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

The poker forum - my take

2456

Comments

  • #32
    nicnicnic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,724 ✭✭✭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.


  • #33
    nicnicnic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,724 ✭✭✭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.


  • #34
    Ollieboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,070 ✭✭✭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.


  • #35
    Ollieboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,070 ✭✭✭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.


  • #36
    Glowingmind
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,092 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Ollieboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,070 ✭✭✭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.


  • #38
    nicnicnic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,724 ✭✭✭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.


  • #39
    cooker3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,646 ✭✭✭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.


  • #40
    nicnicnic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,724 ✭✭✭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


  • #41
    Ollieboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,070 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    nicnicnic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,724 ✭✭✭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


  • #43
    Hectorjelly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭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.


  • #44
    Hectorjelly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭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.


  • #45
    The_Chopper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,049 ✭✭✭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?


  • #46
    Ollieboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,070 ✭✭✭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


  • #47
    nicnicnic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,724 ✭✭✭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


  • #48
    Requiem4adream
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,538 ✭✭✭Requiem4adream


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

    Hmm Hmm

    LOL :D

    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?


  • #49
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 41,892 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #50
    phantom_lord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #51
    Theresalwaysone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,039 ✭✭✭Theresalwaysone


    could be argued the turn is the hardest tp play.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Van Dice
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,700 ✭✭✭Van Dice


    Requiem4adream wrote: »
    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).
    lol no worries, I have a pretty thick skin and I don't harbour any grudges :)
    (I'll call off the 2 heavy Russians who you may have noticed)

    Interesting post and I look forward to this one -
    Requiem4adream wrote: »
    I've got a piece im writing on Timing Tells
    definitely an underused piece of information
    nicnicnic wrote: »
    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.
    I know the cash-tourney thing has been done to death time and time again, but I agree with this. I've always held that they are two different skill-sets, but that an excellent online player in either discipline could learn how to adapt to the other quite quickly. I say online because I doubt that some of the 'tv tourney pros' could learn how to beat even a medium level online cash game. At least, whenever some of them have played in a tv cash game format they seem to really struggle with basic stuff, and when some of them have dabbled in online cash, they've been destroyed.

    Most good players are winners in both categories, and almost all players I know, me included, started off in small stakes STT's, moved up a little bit and then moved to cash games. In any 'wells' I've read, same applied. So it's just a question of taste I guess, personally I find cash games more interesting because of the multi-level thinking that develops, and playing through streets offers a huge amount of scope as to what you can do. Also, imo, there's more money to be made :)

    But the main point is that to be a very strong tourney or cash game player takes a good level of intelligence and logical ability, and they are the two ingredients needed to be very good at either game. (except for lilholdem obv). If a winning tourney player with both of these characteristics turned their hand to cash games, they'll be a winner, and vice versa.

    Afaik, Isaac Baron did an interview recently where he was contrasting the two games, and I'd say he's the player closest to the best in the world at both disciplines.

    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.
    yeah I don't really think there is any room for argument on this one.

    (also this may be why people find that there is a lot of consensus opinion on some hands. Because the villain in 99% of hands posted is effectively an 'unknown', replies will converge on the 'standard line' to take. Some of the most interesting threads with diverging responses are the ones where history with the villain is included in the OP, and then people have to start thinking on deeper levels - what level is our opponent capable of thinking on?)


  • #53
    Van Dice
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,700 ✭✭✭Van Dice


    Also I'd say when there is a hand when there is a lot of discussion about it means that decision doesn't really matter - because both decisions are quite close in terms of EV. So the threads which matter most to winrate are really the ones where there is a consensus opinion, because that indicates that one action is clearly better than the others

    "The betting decisions that trouble us most are the ones that matter least." - Tommy Angelo


  • #54
    digiman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,232 ✭✭✭digiman


    Have only skipped through this thread but have a hypothetical question as its kind of relevant to the discussion.

    If you had a tournament where the average stack was always 100BB, so every time a player gets knocked out the blinds increase so the average is always 100!
    Do you think a successful tournament player or a successful cash player would win? Or putting it another way if there was 50 tournament players and 50 cash game players, who many of each would be at a 10 seater final table?


  • #55
    nicnicnic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,724 ✭✭✭nicnicnic


    digiman wrote: »
    increase so the average is always 100!
    Do you think a successful tournament player or a successful cash player would win


    either me or Valor would win it


  • #56
    Hectorjelly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Hectorjelly


    Requiem4adream wrote: »
    LOL :D

    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!!

    What I was saying was that it doesnt really exist on this forum, not that it doesnt exist elsewhere.
    Requiem4adream wrote: »
    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".

    Well it seems we have wildly different standards for the precision of our posts and logic. This might be a reason you have trouble posting in the HH forum.
    Requiem4adream wrote: »
    Actually simple question here HJ, do you think if you applied yourself you could sustain consistent winning results in mtt?

    I already have done for a long time, and continue to do so. I dont cash in every tournament I play, but then I fear that would be a bridge too far even for you!


  • #57
    Hectorjelly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Hectorjelly


    The_Chopper wrote: »
    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?

    Well theres a good chance you will either randomly or intuitively pick the correct answer


  • #58
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,776 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    This post has been deleted.


  • #59
    Goodluck2me
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Goodluck2me


    Theresalwaysone wrote: »
    could be argued the turn is the hardest tp play.

    i think he mean pre flop and flop streets.


  • #60
    nicnicnic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,724 ✭✭✭nicnicnic


    Theresalwaysone wrote: »
    could be argued the turn is the hardest tp play.



    I played one of those once, I checked behind as I didn't know what to do. Now that I think of it I found the whole experience a little alien and confusing


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Ollieboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,070 ✭✭✭Ollieboy


    Requiem4adream wrote: »

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

    HJ views on tourney play verse cash would be from his own expierence, he has been a very successiful online tourney player for a long time and he his still a very tought opponent in live games. He could easily be a big online winner in MTT's today if he want.

    My only problem with HJ and we've discuss this at lenght, is why he doesn't move up the levels. When you get to meet HJ, his views and thoughts on poker make for very good discussion and I dont always agree with him, but I understand where he comes from and I can't say he's wrong. Just a different angle on most things.

    Maybe we should have a forum meeting in a pub sometime to discuss poker in general and different views of the game.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement