The poker forum - my take

Requiem4adream

I was a little bit childish in a thread on the theory page, i want to apologise for that (in particular to ste05 and van dice).

Just about to go to bed but i've been thinking about the nature of the Boards.ie poker forum, i'm going to do my best to articulate this properly:

People are judged on the poker forum by the content and quality of their posts, not by how much they make or what car they drive. Rightly so. For example, if Amaru returned having won the Euro Millions i dont think anyone would give any more weight to his advice than before it (that's assuming anyone in their right mind would believe he won the lottery :rolleyes:). On the flip side, if Hotspur were deprived of his life savings and every asset in some freak bank collapse, i'd still think his opinions are worth their weight in gold.

On a fundamental level on this forum (and any forum) imo cash game players are immediately at a slight advantage to tournament players in terms of the potential quality of their advice. I think it's easier to reach consensus on a "standard line" in a cash game than in a tournament.
The ability to reach a standard line on hands is something approaching a right answer. In poker, on any given hand there is never THE right answer, but (Without getting into EV), if you can consistently come up with the most correct solution to a given problem, you'll always be in good stead.

Cash games generally you're dealing with situations that are hundred(s) of bb's deep, against more well defined villains (PT), a higher volume of hands played thereby more recurring situations upon which to reach a consensus line. Repetition of these situations can only serve to help both on a conscious and subliminal level to strive to reach the most correct way to play a given situation.

Generally due to the time-consuming nature of tournaments people play far less of them, play far fewer hands, against villains who are less easily defined (identifying a villain as a LAG or TAG is not as transparent as 23/14/3 etc that pt can provide. Even assuming you use PT or similar software in mtt, the sample will generally be over a tiny amount of hands and rarely against the same villain, rendering it almost obsolete).

Then there is the nature of the disciplines themselves. Tournaments have slightly more variables, the only consistency is change. Changing stacks, changing blinds, changing villains, changing dynamics - always against the clock and with a finish line in sight. The core difference is the lack of control of your own changing dynamics. In a cash game you will encounter differing situations but something that remains constant is your ability to reload to x amount of bb's, thus retaining some element of control. You cant control villains leaving/joining the table but the ability to sit out, change tables, (i.e. game selection) is always available to you. The more control you have over your own variables, the greater your ability to react to changes in your environment. (e.g. a fish joins the table in cash so you reload to the max or move to his left/right as you see fit; a fish joins your table in a tournament and you cant add to your stack or move seats).

Basically (again all imo), a consensus standard line is more difficult to achieve in tournament hands, thereby often resulting in widely differing opinions on how to play a given hand. I always wondered why the likes of fuzz, HJ etc came up with very similar answers on a large spectrum of hands; the answer is that a more correct way of playing a hand is easier to identify in cash games; 1 hand will rarely polarise opinion in the way a tournament hand might do. For sure, there will be differing ideas but for the most part it's a shade of the 1 colour for cash game hands. A lot of the times in tournament hands it can be night and day in terms of differences of opinion.

Consistency of quality in advice is thereby harder to achieve in tournament hands. It's much harder to be concise; you're talking about a wider set of variables than in a cash hand, furthermore a lot of those variables are wide open to interpretation. Constructing concise, relevant theory posts on tournament HH is difficult. A lot of the time i have a really good idea in my head of what i want to say and struggle to articulate that in a presentable concise manner.

Cash game players on this forum dont place much heed in tournament results relative to respecting someones opinion (nor should they, tournament players wouldnt re: reported winnings on the cash tables.). And, as i've outlined above, tournament theory is a lot harder to form consensus on and much harder to deliver in an easy-to-swallow mouthful. The net result of all that is you often have 10 diverging opinions on a tournament hand compared to a converging consensus on a cash game hand.... and the cash game players thinking "see! lol donkaments!!". All of which for me explains why i feel there is a degree of apathy amongst some cash game players for tournament posters here. So many tournament threads end up wishy-washy with all the colours of the rainbow for different advice, and it can look amateurish at times.

One of my new years resolutions on this forum was to post less in the theory forum. I'm going to belatedly stick to that from now on, posting less frequently. Boards.ie is the single most important factor on 2 levels for my improved form in 2008. 1. I very rarely reply to them, but in reading the theory section i've taken a lot of it on board and i feel i've improved my understanding greatly of certain situations thanks to this forum. 2. i play 10-12 hour sessions as a rule, sometimes more, and boards.ie provides the mental stimulus to stay awake, focussed and concentrated for long sessions.

A final thought (jerry springer eat your heart out lol), some of the tournament players on this site are supremely talented and excellent poker players. It's a skill in itself to destroy the donkaments. I'm literally amazed every week watching the warmup on stars, ollie crushes it with an extraordinary consistency, it's great to watch. If tournament theory was easier to pin down i'm sure you would have a bigger theory section, but it's quite difficult and prone to arguments. I think tournament players deserve more respect than they receive at times, there's (sometimes) a lack of appreciation of the intricacies that go into consistently getting to FT's.

I've got a piece im writing on Timing Tells in Tournaments i'll post that up sometime over the next few weeks, if that goes well then i'll post a topic every month to try boost the tournament theory library. I feel a more worthwhile way of contributing to the site for me is through articles rather than responding individually on HH's daily.

ps. i'll probably update my blog daily in dortmund or perhaps a thread here tracking my progress (assuming i donk my way past day 1 ).

bantee

Great post.

I agree with many of the sentiments above.
I constantly want to improve my tournament play because at the moment, due to work commitments, I can only fit in the odd tournament here and there so any solid advice on how to deal with situations (live or online) is greatly appreciated.

Reading theory and advice on boards has really improved my game and I respect the people who spend time writing this advice on a public forum so that people can improve their game in general (disregarding the sometimes sarcastic remarks on someone's play!).

