Tournament V Cash

RoundTower

lol these threads are among the most retarded on this forum, despite some stiff competition.

Anyway everyone knows that the best players in the world are tournament players. Why else would they play tournaments all the time on TV?

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

marius

Hectorjelly wrote:

people lose for a reason!

Because they are poor?:D

As Dev has said - I still have not seen someone post a skill needed in cash that is not required in deep tourney play but there are a good few skills posted that are required in tourney play that are not required in cash games.

From what I have seen on this thread maybe arrogance is the required cash game 'skill'

zuutroy

The fact that Dev has asked a question at least 10 times in this thread and no one can answer pretty much proves the point.

ocallagh

marius wrote:

I still have not seen someone post a skill needed in cash that is not required in deep tourney play but there are a good few skills posted that are required in tourney play that are not required in cash games.

Deep tournament play only last a few levels. It is not required.

So there we have it.

The ability to play a turn and river (properly) is required in cash, not so in tournaments

marius

ocallagh wrote:

Deep tournament play only last a few levels. It is not required.

So there we have it.

The ability to play a turn and river (properly) is required in cash, not so in tournaments

Well it is required if you want to do well....

Hitman Actual

zuutroy wrote:

The fact that Dev has asked a question at least 10 times in this thread and no one can answer pretty much proves the point.

But it's a silly question. A tournament is only deep-stacked for at most 15% of the duration.

zuutroy

Harrington Vol II is at least 50% dedicated to skills that aren't needed in cash play, and that seperate good tournament players from bad.

luckylucky

It's an essential point that ocallagh makes that there is much more turn and river play in cash games, which makes it more complicated,

i.e. when and who to fire that 2nd bullet with on the turn with air.
when and who to slowplay or not to slowplay.
Value betting or Value Check calling on river.
When and whom do you give up on a good but evidently not quite good enough hand.

many other decisions that have lots of factors that determine the right decision.

All these decisions come up in tournies too of course but less often, simply because the play goes beyond 2nd street far less often.

There is of course like tourney players suggested a few extra skills needed to play tournaments correctly, but these are relatively easy for most good cash game players to pick up. A read through HOH would set them well on their way.

Two key ingredients I think in tournies are as already mentioned Patience(needed in cash games too, but in a slightly different form, you can always leave a cash game if your pateince is wearing thin) and 'Holding your nerve' - 1 rash decision and it can so easily be lights out.

Personally while I do fine in SNGs, I don't do well in MTTs as a rule simply because my patience seems to inevitably run out at some point, sometimes I think even just sub-consciously, even early on in some online MTTs I kinda think in the back of my mind after rashly entering them that I don't really fancy playing for hours on end and I end up committing poker hari-kari.

luckylucky

zuutroy wrote:

Harrington Vol II is at least 50% dedicated to skills that aren't needed in cash play, and that seperate good tournament players from bad.

That's because it's a book on how to play tournaments

zuutroy

luckylucky wrote:

That's because it's a book on how to play tournaments

Yeah, and the fact that it exists implies there are different skills from cash required!

Hitman Actual

zuutroy wrote:

Harrington Vol II is at least 50% dedicated to skills that aren't needed in cash play, and that seperate good tournament players from bad.

Yeah, but end-game tournament play is really easy to pick up. Any player (tournament or cash) who wanted to improve that part of their game would just have to play STTs for a month, and they'd have that aspect sorted.

Edit: I really don't want to get involved in this discussion. I personally hate the 'lol donkaments' snobbery that a lot of cash-only players have, but I do believe that the skill set need to be an expert tournament player is easier to learn than the skill set to become an expert cash game player.

looserock

Lets say you're equally good at each and you win a $1 million buy-in to play a poker game with "THE POKER STARS" television the lot.
These stars are the seven best all round poker players like Barry Greensteine, Phil Ivey, Chip Reese, etc.
You can choose either cash or tournament and you have a year to prepare.
Which would you choose?

sikes

looserock wrote:

Lets say you're equally good at each and you win a $1 million buy-in to play a poker game with "THE POKER STARS" television the lot.
These stars are the seven best all round poker players like Barry Greensteine, Phil Ivey, Chip Reese, etc.
You can choose either cash or tournament and you have a year to prepare.
Which would you choose?

This is a terrible example.

sikes

Devs argument that tournament skill set is a superset of a cash game players needs to be backedup by him showing us the skills in tournaments that are redundant in cash.

ianmc38

lol

looserock

This is a terrible example.

But which one would a random player have a better chance in?

luckylucky

zuutroy wrote:

Yeah, and the fact that it exists implies there are different skills from cash required!

Hmm had a feeling I was going to regret getting involved in this debate. :rolleyes:

I didn't disagree that there were differences, the essential point that the cash game players here have been trying to make remains though that there is far more play in cash games simply because the play goes to the turn and river that much more is an absolutely massive factor. This is why deepstacked tournaments are rightly regarded as favouring the more skilled players because it resembles cash game play for far longer. Don't get me wrong a good cash game player who never played a tournament before would not fare well straight away in tournies imo. They would need to make adjustments and like I said earlier a read of HOH would set them well on their way, but imo these adjustments are not so difficult for most good cash game players.

Anyway I'm not here to have a pop at tournament players, that's just my thoughts on it.

sikes

looserock wrote:

But which one would a random player have a better chance in?

You should pick tournament everytime becuase you need to get lucky.

Lucky idiots can win at tournaments for the duration of their life, they can't in cash.

luckylucky

looserock wrote:

But which one would a random player have a better chance in?

