Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Tournament V Cash

135678

Comments

  • #62
    carfax
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,771 ✭✭✭carfax


    RedJoker wrote:
    The deeper stacks in cash games mean more turn and river play which benefits the more skillful player.

    I would call myself a no-limit hold'em tournament only player. I've heard the above statement floated around a fair bit lately and just want to add my two cents.

    From my own experience (in tournaments but I don't see how this specific point really differs in cash) most of the important decisions are made pre-flop and on the flop. The turn and river generally follow on from these decisions. How does a cash game with a similar deep stack differ in this respect to a tournament?

    ______________________


    I've played in tournaments against some of the best cash players out there and the most common thing I think they can't handle is the change in blinds - they're just not comfortable with it, probably because they have put in so many hours at fixed blind levels. They (and I'm only talking about some players) will play too loose early on and too tight later on or just too tight later on which is when aggressive pre-flop play really pays off.

    Another point about the original post that I would make is that its not what you do but the way that you do it that can be really important in a tournament.
    In a cash game you usually want to get called in any situation where you have the right pot odds. In a tournament you just don't want to get called a lot of the time (depending on your style of course).

    Tournament and cash are simply two different disciplines but I think to survive over a long period of time in serious poker you have to be a good cash player either way.


  • #63
    phantom_lord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭phantom_lord


    DeVore wrote:
    I've already posed a question: Can someone give me a skill which is tested in 200-300 BB cash game which isnt tested (at least for an hour or two) in a tournament structure similar to say, GJP's 1000e event.

    I cant imagine what plays are available in such a cash game that arent availble in the GJP 1k event... perhaps I too, am an idiot?

    DeV.
    defending donkaments by saying they're like cash games for an hour or two seems a bit counter productive to me...


  • #64
    Hectorjelly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Hectorjelly


    carfax the turn and river decisions are just as important as the flop, in fact more so because the $ amounts are much bigger


  • #65
    El Stuntman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,720 ✭✭✭El Stuntman


    if this thread proves anything, it's that tournadonks have no sense of humour


  • #66
    carfax
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,771 ✭✭✭carfax


    Hectorjelly wrote:
    carfax the turn and river decisions are just as important as the flop, in fact more so because the $ amounts are much bigger

    I know their just as important HJ, my point is that they follow on directly from decisions made on the flop. I personally feel that pre-flop and flop decisions are the most important in NLH. The amount of money involved on the turn and river are almost always (against good players) directly related to the size of the pot on the flop.

    In a cash game how does this make for more skillful play against for example a tournament where you are winning 90% of pots on the flop and the other 10% on the turn and river?


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    sikes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,563 ✭✭✭sikes


    Every 100BB hand is going to be far more advanced than, say, a 20BB hand. When you have 20BB stack, the range of hands that are profitbale for you to play is much slimmer and not only that but significant decisions aren't made on later, more complicated, more expensive, streets. You just can't create profitable situations as much as you can with a 100BB+ stack.

    The differing degree of complexity can be shown in a way by the number of successful bots that appeared playing sngs a number of years ago, and they crushed the games. Yeah, there are some NL cash bots around at the smaller limits, but from what I have read, they are highly exploitable, unlike well written SNG bots.


  • #68
    Hectorjelly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Hectorjelly


    they are seperate entities that good player treat very differently. you dont decide on the flop what you are going to do on the turn and river, you use all the information available to you at each decision and make the best decision possible. By the river you have a huge amount more information more than on the flop, so you make a more nuanced decision as to what to do.

    As an example value betting for example hardly comes up at all in tournaments, but its one of the most important skills in cash games. If you can correctly value bet 1 pair hands on the river, that is a HUGE advantage over someone who cant.

    If you mainly play tournaments there is no way you could come to an informed opinion on this subject.


  • #69
    Hitman Actual
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,362 ✭✭✭Hitman Actual


    Fatboydim wrote:
    I'm asking you for an example. Provide one.