I'll look forward to your updates on the EPT and also the future tournament advice.

Cheers,
Bantee

ditpoker

nice post, you should write a book!

I've had many chats with Lloyd about tourny vs cash. Neither myself or lloyd (yea, im gonna talk for him) enjoy cash more than tournys. I'm sure it probably is easier to make consistent money from cash, but i enjoy tourney's more. I enjoy knowing there is an end point. I enjoy knowing everyone is at the same point, i.e if you sit down at 1-2 cash with 300 and one rebuy in your pocket and someone else has 300 and 5k+ in their pocket they are NOT at the same level, they can play differently. everyone is on an automatic level playing field. I like that tournaments is about accumulation chips, kinda of do or die in effect, chip accumulation or bust. Cash can be wait wait wait wait, reload wait wait wait WIN BIG POT wait wait... profitable, but boring. i dont enjoy cash, i dont play it well. tourneys FTW.

Hectorjelly

This is a simplistic and incorrect analysis. It seems like the exact type of impression that someone without much experience at cash games would have.

Firstly, you make the point in cash games that you generally have a lot more hands on your opponent. Thats true, however you reach the wrong conclusion. That makes the analysis for cash games more complicated, because it adds another large variable. What specific type of player is s/he? If you don't have any history or hands with a player then you treat him as an unknown, and pick the generally best play. Knowing how the player plays in detail adds another rich layer to discussion.

Secondly you manage to overlook the single most important variable in a poker hand with regard to complexity. The effective stacks between the two players. It makes no difference whether its a tournament or a cash game, but the amount of blinds is the crucial difference. Any game where the average stack is 10 blinds is an easily solved relatively simple game. A game with 100bbs is much more difficult.

Tournaments do bring about specific variables and things to think about than cash games, but the fact remains that not as many tournament hands get discussed, because the answer is usually so obvious. Nearly all tournament hands here posted are along the lines of, A raises, B shoves. I have AK, should I call? This is one of the many situations that is actually just a maths problem once you plug in few ranges.

Which brings me to this:

Requiem4adream wrote: »

In poker, on any given hand there is never THE right answer

Ive heard you say something like this a few times, and its totally wrong. There is often one RIGHT answer. Someone goes all in in a cash game, you have aces, Do you call? Yes, you always call.

I would guess (which means im not sure) that the main reason you get wildly differing responses for tournament hands is the quality of posters who respond to those posts. Cash game players tend to be more analytical and maths focsed, so they give better advice. It was the same way one 2+2 for years, (i dont know if its the same now, because I dont read the mtt/stt forums anymore)

Lastly, and im repeating myself here. There is no big divide between cash and tournament players here, and it sometimes feels like you are striving to create one. Ollyboy is respected as a good player here, and has been for a very long time. The fact that he mainly plays tournaments is beside the point. The same applys for Nic Nic Nic and others too.

Gillybean72

I have to agree with a lot of what you say, being a relative newby like yourself and ALSO a tourney player.

I tried my hand at cash tables to find, after the initial buzz where I doubled my BR straight away, that wore off and I dumped it pretty quick again as I didnt seem to be able to conform to the cash way of playing. At the time I did not realise that there would be a large difference between the type of play.

I even watched tables for a while before picking ones to join, but just found things more difficult even with simple things like bet sizing, as I have really only been used to tournaments and you know without thinking what to raise etc.

Maybe a tournament folder would be handy, not just for HH, but also for us to post articles like you are talking about posting. I think it would be of great value to us who do prefer to play MTTs.

No idea if the mods would want to create another sub forum or not, but then maybe us tournament players would feel more at ease posting HH and posting advice without the panic of being jumped upon. I know I felt like that last night posting a HH, but still wanted to see what others thought, so went ahead.

smurph

What do people think of the Alcohol factor in cash V Tournie games (this is live of course)?

If you play a deepstack tournament and are coming back on Day 2, you can be guaranteed that there are maybe only 1 or 2 people drinking at your table, however I find in the cash games live, there could be half the table off their trolley, playing with J2 sooteeed "Cause they have history with with that particular hand"..... This is what I find most the hardest thing to cope with when playing cash. i know in the long run the drunk players are the value, but the swings can be huge.

I know that Hectorjelly and Requiem4adream are without doubt playing cards at a different level than 90% of the posters here are, or indeed ever will be. and their contribution to the forum is priceless. They both take the time out to come on and give their analysis and opinions (if rather different) on different plays etc.,

Im sure it costs them money to leave their house and play cards live :rolleyes:.

Ste05

Hey Gill, just to answer a few of your questions:

Gillcarr1972 wrote: »

I have to agree with a lot of what you say, being a relative newby like yourself and ALSO a tourney player.

Just so you know Requiem4adream is not a newbie. He is one of the most successful on-line MTT players in Ireland. AFAIK he has represented Ireland twice in the Poker Stars World Cup of Poker thingy. (Not sure what it's called)

Gillcarr1972 wrote: »

Maybe a tournament folder would be handy, not just for HH, but also for us to post articles like you are talking about posting. I think it would be of great value to us who do prefer to play MTTs.

No idea if the mods would want to create another sub forum or not, but then maybe us tournament players would feel more at ease posting HH and posting advice without the panic of being jumped upon. I know I felt like that last night posting a HH, but still wanted to see what others thought, so went ahead.

Firstly it's not up to the mods to add in new forums, we (Poker forum regulars) fought for years to get the additional forums we have now, so I think another is highly unlikely, and TBH, having a Tournament sub-forum wouldn't change anything, it's not as though people will all of a sudden become nice little purring kittens if there's a thread in a Tournament forum, bad play and thinking will still be criticised and corrected (as it should IMO).