A tournament.

ozpoker

{Even though this conversation has gotten silly, I can't help my self and must wade in.}

lenny_leonard wrote:

But it's a silly question [by Devore]. A tournament is only deep-stacked for at most 15% of the duration.

Depends on the structure of course. Some tourneys are never deep stacked and some spend considerable time at the beginning and the end deep stacked. I'm completely in Dev's camp on this one. The set of tourney skills needed to succeed in tourneys are a superset of the skills needed to succeed in cash games.

One of the things that make tourneys appealing to me is how dynamic the situations become, knowing which skills to use at the right times. Even if the tourney situation has devolved to a crap shoot, you can have an edge over your opponents if you recognize this and they don't (prior to Harrington's books, this was a big edge).

Some skills that are required to excel in tourneys that aren't in cash games:

- Rapid adjustment to changing situations, e.g.:
-- being forced to play under less than ideal situations with respect to which table/seat/stack size you have relative to others
-- knowing how the relationship between cEV and $EV can have major effects on the correct play
-- reading the change in table dynamics with the addition or loss of a particular player, etc.

- Short handed down to heads up play and how to modify your ranges

- Negotiating skills. Lot's of edge to be gained in your deal making.

-Oz-

{and while I disdain appeals to authority, I have been a very successful semi-professional and professional cash game player for 12 years prior to my current tournament passion. So I think I can offer some perspective on this issue.}

zuutroy

sikes wrote:

Devs argument that tournament skill set is a superset of a cash game players needs to be backedup by him showing us the skills in tournaments that are redundant in cash.

Chapter 9 onwards in HoH Vol II is exactly that.

CelticPhantom

sikes wrote:

Devs argument that tournament skill set is a superset of a cash game players needs to be backedup by him showing us the skills in tournaments that are redundant in cash.

Blind Stealing is the obvious example.

Note : I do not think that there are any skills which will never be used in one, just that some skills will be used only a small percentage of the time in one, and a large percentage of time in the other.

Therefore, when discussing poker skills we should consider which skill is most relevant to Tournaments or Cash. I mean, no one is saying that you will never play the turn and/or river in a Tournament, but that you will play them more often in a Cash game.

Any other examples?

smurph

cardshark202 wrote:

How about we pick one tournament donkey vs one good poker player and they each have to play 100 online tournaments a week for 10 weeks and we'll see who performs better. Then they both have to play 100k hands in a cash game and see who performs better. Lots of betting could go on on this too.

Nice one Cardshark, Will you put up a sign "All Tournament Donkeys", que up here in an orderly fashion.

Of course there might be a slightly longer que at the "Good Poker Player" line.

sikes

ozpoker wrote:

- Rapid adjustment to changing situations, e.g.:
-- being forced to play under less than ideal situations with respect to which table/seat/stack size you have relative to others
-- knowing how the relationship between cEV and $EV can have major effects on the correct play
-- reading the change in table dynamics with the addition or loss of a particular player, etc.

Once a poker player understands the payout structure, it should become very clear that cEV doesnt equal $EV. Changing based on table conditions happens far too much at cash for it to be considered. Short stackers, large stack, maniacs etc. You lose players at cash too.

- Short handed down to heads up play and how to modify your ranges

All the top players in NLH play short handed and headsup, they hate even 6 max games, nevermind full ring.

- Negotiating skills. Lot's of edge to be gained in your deal making.

Should be fairly obvious to any poker player when a deal is in their favour, its just a bit of maths.

.

sikes

zuutroy wrote:

Chapter 9 onwards in HoH Vol II is exactly that.

HOH teaches a brute force style of poker with zones and the like, its a great book for an introduction to poker, but doesn't give you the understanding that other books do or that posts on forums would. The games have changed drastically since HOH so the shift in zones usually occurr, yet most players stick rigidly to HOH. He also introduced the squeeze play in the book, which is now being completly exploited by many players who they can see being harrington players.

I think the book was great for me, thats what got me started, but its very dated imo, and the skills/plays that are taught are really just his implementation of basics.

sikes

CelticPhantom wrote:

Blind Stealing is the obvious example.

Blind stealing is the most profitable thing to do in poker, cash players steal relentlessly.

zuutroy

sikes wrote:

I think the book was great for me, thats what got me started, but its very dated imo, and the skills/plays that are thought are really just his implementation of basics.

Thats all fair enough but it doesnt address the point that the books exist because there is a different skill set for tournaments than for cash.

sikes

zuutroy wrote:

Thats all fair enough but it doesnt address the point that the books exist because there is a different skill set for tournaments than for cash.

No it exists as a how-to guide to beat a game that doesnt require much understanding of poker and was popularised due to tv and the fact egotistical players can point to the fact they *won* something.

I still maintain that there is not a different skill set at all, everything from ICM to push botting comes from fundamentals which are common through out cash and tourney.

ozpoker

{Sigh}

Sikes -

I said these skills were required to excel in tourneys, not that they were exclusive to tourneys. You can be a very successful cash game player and:
- never play shorthanded or heads up
- never play in less than optimal circumstances (game selection and all that)
- never play short stacked (or deep stacked for that manner if that's you choice)

It will be nearly impossible to succeed in tourneys over the long haul without these skills.

And your derision of the negotiating and cEV vs $EV skills is remarkable. Some of these situations are extremely complex, and the correct decision is often nonintuitive. I make lots of money from people that think otherwise.

-Oz-