OK, I'm gonna put my hands up and admit that I may have been a bit harsh. It was late last night when I wrote and I was bored. I guess calling someone a muppet because I disagree with them is out of order. (Although I do think people from the U.S. tend to be more sensitive to this type of insult than us Brits. I mean really, "muppet" is hardly a major league insult.
I still stand by my claim that playing tournaments exclusively is a wrong way to build up a bankroll no matter how tight you play. I also think that, as opposed to Allsop, you learn a lot more from cash games than tournament play. Why? Because:
You can play 10, 20, 50, 100, 1000 tournies PERFECTLY EVERYTIME and still have no success in the long run. You still have to get lucky to hit the big pay out. Most successful tournament players are precisely GUYS WHO HAVE GOT LUCKY AND HIT THE TOP 3 in a few big buy in tournies. How many times has the decent player played for 3 to 4 hours only to get knocked out by someone hitting a flush on the river when the odds
say he shouldn't have gone for it?
You don't learn anything from this. You just get resentful and frustrated if it happens again and again.
And the cash games?
Much more skill here. Yes, you can lose your buy in by being outdrawn once in a while but good play is rewarded MUCH more in the long run in cash games. (By being patient and alert in a 10 handed game and ducking and diving, wheeling and dealing in the short-handed games.) In short, in cash games good play is rewarded in the long run; in tournies, it's more like gambling, you need more luck to become successful.
I hope this is more constructive and, once again, apologies for my blunt manner in the earlier post.