I think everyone (well most) knows they need a thick skin when posting a Hand History, some people get defensive and upset if someone criticises their play or thinking, but if people want the benefits of advice, I personally think this is a small price to pay. I'd encourage you to post hands in the HH and Theory forum. It's not a Cash only section and there are many Tournament hands, but as HJ says usually they are pretty shallow and pretty straight forward hands, hence the bigger more in depth threads generally are cash hands, and tournament hands may not get the exposure some of the more complicated cash (read deep) hands do. But there have been some interesting Tournament theory and general discussions in the past, if you are ever bored and fancy a root through the archives.

zuutroy

Can't find the big thread from last year where Tourneys vs. Cash was discussed at length....anyone got a link, I'd like to read it again...

FindingNemo

smurph wrote: »

What do people think of the Alcohol factor in cash V Tournie games (this is live of course)?

If you play a deepstack tournament and are coming back on Day 2, you can be guaranteed that there are maybe only 1 or 2 people drinking at your table, however I find in the cash games live, there could be half the table off their trolley, playing with J2 sooteeed "Cause they have history with with that particular hand"..... This is what I find most the hardest thing to cope with when playing cash. i know in the long run the drunk players are the value, but the swings can be huge.

This is just utter sh1te (for live cash), I'm sorry.
Smurph, would you prefer people sometimes playing with sh1te hands or would you prefer if everyone played the same. It's on you to recognise if someone is bad or playing sh1te cards, so don't moan about swings, we all know it's part of the game.

ditpoker

Hectorjelly wrote:

Ive heard you say something like this a few times, and its totally wrong. There is often one RIGHT answer.

wrong... "This is a simplistic and incorrect analysis"

Someone goes all in in a cash game, you have aces, Do you call? Yes, you always call.

yes, you have given the most extreme example to argue a point.
very different to "two limpers, and CO raises, you're on the button with 88" Do you call? Raise? Fold? tell me the RIGHT answer...? what do you ALWAYS do!?

then there's the complexity of maximising your equity and tournament survival that cant be equated to a similar situation in cash. for example, 64 left in World series, $75,000 pay jump from 63-64... you just lost a big pot and have 4 big blinds left, you;re in on the sb and LAG button player raises to 4 big blinds, you have JJ... his range will include 2 over cards easily... do we try and play for the win or maximise our returns by folding to 63rd? cant recreate THAT situation in cash... there's no RIGHT answer here...

hf4z6sqo7vjngi

ditpoker wrote: »

then there's the complexity of maximising your equity and tournament survival that cant be equated to a similar situation in cash. for example, 64 left in World series, $75,000 pay jump from 63-64... you just lost a big pot and have 4 big blinds left, you;re in on the sb and LAG button player raises to 4 big blinds, you have JJ... his range will include 2 over cards easily... do we try and play for the win or maximise our returns by folding to 63rd? cant recreate THAT situation in cash... there's no RIGHT answer here...

Good point

Jesus Wept

FindingNemo wrote: »

This is just utter sh1te (for live cash), I'm sorry.
Smurph, would you prefer people sometimes playing with sh1te hands or would you prefer if everyone played the same. It's on you to recognise if someone is bad or playing sh1te cards, so don't moan about swings, we all know it's part of the game.

What's the difference between 'a moan' and an observation?
It read like the latter to me.

FindingNemo

The-Rigger wrote: »

What's the difference between 'a moan' and an observation?
It read like the latter to me.

His Quote;

"This is what I find most the hardest thing to cope with when playing cash"

That's more than an observation in my book

RedJoker

Requiem4adream wrote: »

On a fundamental level on this forum (and any forum) imo cash game players are immediately at a slight advantage to tournament players in terms of the potential quality of their advice. I think it's easier to reach consensus on a "standard line" in a cash game than in a tournament.
The ability to reach a standard line on hands is something approaching a right answer. In poker, on any given hand there is never THE right answer, but (Without getting into EV), if you can consistently come up with the most correct solution to a given problem, you'll always be in good stead.

Sometimes there will be a standard line but more often then not there's variables which will tip a decision one way or the other. Online cash players are, on average, at a far higher basic standard of play then other posters. Reading live tournament hand history threads can be beyond painful at times because of the very poor advice given. Those same posters shy away from online cash hand history threads.

The micro stakes forum on 2+2 often suffers the same problem. A lot of very new players give advice which is just wrong, that's o.k. since hopefully they'll be corrected by more experienced players/posters and everybody learns.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=86681

This is a thread posted in the micro stakes forum, it got a wide spectrum of replies as well. When it was posted on the small stakes forum the overwhelming majority said call. It's not that there's a standard line, it's that players with similar abilities will usually reach the same conclusion. Beginning cash players and a lot of tournament players are at a far lower playing standard.

The 'most correct solution' is the right answer. Although at times a most correct solution is impossible to find, then there is no right answer. Also talking about correct solutions without EV doesn't make sense.

Requiem4adream wrote: »

Basically (again all imo), a consensus standard line is more difficult to achieve in tournament hands, thereby often resulting in widely differing opinions on how to play a given hand. I always wondered why the likes of fuzz, HJ etc came up with very similar answers on a large spectrum of hands; the answer is that a more correct way of playing a hand is easier to identify in cash games; 1 hand will rarely polarise opinion in the way a tournament hand might do. For sure, there will be differing ideas but for the most part it's a shade of the 1 colour for cash game hands. A lot of the times in tournament hands it can be night and day in terms of differences of opinion.

It's far more likely that they're both excellent posters and players and will reach the same conclusion themselves. I'd imagine if you posted a tournament hand they'd reach the same conclusion for how to play that hand as well.

Requiem4adream wrote: »

Consistency of quality in advice is thereby harder to achieve in tournament hands. It's much harder to be concise; you're talking about a wider set of variables than in a cash hand, furthermore a lot of those variables are wide open to interpretation. Constructing concise, relevant theory posts on tournament HH is difficult. A lot of the time i have a really good idea in my head of what i want to say and struggle to articulate that in a presentable concise manner.