    Robins AA thread. In a typical tournament scenario that hand ends on the flop, so it's two streets of relatively easy decisions. In the 200BB situation given, it's four streets, the last two of which are particularly tough to play for either player.

    I have a feeling from your posts that when you say cash, you mean live cash games in Ireland. I don't think that's a good reference for skill in cash games compared to tournaments.


  • #70
    Hectorjelly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Hectorjelly


    carfax wrote:
    I know their just as important HJ, my point is that they follow on directly from decisions made on the flop. I personally feel that pre-flop and flop decisions are the most important in NLH. The amount of money involved on the turn and river are almost always (against good players) directly related to the size of the pot on the flop.

    In a cash game how does this make for more skillful play against for example a tournament where you are winning 90% of pots on the flop and the other 10% on the turn and river?

    I answer the first part of this in the above post. For the 2nd part, yes you are right more pots end by the flop. However the ones that continue to the river are much larger on average and so matter more.


  • #71
    carfax
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,771 ✭✭✭carfax


    Hectorjelly wrote:
    If you mainly play tournaments there is no way you could come to an informed opinion on this subject.

    On what basis do you decide who's opinion is more informed than others in terms of the subject of this thread?
    Can one person not put forward an opinion based on their experiences at one or the other (it seems that some of the cash players have really let their ego take over in a few posts in this thread - not directed at you HJ - , maybe thats due to a lack of success or understanding of tournaments, I don't know?)

    Bohsman, Padraig Parkinson or Andy Black would be perfect examples imo of players that are good and have had success with both disciplines. They don't generally value one form as more skillful than the other as far as I know.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    DeVore
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    HJ, if you read back my first long post you will see that I kinda put that point (that most tournies are nowhere near as deep stacked as the GJP main event) but the counter argument is also true: Very few cash games around town are 2-300 BB deep. Most games in the Fitz for example are 50-75 bb deep because thats all the players tend to sit down with, 100-150 in a 1/2 game.
    You cant say that all cash games are perfect while most tournies stink because there are precious few deepstacked cash games widely available. We are either comparing the ideal of both, or the reality of both... not the ideal of cash with the reality of tournies.


    Underlying all of this is the (mistaken?) presumtion by cash players on this thread that the only skill in poker is deep stacked all street play. I believe that there are other skills like shorthanded play, short stack tactics, blinds level awareness and others, that are useful in the real world (of poker playing).
    If you dont value those skills then ok, but if cash players only value skills useful in cash games, then of course they will see anything else as a dillution and an "impurity".

    The much more interesting questions surround the difference between deep stacked and shallow stacked play (as I was trying to approach in my post). Be that in a tournie or a cashgame.

    DeV.


  • #73
    Ste05
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,537 ✭✭✭Ste05


    DeVore wrote:
    HJ, if you read back my first long post you will see that I kinda put that point (that most tournies are nowhere near as deep stacked as the GJP main event) but the counter argument is also true: Very few cash games around town are 2-300 BB deep. Most games in the Fitz for example are 50-75 bb deep because thats all the players tend to sit down with, 100-150 in a 1/2 game.
    You cant say that all cash games are perfect while most tournies stink because there are precious few deepstacked cash games widely available. We are either comparing the ideal of both, or the reality of both... not the ideal of cash with the reality of tournies.
    But in cash games there will usually be at least one other player with 100BB stacks, even with the games in town, you're not going to be sitting at a table 50BB's deep all night, and on-line I personally won't sit down at a table that doesn't have at least 3 or 4 full stacks. And usually I'll have at least one table where I'm 200BB's deep with one or 2 players once I double up.

