laugh.

cardshark202

If I was an idiot I would agree with CelticPhantom's post.

hotspur

fuzzbox wrote:

Dont make me laugh.

Actually that quote did make me laugh. Tournies are to cash what Russian roulette is to chess. Deal with it tourny donks

El Stuntman

hotspur wrote:

Tournies are to cash what Russian roulette is to chess. Deal with it tourny donks

bring the pain, can't wait to see LL's response to this

(I agree fully btw)

bottom feeder

RoundTower wrote:

Tournaments are about playing well when you are running hot. Cash games are about not playing badly when you are running bad.

well said

cardshark202 wrote:

If I was an idiot I would agree with CelticPhantom's post.

LMAO

bops

Strangely enough I agree with Celtic Phantom's post!!

i was going to slag off all ye $1 grinding abc poker bores, but it's a waste of breath

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

bottom feeder

LuckyLloyd wrote:

This is correct. Good tournament players can be terrible at poker on a general level. I should know as I play bad whatever the format.

Lloyd why do you always doubt your game man, im not going to blow bubbles up ur ar@e or anything but i really rate you as a good tourney/cash player - you just have to take the beats like everyone else,

stop wallowing man - chin up

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

DeVore

Not all tournies are alike. You cannot compare a 1k, 15,000 chip starting stack, 1-hour clock tournie to a 20-minute shovefest with 2k chips. Thats the equivalent of saying "I've seen tons of really awful donkeys playing cash at the 1c/2c level".

I'm forced (in a sense) to play both and find both enjoyable for different reasons but in all honesty a really well structured tournie I feel tests more of my meagre poker skills then clocking a long session at 1$/2$.

I can think of many skills tested by a well structured tournie which are not tested by a static cash-session but few skills (ok, none!) which are tested by a deep stacked 1/2 cash game but not tested at least for a few hours in a well structured tournies. If you can think of one that cash tests which tournies dont I'm interested to hear (no really, unlike most of the poo-throwing fanboys here, I'm actually interested in exploring this topic).

Finally, there are certainly differences in my game from one to the other which is what FBD was asking about. Normally, unfortunately, tournies are not nicely structured usually (and in fact, I have almost completely excluded crapshoot tournies around town for bankroll reasons as I think they are too poor a proposition) so I will more highly value hands like AK/Q and JJ in these sorts of tournies. Basically I doubt you could push me off JJ in a Fitz/SE tournie because the stacks dont allow it. In a cash game, JJ gets played much like 66 (ie: for set value) if we are all deep stacked. I will still raise with them but only because if I DO hit my set I dont want to be overly constricted by the pot size when I getz paid ... in a bad tournie I raise with them because I'm willing to go to war with them preflop.
This changes *back* when I'm playing a deep stacked tournie because of the structure.
I like hands like 78s and JTo in cash, I'll call a small raise with them in position whereas in a bad tournie I wont, its deadly poor play to fritter chips away with specualative hands.
Again, this reverts somewhat when tournies are well stacked.

Finally AK, possibly my biggest alteration between a bad tournie and cash (which is always, or should always be well stacked, since you control the stack size). In a tournie, I'll back AK most times unless I have a reason to believe AA/KK is out there. TPTK means I am doubling up or going home and if you have a set or two pair, well played sir. This is again a structural issue and in cash, I am a lot less enthustiastic about AK and its future prospects because it has a tendancy to make TPTK only, which then often is played badly or outplayed on later streets. This is not true of cash in some establishments around town where people sit in very short stacked or just play really badly but in a deepstacked, TAG cash game I am wary of over playing it. Probably I would leave such a game for related reasons

I'll leave it there for the moment or the Guardian will be serialising chapters from this Opus Magnus

DeV.

CelticPhantom

cardshark202 wrote:

If I was an idiot I would agree with CelticPhantom's post.

Hi CardShark,

I do not play enough poker to consider myself an expert (or even a good player). Conversely, I have seen enough of your posts here to not call you an idiot. The points I wrote are my personal ideas, I do not claim them to be universal truths. However posters like Oz/Dev replied showing where there were flaws in my thinking, or adding more points to consider. Please share your experience and tell me which parts of my post you disagree with, and why. I would really like to develop this idea of what is the real difference between Cash games and Tournaments, and what changes I would need to make to switch between the two.

NB - I am deliberately NOT trying to come across as one of : I am Cash player, tourneys are crapshoots/luckaments vs. I am a Tournament player, cash games are a grind camps. Hopefully I succeeded. Apologies if it seems I come down on one side or the other.

