Cash Games or Tournaments?

Seems to be a lot of concern about the online rake, which is understandable. But isn't one way to avoid it to stick to tournaments? Granted there are entry fees, but with no rake thereafter you don't have to worry about it slowing eating away at your stack. (Just the blinds growing.)

Anyway, I'm pretty good at online tournaments. I like the fact that they have a beginning, middle and end, and they seem by their very nature to punish stupid play more, or sooner, than cash games (once the donk is gone, he's gone for good). Plus the cost (investment) is defined. And Full Tilt is doing a good job of setting up a variety of tournament options.

I know some pros prefer cash games (e.g. Negreanu) and some tournaments (e.g. Gordon). Is there some reason one must play cash games to make a decent profit at online poker, all else being equal?

Thanks.

Tournament seems better for me....... im liking the take 2 challenge on tilt at the mo think thats good for the smaller bankrolls

Mini ftops all the way

I don't play that many big tournaments anymore. Maybe three a month. Mostly i play cash games and sit n gos. I do like the mini ftops touneys and will be playing in the miniftops 1 on the 9th.

How can you do the take 2 challenge with tournaments?

The real difference how each are played. In a cash game you are playing relatively the same the whole time you are playing, switching it up a little based on your stack and what you may think other players perceive of you, or you perceive of them.

Whereas in a tournament, like you said, there is a beginning, a middle and an end....and they are all played completely different. Many players only know how to play the beginning of a tournament, because they are not good enough to reach the middle or end(same with some mediocre players only playing the beginning and middle, but never the end). You need to know HOW and WHEN to switch those gears.

There will be arguements every other day about which is better, because some people one type better than another, but what it really comes down to is ROI(Return of Investment). You have a much better chance of raising your ROI in a Ring game or SNG than you do in a big MTT, and that is basically because of how many people and the ammount of time it takes to finish one. How many times have you played in a big MTT with say 3000 people that took 4 hours before you busted out just in the money and won just a tad over what your buy-in was? That would be considered wasted time in a lot of players minds, because in that 4 hours you could have played maybe 5 SNGs(more if you were Multi-tabling), or maybe a juicy Ring game and had a better chance of winning more than that.

I am personally with Muckets... I prefer Ring games or SNGs, but maybe a couple times a month I will play an MTT just for kicks.(Granted, I am talking about Buy-In MTTs, not the CC Freerolls )

I think absoluthamm, is absolutely right. Some people are far better at one type of game then they are at another. If I suck really bad at tournaments, it doesn't matter how low the rake is, I'll never make any money. Unless you are trying to learn one or the other, stuck with the game that you; 1) Like the most or 2) Have the best ROI.

That very thing is what makes cash games more lucrative, i.e. you want to keep the donks in a cash game, because long term you will profit from their bad play. You might even go so far as to say you want them to suck out on you now and again, just to keep them in the game. If they never win, they'll go broke and leave. When they suck out once in awhile, it often inflates their ego and greed and keeps them around -- you just reload and keep pushing. When the last donk gets up from my cash table, I get up too. It's not nearly as much fun playing a table full of rocks where you rarely see a big pot, and when you do, you should usually get out of the way. That said, a full table of donks is seldom fun or profitable. But keeping 2-3 in a full ring game is perfect!

Getting donks out of a tournament early can also have a negative effect since it leaves you heavy with good players towards the end. You'd rather play against a table full of strong players? And the end is where you can play back at the surviving donks since your range opens up to approach theirs. In fact you'll sometimes (often?) see bad players who managed to donk themselves deep into a tourney, actually tighten up towards the end and play scared, so you have a great opportunity to exploit them by stealing their blinds and antes, and raising them off their limp bets. It never ceases to amaze me when HBL's limp for 10-20% or more of their stack late in a tourney and then still fold to the first raise. And I see HBL's pretty often at the lower stakes tourneys/SnG's. That's a HUGE leak that's easy to exploit, and it won't exist in a table full of solid players.

It's a different game that suits different styles, so it really depends on the player -- but overall better players will be more profitable long-term from cash games. Tournaments have much higher variance, so the swings are larger and luck (or lack thereof) plays a bigger factor.