    You have to make adjustments based on the effective stack size of the hand you're playing, just like in tournaments you adjust for the changing Blind levels, each hand is only as deep as the effective stacks. If there's a guy in the BB with 20BB's you'll play differently then if there's a guy with 200BB's and you are sitting with 200BB's, similarly if a 200BB player raises UTG and you're on the button you'll play differently then if that raiser only has 20BB's, etc. etc. etc. the nuances of cash games are really much more apparent than in tournaments. In cash games you are playing all kinds of different effective hands, you re-load when you're stacked and again make adjustments based on your new table image, etc. I personally think there are FAR more adjustments to make in cash games then in tournaments once people know what they're doing.

    I would think you could profitably play some tournaments off a sheet, you certainly couldn't with a cash game [EDIT: With the possible exception of just set-mining].


  • #74
    phantom_lord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭phantom_lord


    short/shallow stacked play is pretty simple to get to grips with compared to deep stacked play so i don't think there's any interesting questions there.

    a

    vs


    b


  • #75
    Hectorjelly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Hectorjelly


    carfax wrote:
    On what basis do you decide who's opinion is more informed than others in terms of the subject of this thread?
    Can one person not put forward an opinion based on their experiences at one or the other (it seems that some of the cash players have really let their ego take over in a few posts in this thread - not directed at you HJ - , maybe thats due to a lack of success or understanding of tournaments, I don't know?)

    Bohsman, Padraig Parkinson or Andy Black would be perfect examples imo of players that are good and have had success with both disciplines. They don't generally value one form as more skillful than the other as far as I know.

    lol

    so three players that you know very little about and have no access to their records so may or may not be winning cash games player, may or may not value one discipline over the other. good point


  • #76
    DeVore
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    You dont check the stack of your opponent in a tournament and adjust your play accordingly Ste? I think the same applies to both cash and tournie in that regard.

    The GJP tournie (I'm using this as shorthand now!) is 100BB for 3 levels if you never win a hand. And you ARE suppose to be increasing your stack as the levels go by...

    DeV.


  • #77
    Hectorjelly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Hectorjelly


    this is going to sound mean but I think anyone who hasnt got a winning record over a very large sample size in cash games (at any stakes) is just simply not qualified to judge.

    edit; and some success in tournaments


  • #78
    DeVore
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    What if they come up with a self-consistent logically sound argument? How does their bank balance alter the truth it?

    Should people who have never had kids be allowed to express opinions on abortion?


    What about people who've never had it tough expressing opinions on charity? :)

    DeV.


  • #79
    carfax
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,771 ✭✭✭carfax


    Hectorjelly wrote:
    lol

    so three players that you know very little about and have no access to their records so may or may not be winning cash games player, may or may not value one discipline over the other. good point


    lol,

    Yeah fair enough point wasn't made in the best manner. I do know them all fairly well and have done for a number of years. I share a house with Bohsman and watch him play/study on the internet for about 14 hours per day.

    Padraig Parkinson I've known since my first trip to Vegas (about 7 years ago) were he took me under his wing a bit and shared some of his theoretical genius (not to put too fine a point on it)....and Andy Black has often said that he prefers tournaments in that there is something more pure in the fact that there must ultimately be one winner but in terms of a steady income he prefers cash.

    When I say "They don't generally value one form as more skillful than the other as far as I know" I mean that I haven't been talking to them all today and that they might not express the same opinion as of when I last spoke to them. Hope this clarifies my point and fair play to you for answering my question so comprehensively.


  • #80
    bohsman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,881 ✭✭✭bohsman


    They are completely different games, I think a solid cash game player will do far better when they start playing tournaments than a tournament player will do starting out in cash games. Other than Valor of course. Nicnicnic proves the point the other way though.


  • #81
    DeVore
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    Since most players start as tournie players and then become cash players, I think its to be expected that cash players (returning to tournies with more experience) will be better then rookie tournie-players dipping their toes into cash for the first time. No real surprise there...

    DeV.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Ste05
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,537 ✭✭✭Ste05


    DeVore wrote:
    You dont check the stack of your opponent in a tournament and adjust your play accordingly Ste? I think the same applies to both cash and tournie in that regard.