It's more likely that the ability of tournament posters that are replying varies so much. It's incredibly difficult to cover everything you could say about a cash hand and still be concise, just look at most of dvdfan's posts.

Requiem4adream wrote: »

A final thought (jerry springer eat your heart out lol), some of the tournament players on this site are supremely talented and excellent poker players. It's a skill in itself to destroy the donkaments. I'm literally amazed every week watching the warmup on stars, ollie crushes it with an extraordinary consistency, it's great to watch. If tournament theory was easier to pin down i'm sure you would have a bigger theory section, but it's quite difficult and prone to arguments. I think tournament players deserve more respect than they receive at times, there's (sometimes) a lack of appreciation of the intricacies that go into consistently getting to FT's.

I think a lot of the tournament players that get respect from the general public deserve far less then they actually get. HJ posted a quote in this thread which shows how easy it is for a mediocre player to achieve what appear to be consistent results.

smurph

FindingNemo wrote: »

His Quote;
"This is what I find most the hardest thing to cope with when playing cash"

That's more than an observation in my book

im actually a her, and I wasn't having a moan about about the swings to be honost so relax....

FindingNemo

smurph wrote: »

im actually a her, and I wasn't having a moan about about the swings to be honost so relax....

apologies for the gender misunderstanding,
so why do you find it hard to cope then ??

smurph

FindingNemo wrote: »

apologies for the gender misunderstanding,
so why do you find it hard to cope then ??

There are many things I find difficult to cope with when playing cash, and am working on them,
a good player having position on you
How to deal with a seriel limper, calling station etc,
I just find the drunk player harder to get a handle on that is all. Not a whinge etc.,

Anyway this is also going off topic a bit....

strewelpeter

Hectorjelly wrote: »

...
Firstly, you make the point in cash games that you generally have a lot more hands on your opponent. Thats true, however you reach the wrong conclusion. That makes the analysis for cash games more complicated, because it adds another large variable. What specific type of player is s/he? If you don't have any history or hands with a player then you treat him as an unknown, and pick the generally best play. Knowing how the player plays in detail adds another rich layer to discussion.
...

So its more complicated when you have thousands of hands with the same player at similar levels , at similar stack depths, all presented to you in a nice neat little bundle telling you everything you want to know about the other players subsequent actions, positional behaviour etc. etc?
...Goddammit you have their range typed out in front of you!

This is not one large extra variable, it is a distillation of a lot of a lot of little variables that are known to be reliable and thus make finding the correct decision easier (approaching trivial) for a skilled and experienced player.
A tournament player does not have ready access to this level of reliable information. As tournaments progress all players, good bad and indifferent, are forced to play different ranges in different ways. Wildly fluctuating relative stacks, payout structures and many other factors mentioned by R4D and others (not least the effects of drugs alcohol and tiredness both live and online) have to be taken into account in making calculations.

Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to denigrate the occupation or the level of skill involved in doing it but I would contend that your typical online cash multitabling grinder is effectively running a bot that is greatly simplifying the process of consistently making correct decisions.

Gillybean72

Ste05 wrote: »

Hey Gill, just to answer a few of your questions:

Just so you know Requiem4adream is not a newbie. He is one of the most successful on-line MTT players in Ireland. AFAIK he has represented Ireland twice in the Poker Stars World Cup of Poker thingy. (Not sure what it's called)

I know Danny has been playing a long time, but I thought he was new to boards from looking at the amount of posts, thats all. Maybe he had a different logon, but I was not referring to his time playing poker.

I understand about the sub forums, I didnt realise it was so difficult for you guys to get the sub forums. And yes I will continue to post in the HH folders and have a browse through old posts.

Blip

Hectorjelly wrote: »

Firstly, you make the point in cash games that you generally have a lot more hands on your opponent. Thats true, however you reach the wrong conclusion. That makes the analysis for cash games more complicated, because it adds another large variable. What specific type of player is s/he? If you don't have any history or hands with a player then you treat him as an unknown, and pick the generally best play. Knowing how the player plays in detail adds another rich layer to discussion

This is exactly the point R4D is making regards to tournement play.

The rest of this paragraph is complete BS, Why Datamine, Why use PT then if the stats leave you with this LARGE VARIABLE. lol

RoundTower

I think this thread would be more fun if you just let r4d and hj go at it.

Ste05

Gillcarr1972 wrote: »

I know Danny has been playing a long time, but I thought he was new to boards from looking at the amount of posts, thats all. Maybe he had a different logon, but I was not referring to his time playing poker.

LOL, Requim4aDream is Dan's new name, he was Rooney_Dives beforehand (and I think there were a few others too...:p) but that account(s) were banned, it was a fun time. We've kind of used the blind eye approach to that and have just let bye-gones be bye-gones (sp?).

Yeah it took a long time to get the new forums and we had many debates on which sub-forums we wanted. I'd say a few of the threads are still in the Forums forum or in the archives.

RedJoker

Blip wrote: »

This is exactly the point R4D is making regards to tournement play.

The rest of this paragraph is complete BS, Why Datamine, Why use PT then if the stats leave you with this LARGE VARIABLE. lol

It makes the analysis more complex but far more likely to be accurate.

Gillybean72

Ste05 wrote: »

LOL, Requim4aDream is Dan's new name, he was Rooney_Dives beforehand (and I think there were a few others too...:p) but that account(s) were banned, it was a fun time. We've kind of used the blind eye approach to that and have just let bye-gones be bye-gones (sp?).
.

Haha, I had no idea that he had a new name for misbehaving or is that names :rolleyes:
Least we have that all cleared up now!

thanks
gill

Marq

lol donkaments.

denashpot

a good old cage match will sort everything!!

fuzzbox

strewelpeter wrote: »

So its more complicated when you have thousands of hands with the same player at similar levels , at similar stack depths, all presented to you in a nice neat little bundle telling you everything you want to know about the other players subsequent actions, positional behaviour etc. etc?
...Goddammit you have their range typed out in front of you!