Personally, I like both ring and tourney/SnG play. At any given time I tend to play one form exclusively, then when my swing turns south for awhile, I'll jump to the other. After my 50NL downswing of 8-9 buy-ins a couple months ago, I jumped back to tourney's and SnG's after about a year away from them. I immediately hit a hot streak, taking down over $8K in the first month thanks to a major MTT win and several SnG cashes very close together. Now variance is creeping in and I'm going longer between cashes, so I've started mixing a little 50NL back in, and have been doing well there again.

Doing so seems to stimulate me, getting me out of the "rut" where I tend to lose focus get careless, and help neutralize the inevitable variance. It forces me to change playing styles and focus once again. Plus, being able to change up your play based on conditions is a valuable skill to have no matter which form of poker you play, so it's good practice for me.

i prefer tournaments. in cash games when you lose your control you can lose all your money. in tournament you just lose chips and can try other tournament.

Tournaments are more enjoyable to me.

Thanks for all the info. Very helpful indeed.

Btw. What does "HBL" mean?

It is largely a matter of personal preference. The skills required in MTTs/Ring Games are very different. Few players are equally comfortable and proficient in both.

This point:

is true of a single session of play but not of the long term, I suggest. In an MTT, the amount of money you put at risk in each game is very small compared to the potential reward, and a successful MTT player need only win a tourney once or twice a year to earn more than most ring game players could hope to.

I also like the tourny's but i only play on bodog and the tournys arnt that great but the cash games are awesome and there isnt that many donks in the cash games so it equals out for me.

I play both-when I'm losing in tournaments I go to the cash tables. Then when I'm losing at the cash tables I go back. Tournaments to me are kinda like that girlfriend you go back to when it's convenient but when she pisses you off you find someone else, but then you end up on her doorstep drunk at 3 a.m. with a bag of Jack in the Box and a stop sign for some reason. Boy I had issues back then...

Lol. Good analogy. And judging from your avatar everything worked out. That is, at least somebody took you back.

the rake doesnt eat at your stake in a cash game. you only pay a rake on winnings hands. so if your paying rake your winning pots.

most pros only make the money 40 percent of the time in MTTs...if you can develop a good game on cash tables, that is the best way to see your bankroll grow...sure its slower than a big score in a tournie...but i believe its the most secure way to build your roll

cash games are much better because there is less variance and if you are a superior skill to your opponents you will win more often.

With tournaments you can go tons of time without cashing.

When I first started playin I mostly played ring games and I got pretty good then I started to play in mtt's I got pretty good at them then I would go back and play in ring games and realized that I totally sucked at ring games they aren't played the same way so I had to learn how to play ring games all over again but now I've seem to have realized that I get a better roi playing in ring games so now I play in mtt's if they are fr's or if I'm bored and have some time on my hands I'll play in the smaller buyin's but now I just don't seem to care as much if I win or not just like to play in them but now that I reread this it doesn't seem to make much sense lol!!!O-WELL

Nah-she got strung out on dope so that was that. So I married her best friend and had this little guy. So glad shes the mom and not the ex...

You should try both and see where you are the most successful. Cause "the beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

High Blind Limper. Players who continue to routinely open-limp even after the blinds are high. As I said, a very bad leak but nonetheless common among inexperienced players at low stakes.

I was about to call you out on this, because at first it sounded like you were staying only the winner contributes to rake. Rake is a percentage or fixed take from every pot, so if you contribute to a pot then you contribute to the rake, whether you win the pot or not. Then I realized that you're saying the winner of the pot bears the total brunt of the rake deduction, since it reduces his pot by the rake amount while the losers didn't lose anything extra on top of their bets. So I guess I can see it your way too.

/gasps for breath

Periods don't cost any extra, please use them!

Haha, I am going to be using this all of the time. I think you could probably use this for about half of the members posting that have about 100 posts or less. I think they are working with modified keyboards. No punctuation marks, automatic CAPS Lock, and the keyboard automatically doesn't register at least one letter out of every third word.