    The GJP tournie (I'm using this as shorthand now!) is 100BB for 3 levels if you never win a hand. And you ARE suppose to be increasing your stack as the levels go by...

    DeV.
    Well as P_L said earlier, defending Tournaments by comparing the first 3 levels of a 2 or 3 day event to a cash game seems counter intuitive to me.

    I personally think both have their own skill sets needed to succeed, and aren't really all that comparable, but usually for me the decisions in a tournament are easier to make then in a cash game.

    But from a pure Poker perspective, it's my personal opinion that cash games require more skill and constant adjustments. But I also think this debate will constantly go round in circles because both disciplines are so different.


  • #83
    cardshark202
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,434 ✭✭✭cardshark202


    A lot of the posts here are showing a huge lack of understanding of poker in general. And carfax your examples of players makes very little sense. I would also be fairly sure my online tourney record is better than about 99% of all the tourney players on this forum, and I don't play that many tourneys and I haven't won that much money at all. All of the best players I have come across in tournaments have been able to play poker as well as tournaments, and they are much better than any tourney only players.


  • #84
    bohsman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,881 ✭✭✭bohsman


    I started in cash games, Valor played his first ever tournament shortly before Vegas and despite not winning any played very well and although I think he played some hands very badly he was always able to argue his case as to why he did certain things and they made sense although they were very high variance, then you look at some experienced tournament players make cringeworthy mistakes when theyre starting in cash games.


  • #85
    carfax
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,771 ✭✭✭carfax


    cardshark202 wrote:
    A lot of the posts here are showing a huge lack of understanding of poker in general.

    Agreed, anybody that did understand the first thing about this game would not post it on the internet, let alone write it down.:)
    Exactly who do you think you are smarter than in this thread or on these boards? (aside from me :) ).

    cardshark202 wrote:
    And carfax your examples of players makes very little sense.

    Not sure exactly what you're referring to here.

    In terms of ego in poker; It might be because I was talking about you :p .


  • #86
    carfax
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,771 ✭✭✭carfax


    Ste05 wrote:
    But I also think this debate will constantly go round in circles because both disciplines are so different.

    Very good point imo.

    They are very different but they are the same game after all. I think FBD intended this thread to have a more theoretical approach and in practical terms things like what adjustments to make if you are a successful tournament player struggling to lodge a win in a cash session and vice versa.


  • #87
    Hectorjelly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Hectorjelly


    ok weve had these threads before. I suggest we find a way to settle it once and for all with some sort of ridiculous crossbooking prop bet. im willing to bet up to $500 if we cant sort out some reasnable details. carfax, de vore, nicnicnic are any of you interested? Or any other mainly tournament player?


  • #88
    DeVore
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    I'm not defending anything Ste, I'm just pointing out that deep stack play DOES come into effect in tournies and that the arrogant "lol donkaments" mentality is that of the school ground. Just pointing out some inconvenient truths that there are more "skills" tested in tournies then in cash. Unless you dont consider them skills because they arent needed in cash games.... can we say "circular argument"?

    DeV.


  • #89
    Hectorjelly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Hectorjelly


    DeVore wrote:
    What if they come up with a self-consistent logically sound argument? How does their bank balance alter the truth it?

    Should people who have never had kids be allowed to express opinions on abortion?


    What about people who've never had it tough expressing opinions on charity? :)

    DeV.

    Nothing to do with bank balance, but if you cant beat cash games I dont see why you would be able to understand what makes them different to tournaments. Its a technical question, which is the difference to your 2nd point, because allowing abortions is a moral or ethical question.

    lol


  • #90
    DeVore
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    HJ, I play cash every day, I play tournies about once a month these days! I'm not sure what anything I played would conclude but I'm game for anything.

    Also, I'm not sure what you are trying to prove because there are about 6 points being made in this thread.

    DeV.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Hectorjelly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Hectorjelly


    by the way if you guys are too scared then its clear which game is more skillful.


Advertisement