This is not one large extra variable, it is a distillation of a lot of a lot of little variables that are known to be reliable and thus make finding the correct decision easier (approaching trivial) for a skilled and experienced player.
A tournament player does not have ready access to this level of reliable information. As tournaments progress all players, good bad and indifferent, are forced to play different ranges in different ways. Wildly fluctuating relative stacks, payout structures and many other factors mentioned by R4D and others (not least the effects of drugs alcohol and tiredness both live and online) have to be taken into account in making calculations.

Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to denigrate the occupation or the level of skill involved in doing it but I would contend that your typical online cash multitabling grinder is effectively running a bot that is greatly simplifying the process of consistently making correct decisions.

You dont have to deal with all of those factors for every hand, but in a tournament, its true, you have to deal with all those factors for the duration of the entire tournament.

So when you take one cash hand in isolation, you can safely say that its simpler analysis than taking an entire tournaments play with all its complex equations into play.

However, when you take one tournament hand, where all of those things are known, then its often a much more trivial situation to solve since tourney play tends to be very much shallower than cash game play.

Also, there are many misconceptions being brought to bear. In cash games, stacks are wildly fluctuating. There are shortstackers, and players who have won big pots and now sit with 200, 300 even 1000 BBs in front. Sometimes you will have 100, sometimes 500 and you will face these same wildly different stack depths ... but it will be much more difficult to play, because there are many more decision points in a hand where you start with 500 BBs, than if you start with 25BBs. This is simply a function of stack depth, and nothing else.

If playing cash games is akin to running a grinder bot, then why would you ever play tourneys, if cash games are so easy?

nicnicnic

fuzzbox wrote: »

If playing cash games is akin to running a grinder bot, then why would you ever play tourneys, if cash games are so easy?

I think a big part of whether people play cash or tourneys is what they started out playing or were first successful at. Most successful tournament players and they are very few in my mind will of started playing tournaments and have stuck with it. Many cash players started off playing tournaments and couldn't turn regular profits for whatever reason ( variance, running bad, a few bubbles busting there brains, whatever ) so turned to cash, improved there game through whatever medium ( books, forums, experience ) saw better results and stick with cash. Of course there are players who started with cash but I think a big % of cash players started playing MTTS and/or STTS moved to cash, had more success then the other version and look at there time spent on the other version of NLH as wasted.

I do think there is more requirement/emphasis needed on qualitative skills in tournaments and more quantitative/math based skills are needed in cash. This is not to say that these skills are mutually exclusive, to be successful in either discipline top players need both. It is only natural that players in either discipline will feel that the predominant skillset needed in there particular discipline is the superior skillset.

btw I think a good niggling running battle between cash game donks and tourney donks is great for the forum and some of the most entertaining treads have sprung up out of it over the time I've been on the forum.

strewelpeter

fuzzbox wrote: »

You dont have to deal with all of those factors for every hand, but in a tournament, its true, you have to deal with all those factors for the duration of the entire tournament.

So when you take one cash hand in isolation, you can safely say that its simpler analysis than taking an entire tournaments play with all its complex equations into play.

However, when you take one tournament hand, where all of those things are known, then its often a much more trivial situation to solve since tourney play tends to be very much shallower than cash game play.

Also, there are many misconceptions being brought to bear. In cash games, stacks are wildly fluctuating. There are shortstackers, and players who have won big pots and now sit with 200, 300 even 1000 BBs in front. Sometimes you will have 100, sometimes 500 and you will face these same wildly different stack depths ... but it will be much more difficult to play, because there are many more decision points in a hand where you start with 500 BBs, than if you start with 25BBs. This is simply a function of stack depth, and nothing else.

If playing cash games is akin to running a grinder bot, then why would you ever play tourneys, if cash games are so easy?

Good points.
First I don't really think that it is at all easy (It sure ain't for me !) but however I do believe that with the range of tools available that for a skilled and experienced player who is playing within a well defined framework it is, if not close to being solved then well on its way.
I think the trend towards widely available backing for winning cash players and things like Badbeat are testament to this.

I would draw an analogy between an online cash grinder and a stock trader working in the office of one of the leading stockbrokers with easy access to the full range of tools and research. There is a degree of natural talent that may be a help but in fact you can train anyone who is capable of earning a degree that some mathematical and business components to do it with predictable degree of success.

So maybe the Tourney donks are more like the personal investor who has to work with much more limited research and less effective tools. He has to put far more weight on his own experience and reading of the market.

Perhaps the gap is much narrower than I think but I do often feel that grinding in cash becomes pretty dull and mechanical whereas playing in a tourney, where I don't use any tools (PT stats I feel are meaningless) other than perhaps a quick look at opr or the sites rankings if we are at the business end, requires a lot more imagination, observation, concentration and is generally more fun.

Obviously if I were doing it for a living I would be looking at it differently.

Ollieboy

Interesting post by Dan and I'm glad to see him as a regular on the forum as he's one of the top tourney players in Ireland online and the world. I'm also glad to see you've calm down a little over the last year....lol

As Nicky already mention, I think it depends on what you start playing. I start with cash, but quickly moved to STT and MTT's where I found most success.

I do find it hard to switch between both types of games.

Example:

Tournaments are very much about making the right decision at the right time. I.e. pushing the stack on bubbles or using position to raise with marginal hands in late position etc. The gap concept is very important in tourneys as you have to value your hand against the opponent preflop to see if a call is good or bad. You don’t get the chance to outplay your opponent to much in tourneys due to how shallow the stack sizes are etc. So the general concept and discipline in tourneys is very different to cash games.