Once the donk's gone in a cash game you add him to your buddy list so you can play him again and again and again ......................

I like tournaments better. Yes, they need more time and sometimes there are hours of playing without any profit, but it's a very good feeling to win them. :-)

+1 but dont share all my secrets

really depends what stakes your playing in low stakes cash tables the rake is very significant and can make winning a lot harder.
That rake is been payed every single hand that gets to a significant size whilst in sit and goes you only play the initial buyin.

neglecting other factors and just considering rake at low stakes sit and goes or tournaments are definitely preferable to cash tables.

exception been some sites which charge up to 20% rake for sit and goes, that is atrocious and avoid such sites.

However when you get to high stakes The rake rarely becomes relevant on cash tables since it is such a small proportion but still remains relevant in tournaments or sit and goes.

so it kind of reverses as you move up stakes.

That is why you employ bankroll management skills and don't play outside of your limits. If you lose one buy-in in a cash game, it will be a small portion of your roll. Tournaments you can still buy-in for the same amount you would in a cash game, and you have a much better chance leaving with nothing than you would in a cash game.

For example, you buy-in to the Daily Dollar for $1 with 10,000 people in it and 1,000 people cash, but you will spend about 3 hours getting to the money, if you even make it, and you will make about $0.25 for 500-1000th place and 5 hours of your time, once again, IF you make it.

On the other hand, in a cash game, you could buy-in to a .01/.02 game for $1 and, if you play right, make that $0.25 in about 15 minutes.

Yes, they are an accomplishment IF you win them, or go deep and make a solid cash, but overall, if you can't make it deep, then you are much better off playing cash games. Once again, I am not saying that I never play MTTs, because I do, but I also can admit that they are not as winnable as a ring game is.

This isn't actually correct ^^
'Good' (as in successful, profitable) MTT players are only cashing (I.T.M. "in the money") approx. 15% of the time (usually varies between ~13-15%). These are figures based upon winning players, playing in medium to higher buyin tournaments online,... ones who've played between 500 - 5,000 mtts. In lower micro buyin MTTs you will often find players who are ITM 20-30%, but the cashes are smaller as many of them are playing to just get into the money and not playing to make final tables.
I've based this info. on countless # of players, including the highest earning MTT players on Fulltilt & regular cashers in med. stakes (if you don't believe me, try looking them up.. ie. DocSands, da_professional, NEONPILS, AJKHoosier1, MoormanI, gboro, bond18, Julian Verse, Greg__Chimp, ArgentinaBoy, dsindy, daisyxoxo, The Ute, ManchVegasPwn, Big Huni,.... the list goes on.... almost all fall in at around 14-15%).

I completely agree with a couple of the posters above and have had similiar experiences to them. I personally prefer MTTs but will also spend some time playing cash tables for periods of time (always focusing on one or the other & sticking with it for awhile).

Also, the best thing at the cash tables is that if the donks suckout on you, you can just re buyin and take it to 'em. Look at it as a temporary loan. In an MTT.... BOOM.. & you're outta there.

I personally like tournaments, well because I am not that great of a cash game player. I seem to make all my money in tournaments, then just give it right back at the cash games. I am getting better though. I have been able to consistenly win at PLO cash games, so its not all bad.

lol.
You do realize that losing players win pots to?
And poker isnt about winning pots its about winning money!
A player could have like 80% W$SD and still be a losing player.
Most winning players have like 55-60% W$SD.

As for the MTTvsRing i say ring because u can have a bigger edges over villains when your deepstacked.

But both formats requier vastly difrent skills.

I like to play SnG's mostly turbo 6-max, however sometimes I like to throw in a MTT to mix things up

I like tournaments more than cash games... Well, you can see many fishes at cash games, but tournament is much more interesting for me... you need to think your tactics for long term to cash at the tournament.

If u want to feel the challenge , u should play a tournament...but if u are in hurry, SNG may be a solution

I'm sure the pros play that they're best at. I agree that the rake is way to much to over come in ring games. I don't like playing ring games because of the rake. It's just too hard to win.