TIA for your input to the discussion.

Fatboydim

I wouldn't worry about it CP. If there was one way to play poker it would be a very boring game. I think you made interesting points in your post. I'm sure Cardshark isn't half as belligerent in real life I like reading the different approaches people take. It's educational.

There's an awful lot of people on here who BS about what they earn and don't earn playing poker. Only around 5% of players are said to be profitable in the long run - In any one sample that may jump to around 10% yet on Boards everyone's a winner

There are players here that I deeply respect because I know what they do - Nicky O'D for example never over exaggerates his wins or losses. He pays the bills through poker - sometimes he runs hot sometimes he runs cold. KP the same. Doc Farrell - who for some reason gets a ****e load of stick on here - Has for years supplemented the day job by playing poker.

Myself I play for fun as I could never earn as much playing poker as I do playing the day job. Sometimes I have a winning year, sometimes I lose. But I've had trips to the Caribbean and states paid for by poker winnings. Which is fun.[And occasionally had to rely on it to pay bills] I regard myself as a very average cash player and a good tournament player. This is why I asked the question. I want to improve my cash game. Part of that will be understanding how people approach the game in general. Those generous enough [like Dev and yourself] who offer considered opinions help move on the game. Cardshark is just worried we're tapping the glass.

marius

'If I was an idiot I would agree with CelticPhantom's post.'

This annoys me....

Such whimsical Japery must just be beyond my tiny little mind.....

As a matter of interest CS - how do you feel about Dev's post?

RedJoker

DeVore wrote:

I can think of many skills tested by a well structured tournie which are not tested by a static cash-session but few skills (ok, none!) which are tested by a deep stacked 1/2 cash game but not tested at least for a few hours in a well structured tournies. If you can think of one that cash tests which tournies dont I'm interested to hear (no really, unlike most of the poo-throwing fanboys here, I'm actually interested in exploring this topic).

Game selection.

DeVore wrote:

In a cash game, JJ gets played much like 66 (ie: for set value) if we are all deep stacked. I will still raise with them but only because if I DO hit my set I dont want to be overly constricted by the pot size when I getz paid ... in a bad tournie I raise with them because I'm willing to go to war with them preflop.

I don't think I've ever played JJ like 66 in a cash game. I'm often taking JJ to war preflop (against aggressive opponents) and, without overcards, I'll look for 3 streets of value (against passive fish). This just won't happen with 66.

DeVore wrote:

In a tournie, I'll back AK most times unless I have a reason to believe AA/KK is out there. TPTK means I am doubling up or going home and if you have a set or two pair, well played sir. This is again a structural issue and in cash, I am a lot less enthustiastic about AK and its future prospects because it has a tendancy to make TPTK only, which then often is played badly or outplayed on later streets.

AK is the nuts preflop in cash.

CelticPhantom wrote:

My take on this is that Cash games are about the fundamentals since they are relatively unchanging (low relative blinds)
a) Tells : you will gather more indepth tells on players over a period of time. This is because you are mostly playing against the same people week in / week out.

Not at micro/small stakes on the bigger sites as there is so much turnover.

CelticPhantom wrote:

c) Pot odds are more relevant : Because you play more post-flop, you will be calculating pot odds more often.

You should ALWAYS be calculating pot odds.

CelticPhantom wrote:

E) Aggression helps win tournaments. You can take advantage of Tournament Life Syndrome and scare people out of pots

Aggression helps win in cash games too.

CelticPhantom wrote:

Tournament players need to adjust very quickly to the changing circumstances of the tournament - rising blinds, new players arriving at the table, how the table dynamics change when someone moves or is knocked out.

Players arrive and leave and table dynamics change in cash games too.

CelticPhantom wrote:

Tournament players need to add more plays such as blind stealing to their arsenal in order to adjust and survive (not to say you do not do this in cash games as well it is just not as relevant and you could do well in cash games without ever stealing blinds).

You have been extremely misinformed about cash games.



The deeper stacks in cash games mean more turn and river play which benefits the more skillful player. One of the hardest things for me to learn when I switched from tournies to cash was when to value bet on the turn and river.

IMO, cash games are a purer form of poker. In tournies, instead of making decisions based on the chip EV, often a decision can be changed because of its effect on your tournament position and your real money EV. Being able to adjust for these effects and the tournament structure is a skill but it's not poker.

Hitman Actual

RedJoker wrote:

etc, etc

Good post/replies.