Now in cash games you’re raising and calling range and reraising range is a lot wider, due to the dept of the stacks in play. Position is still very important and hand reading is still an essential skill, but you are playing for profit per hand here compare to setting up plays for later as you might do in tourneys.

I find my hand range is totally different in cash games in comparison to tourneys.

That’s where my problem lies. When I move back to mtt's I might call raise's with position with suit connecting cards, when I really should be throwing these away and waiting for a better starting hand etc. This is just an example....lol

Or when I go back to cash games I find it hard to increase my aggression levels or I can’t use pot control correctly and get myself easily stack etc.

So both games require different playing style. I think cash games give a player more options on each play and more information to use, hence the better respect cash players get, and also cash games will be more profitable in the long run.

I've nearly played with all the best online players in the last 18 months and one thing is very notice able, there is very little difference in the top players in tourneys, they can all make the same moves when required, it just comes down to which hand can hold up and which player can takes the pressure better on final tables.

If you had a table full of the top 5 tourney players and 5 average tourney players, anyone can win.

If you had a table full of the top 5 cash players and 5 average cash players, the top 5 cash players will win every time or nearly everytime depending on period of time and stack sizes etc..

I hope this makes sense. Hence why I'm trying to move to cash games...lol

Ste05

nicnicnic wrote: »

I think a big part of whether people play cash or tourneys is what they started out playing or were first successful at. Most successful tournament players and they are very few in my mind will of started playing tournaments and have stuck with it. Many cash players started off playing tournaments and couldn't turn regular profits for whatever reason ( variance, running bad, a few bubbles busting there brains, whatever ) so turned to cash, improved there game through whatever medium ( books, forums, experience ) saw better results and stick with cash. Of course there are players who started with cash but I think a big % of cash players started playing MTTS and/or STTS moved to cash, had more success then the other version and look at there time spent on the other version of NLH as wasted.

The quote below from HJ is such a great quote, I didn't read it first time round, (although I think HJ posted it before because it is vaguely familiar) but did after Redjoker linked it again above. But it's a really good read and is quite interesting: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54908944&postcount=13

As for where people started and continued etc., I'd have thought differnently TBH, I know I, like you said most people, just donked around in tournaments when I started, played cash and lost my money much quicker, then when I got a couple of big scores in a row (well big for me at the time ~$1k) I got an overly inflated ego moved to cash, and promptly lost it all pretty quick.

Then I took 9 months off, started playing again and actually found out about the existence of books, forums, etc. started reading and as I got a more thorough understanding of the game, I concentrated on cash, it wasn't because I couldn't play tournaments, it was because I hated the fact that one coin-flip could undo 5+ hours of solid play, and leave me with nothing. I always thought and still do that tournaments have alot more gamble in them, as you are forced to flip at times for significant sums and it's this part of them I dislike, being quite gamble averse.

So, I don't think people base their decision on where to play based on their results, I think in cash games you will lose your money quicker, hence people that have no interest in learning the game or view Poker as simply gambling will stick to tournaments, if someone works on their game they begin to understand the true nature of Variance and may decide based on their own personality that tournaments aren't for them. [EDIT: Or obviously if they love to gamble might use cash games as a quicker fix, this point is a bit muddled but meh, I might fix it later if someone points out problems with it, hopefully the general idea got through... ]

So possibly it's just different mind sets, certainly for me it had nothing to do with results, I just don't like gambling that much, and in tournaments you are forced to take big gambles at times, the money being flipped for could effectively be a large % of a persons BR or even more then their whole BR at times.

While in cash games you can grind out a pretty solid hourly win-rate without taking these huge gambles (unless you are playing outside of your BR) and after time can work out roughly how much it's worth for you to play for an hour. I know this is also true for tournaments but the # of hands needed to get a somewhat accurate hourly rate, is much longer IMO. The difference between a hugely profitable month/year and a losing/ breakeven one could be based on if you have won or lost a couple of crucial coin flips. e.g. If near the bubble you lose AK v QQ or something, or being on the right side of an AA v KK, the difference between being out and having a nice stack is massive. And has a major effect on your bottom line and win rate. In cash these swings just don't really exist (bar tilt etc. but that's true for tournaments too) and my own personal choice is to avoid these massive swings because I'm not someone that ordinarily relishes in a gamble. Very rarely are you going to be flipping an amount that could be worth 30-50%+ of your entire BR. Obviously down swings occur, and can be loooong and VERY costly, but at least it happens slowly, and again I think it's just possibly a mind set difference

Anyway, just felt like a ramble about that topic. But people should read the quote from HJ, it's really interesting IMO.

nicnicnic

Ollieboy wrote: »

If you had a table full of the top 5 tourney players and 5 average tourney players, anyone can win.

If you had a table full of the top 5 cash players and 5 average cash players, the top 5 cash players will win every time or nearly everytime depending on period of time and stack sizes etc..

I'm not 100% with you here Ollie, I think there's no argument that variance is greater but over say 200 games the top tourney players will come through.

nicnicnic

Ste05 wrote: »

The quote below from HJ is such a great quote, I didn't read it first time round, (although I think HJ posted it before because it is vaguely familiar) but did after Redjoker linked it again above. But it's a really good read and is quite interesting: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54908944&postcount=13

As for where people started and continued etc., I'd have thought differnently TBH, I know I, like you said most people, just donked around in tournaments when I started, played cash and lost my money much quicker, then when I got a couple of big scores in a row (well big for me at the time ~$1k) I got an overly inflated ego moved to cash, and promptly lost it all pretty quick.

Then I took 9 months off, started playing again and actually found out about the existence of books, forums, etc. started reading and as I got a more thorough understanding of the game, I concentrated on cash, it wasn't because I couldn't play tournaments, it was because I hated the fact that one coin-flip could undo 5+ hours of solid play, and leave me with nothing. I always thought and still do that tournaments have alot more gamble in them, as you are forced to flip at times for significant sums and it's this part of them I dislike, being quite gamble averse.

So, I don't think people base their decision on where to play based on their results, I think in cash games you will lose your money quicker, hence people that have no interest in learning the game or view Poker as simply gambling will stick to tournaments, if someone works on their game they begin to understand the true nature of Variance and may decide based on their own personality that tournaments aren't for them.

So possibly it's just different mind sets, certainly for me it had nothing to do with results, I just don't like gambling that much, and in tournaments you are forced to take big gambles at times, the money being flipped for could effectively be a large % of a persons BR or even more then their whole BR at times.

While in cash games you can grind out a pretty solid hourly win-rate without taking these huge gambles (unless you are playing outside of your BR) and after time can work out roughly how much it's worth for you to play for an hour. I'm know this is also true for tournaments but the # of hands needed to get a somewhat accurate hourly rate, is much longer IMO. The difference between a hugely profitable month/year and a losing/ breakeven one could be based on if you have won or lost a couple of crucial coin flips. e.g. If near the bubble you lose AK v QQ or something, or being on the right side of an AA v KK, the difference between being out and having a nice stack is massive. And has a major effect on your bottom line and win rate. In cash these swings just don't exist (bar tilt etc. but that's true for tournaments too) and my own personal choice is to avoid these massive swings because I'm not someone that ordinarily relishes in a gamble.

Anyway, just felt like a ramble about that topic. But people should read the quote from HJ, it's really interesting IMO.

I read it when posted and didn't really like it but can see how you would. As for tournaments being about coming down to a flip well your right 99% of the time it comes down to just that. But the winning player consistently put themselves in the position to win that flip. Its about maneuvering into position to win as often as possible, making less mistakes thus consistently giving yourself that chance by running deeper more often.

Ollieboy

nicnicnic wrote: »

I read it when posted and didn't really like it but can see how you would. As for tournaments being about coming down to a flip well your right 99% of the time it comes down to just that. But the winning player consistently put themselves in the position to win that flip. Its about maneuvering into position to win as ofter as possible, making less mistakes thus consistently giving yourself that chance by running deeper more often.

This is very true.

Ollieboy

nicnicnic wrote: »

I'm not 100% with you here Ollie, I think there's no argument that variance is greater but over say 200 games the top tourney players will come through.

Agree, over a large enough sample the tourney players will come out on top, but the average player will improve more if its the same sample been test.

I also thing the win rate will be higher in the cash games v's tourney.

Glowingmind

Ollieboy wrote: »

If you had a table full of the top 5 tourney players and 5 average tourney players, anyone can win.

If you had a table full of the top 5 cash players and 5 average cash players, the top 5 cash players will win every time or nearly everytime depending on period of time and stack sizes etc..

In the short term it's true about the tourney players. But i've highlighted an important point that you made. In the long run there's going to be a distinct difference in both player types.

If you and me took 10k worth of buy-ins for the sunday million over the course of a year, i'd have very little doubt about which one of us is more likely to have made more money.
In single sit 'n' go it'd be a lot closer.

The same can be said about cash games. If you give me or HJ, fuzzbox etc. 10k over the course of a year, there's no doubt that i'd make less money based on my current standard. However, if you sat us down at a single cash table for 6 hours with 100 bbs only, they'd still have the edge, but the possibility that i could come out ahead increases.

Ollieboy

Glowingmind wrote: »

In the short term it's true about the tourney players. But i've highlighted an important point that you made. In the long run there's going to be a distinct difference in both player types.

If you and me took 10k worth of buy-ins for the sunday million over the course of a year, i'd have very little doubt about which one of us is more likely to have made more money.
In single sit 'n' go it'd be a lot closer.

The same can be said about cash games. If you give me or HJ, fuzzbox etc. 10k over the course of a year, there's no doubt that i'd make less money based on my current standard. However, if you sat us down at a single cash table for 6 hours with 100 bbs only, they'd still have the edge, but the possibility that i could come out ahead increases.

What I'm trying to explain here, is I feel the edge the cash players have over a average players is bigger than the edge a tourney player as over a average player.

If you look at the top live players in the world, nobody dominates the games, due to variances. Most of the top players have the bankroll to keep playing at this level, doesn't make them the best players in the world. But when you compare to cash players, I would bet that the same players are always making the same average income etc.

example the big game in Bellagio.

nicnicnic

Ollieboy wrote: »

What I'm trying to explain here, is I feel the edge the cash players have over a average players is bigger than the edge a tourney player as over a average player.

.

I dont think there is any aguement against this and the shorter the tables the more exploitable the edge, this is why most of the biggest cash games are HU. However the best tournament players are also able to exploit there edge when they get to the business end of a tournament because they win more often, its why I play 6 handed stts.

cooker3

I can't believe people are actually trying to say that more skill is required when your facing an unknown as opposed to someone you played a lot. This is so wrong.
When your facing an unknown you have to just stick with a standard line, give them benefit of doubt when the make move etc but when you have history with someone. It requires you to think at what level he/she is at, history between. How you've you played hands previously, what lines do you think he recognises. How is he/she playing today. It can force you to play a hand completely differently and much more creatively then against a unknown. If you can't do this well in cash games then you will be eaten alive by decent players.

nicnicnic

cooker3 wrote: »

I can't believe people are actually trying to say that more skill is required when your facing an unknown as opposed to someone you played a lot. This is so wrong.
When your facing an unknown you have to just stick with a standard line, give them benefit of doubt when the make move etc but when you have history with someone. It requires you to think at what level he/she is at, history between. How you've you played hands previously, what lines do you think he recognises. How is he/she playing today. It can force you to play a hand completely differently and much more creatively then against a unknown. If you can't do this well in cash games then you will be eaten alive by decent players.

I think its more a point about being capable of, having to suss, a player faster without the aids of tracker or data mining

Ollieboy

nicnicnic wrote: »

I dont think there is any aguement against this and the shorter the tables the more exploitable the edge, this is why most of the biggest cash games are HU. However the best tournament players are also able to exploit there edge when they get to the business end of a tournament because they win more often, its why I play 6 handed stts.

I agree Nicky, but getting to the business end is the hard part. At the business end I normally find it easier, I know thats hard to believe lately...lol

But over a 500 player field, your edge is very small and the number of good players that understand tournament play as increase a lot, so you need to beat the average and than beat the better players as the blinds are forcing you to change gears. At this stage the game becomes totally preflop player, push or fold, so your timing and position becomes more important. To be honest, its not rocket science. But its amazing how many players can't do it or play far to aggressive etc.

nicnicnic

Ollieboy wrote: »

To be honest, its not rocket science. But its amazing how many players can't do it or play far to aggressive etc.

lets try and keep some kind of myth to it now Ollie pls its our excellent reading prowess, natural instinct and ability. Kinda like a natural goal scorer or putter in golf

Hectorjelly

ditpoker wrote: »

wrong... "This is a simplistic and incorrect analysis"



yes, you have given the most extreme example to argue a point.
very different to "two limpers, and CO raises, you're on the button with 88" Do you call? Raise? Fold? tell me the RIGHT answer...? what do you ALWAYS do!?

lol

R4aD said there there is never a right answer. I said that this was incorrect, there is sometimes a right answer. Of course sometimes there there is no right answer, but thats beside the point. I didnt claim the opposite of what was stated, as you seem to have assumed. This is a fairly simple piece of logic and I find it hard to see how you could fail to grasp it.

ditpoker wrote: »

then there's the complexity of maximising your equity and tournament survival that cant be equated to a similar situation in cash. for example, 64 left in World series, $75,000 pay jump from 63-64... you just lost a big pot and have 4 big blinds left, you;re in on the sb and LAG button player raises to 4 big blinds, you have JJ... his range will include 2 over cards easily... do we try and play for the win or maximise our returns by folding to 63rd? cant recreate THAT situation in cash... there's no RIGHT answer here...

Lol again. This is actually a totally solvable maths question based on the ICM model. Its not trivial, but it is easily solvable.

Hectorjelly

Blip wrote: »

This is exactly the point R4D is making regards to tournement play.

The rest of this paragraph is complete BS, Why Datamine, Why use PT then if the stats leave you with this LARGE VARIABLE. lol

The stats give you an idea of how the player plays, so you can then choose a line based on that. This is an extra decision point.

cooker summed it up better than I did

cooker3 wrote: »

I can't believe people are actually trying to say that more skill is required when your facing an unknown as opposed to someone you played a lot. This is so wrong.
When your facing an unknown you have to just stick with a standard line, give them benefit of doubt when the make move etc but when you have history with someone. It requires you to think at what level he/she is at, history between. How you've you played hands previously, what lines do you think he recognises. How is he/she playing today. It can force you to play a hand completely differently and much more creatively then against a unknown. If you can't do this well in cash games then you will be eaten alive by decent players.

The_Chopper

Hectorjelly wrote: »

This is actually a totally solvable maths question based on the ICM model. Its not trivial, but it is easily solvable.

What if i don't like/want to use the ICM model for this problem. Does that mean to play it any other way is wrong?

Ollieboy

nicnicnic wrote: »

lets try and keep some kind of myth to it now Ollie pls its our excellent reading prowess, natural instinct and ability. Kinda like a natural goal scorer or putter in golf

yeh sorry...lol

nicnicnic

Hectorjelly wrote: »

Lastly, and im repeating myself here. There is no big divide between cash and tournament players here, and it sometimes feels like you are striving to create one.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055195441

Hmm Hmm

Requiem4adream

nicnicnic wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055195441

Hmm Hmm

LOL

To say that a divide between tourny and cash players doesnt exist is strange. I've read 2+2, p5s and others over the past few years and there is a clear divide between the two disciplines, always has been! Cash game players think tournaments just come down to 1 or 2 flips and a bit of luck and you FT. Simple! Nothing to it sure!!

In terms of there never being THE right answer to a problem, this is wrong clearly, replace never with rarely and replace pedantry with some cop-on. What % of hands would you play where someone shoves 100bb's in a cash game or tournament and you're sitting in bb with AA? 0.00xxx%? It's an irish privilege to misuse the word never! "ah sure we never get any good weather around here".

Actually simple question here HJ, do you think if you applied yourself you could sustain consistent winning results in mtt?

eagle eye

I play both cash and tournaments regularly. I would not be up to the standard of nicnicnic, ollieboy nor rooney/req as a tournament player, nor would i be up to the standard of hj, halfbaked and a lot of others as a cash player but i am making money at both.
I see the biggest difference being that a decision in a tournament game can include your tournament life. Whereas in a cash game this same decision could involve your buyin. There is a major difference.
If you sit down at a cash game with a 1k stack at a table of unknowns and the first hand you get is kk, and there is two allins before you, its a simple decision in my book, you ship.
In a 1k tourney where you sit down at a table of unknowns and the first hand you are dealt is kk, and the action goes the same way, its a big decision and your whole tournament is on the line, and i can see myself laying down the kings here.

phantom_lord

To say that a divide between tourny and cash players doesnt exist is strange. I've read 2+2, p5s and others over the past few years and there is a clear divide between the two disciplines, always has been! Cash game players think tournaments just come down to 1 or 2 flips and a bit of luck and you FT. Simple! Nothing to it sure!!

cash game players don't respect tournament players because all you guys have to do is master the two easiest streets in the game, and play with ~20bbs where all your decisions are pretty simple.

Theresalwaysone

could be argued the turn is the hardest tp play.