Tournament vs Cash

I'm having a hard time feeling like I'm playing poker when I play tournaments vs when I play cash games. I know they are different beasts, but sometimes I find it so hard to apply any strategy to the tournaments because it's just an all-in fest. Because of that, I play fairly tight, but I still end up losing too many chips just trying to see a flop with a good hand (if it doesn't hit, I'm screwed).

Is this normal? Is it because I'm playing lower stakes?

It's not always like this. I've had fun and made a few final tables, but most of the time it seems to be how I described above.

Are there any good resources I should check out in regards to how to play tournaments vs cash games?

I dont like laying cash games,more entertaining for me is mtt and sit and go ournaments.

I afraid from cash games cause you loose immediately and you can get an only a small amount of money in MTT you can lose a bit money for a ticket but if fortune smile you can reach good amount of money!

I like tournaments. It's like an epic battle with no escape except winning.

Cash games are very different, you can leave whenever you want.

I use cash games to build my bankroll to use for buy-ins for tournaments.

Everything I have won in tournaments I have lost in cash games, I do not play this modality anymore until I have studied more and have enough bankroll.

Two different skill sets. I like cash games but I am still learning. Much more comfortable with tournaments, but don't always have the time/patience to commit to a big tourney. Lots of good posts on the forum about how to play both formats.

Tournaments are for glory cash is for money. Someone said it not sure who lol.

Tournaments themselves have high amounts of variance. When you play micro and low stakes, especially reentry/rebuy , tournaments that same variance increases exponentially. This is where bankroll management comes in. You have to be able to sustain long down swings if playing tournaments. Not sure what your situation is but I have about $400 on ACR and never play higher than micros without a ticket.

Another thing to consider, but is very difficult is structure. Freezeouts and short rebuy periods are the way to go, but are hard to fill a full day of play with, especially at the micros.

Cash is king when it comes to making money online, but if you aren't bankrolled for cash yet I strongly recommend playing sngs to build it up. Smaller fields reduce variance, spotting/labeling regular fish is a lot easier, no rebuys, and the better players will win in the long run.

Hope this helps a little.

Patchco89 said:

I'm having a hard time feeling like I'm playing poker when I play tournaments vs when I play cash games. I know they are different beasts, but sometimes I find it so hard to apply any strategy to the tournaments because it's just an all-in fest. Because of that, I play fairly tight, but I still end up losing too many chips just trying to see a flop with a good hand (if it doesn't hit, I'm screwed).

Is this normal? Is it because I'm playing lower stakes?

It's not always like this. I've had fun and made a few final tables, but most of the time it seems to be how I described above.

Are there any good resources I should check out in regards to how to play tournaments vs cash games?

Click to expand...

Most of the issues you raise are related to the stack depth differences between the two. Cash games generally involve deeper stacked play leading to much more of the decision making being done on multiple streets postflop. Short stack play as you get further in tournaments is very preflop and flop dominant as far as decisions go.

I don´t like play cash. I always prefer play tournaments. I think that tournaments are more fun and the players can develop their skills and strategy

Sorry for my english

cash and tournaments are 2 different philosophies. aside from that, if you cant handle losing more often then winning, then tournaments are probably not for you. the best poker players in the world win 1 thousand player tournament every 15 to 25 tournaments they play. thats some big stretch! and thats the best players! an average/mediocre player can maybe win one in 75 to 100 or more tournaments they play! imo investing too much money on tournaments might not be a winning proposition. although you can lose alot in cash games, the field is narrower and its much more probable to see a positive difference in your bank roll.

I love playing tournament because there's ending so I feel like I really win something but in a cash game, it's just endless grinding. If you find a tournament is an all in feast then your stake is pretty low and you said that you lost a lot of money just to see the flop then you probably playing it wrong.

I think it's actually 1 in 1500.

celtics33 said:

cash and tournaments are 2 different philosophies. aside from that, if you cant handle losing more often then winning, then tournaments are probably not for you. the best poker players in the world win 1 thousand player tournament every 15 to 25 tournaments they play. thats some big stretch! and thats the best players! an average/mediocre player can maybe win one in 75 to 100 or more tournaments they play! imo investing too much money on tournaments might not be a winning proposition. although you can lose alot in cash games, the field is narrower and its much more probable to see a positive difference in your bank roll.

Click to expand...

Cash is easier for professional players to make money compared to tournaments. The luck component of a single tournament is too large. Generally, professional players use 40 to 50 games a day to balance the luck component with multiple strengths.

I think the cash game is much more monotonous. Neither beginning nor end. It only ends when you get up from the table (or if you lose everything).
In contrast, tournaments have a process. There is a beginning of the middle and an end that I like much more because I can’t lose more than the money allotted to it, but I can win a lot more.

I think tournaments is a lot better fun.

LJG23 said:

I think it's actually 1 in 1500.

Click to expand...

if you win 1 in 1500 tournaments might as well quit personally I wouldnt consider a player that wins at this rate intermediate/mediocre. maybe thats just me.

Cashing and winning are two different things. Higher stakes games will see more consistent winners. But this is due to much better structure and much smaller player fields. The majority of us are playing against hundreds of not thousands of entries in tournaments with unlimited reentry the variance is exponentially higher leading to winning less often even if you are a solid player.

celtics33 said:

if you win 1 in 1500 tournaments might as well quit personally I wouldnt consider a player that wins at this rate intermediate/mediocre. maybe thats just me.

Click to expand...

the statistics I quoted are not my own but from the poker data base/google and they specifically say per 1 thousand player tournaments. are you making the 1 in 1500 up? if not please supply a link. if you have no proof or link then this is your imagination? imagination and reality are 2 different things.

LJG23 said:

Cashing and winning are two different things. Higher stakes games will see more consistent winners. But this is due to much better structure and much smaller player fields. The majority of us are playing against hundreds of not thousands of entries in tournaments with unlimited reentry the variance is exponentially higher leading to winning less often even if you are a solid player.

Click to expand...

the statistics I quoted are not my own but from the poker data base/google and they specifically say per 1 thousand player tournaments. are you making the 1 in 1500 up? if not please supply a link. if you have no proof or link then this is your imagination? imagination and reality are 2 different things.

Honestly it's just something I heard Jonathan Little say in one of his recent webinars. If I can find it again I will send you the link. Though, I'm not sure it's something you can Google and get an accurate answer either.

I believe the disagreement stems from you comparing "us" to professionals. As I stated above they will win more often because of the player fields and tournament structures.

Consider this. Phil Helmuth has won 15 wsop bracelets, more than any other player. Yes he's won other events but for this example I'm just considering WSOP events because we know about how many there are each year. He won his first one in 1989 and his latest in 2018. So over thirty years he's only won 15 events. How many do you think he's played? Better yet, how many entries do you think he's had since several events are now reentry/rebuy?

This is the best tournament poker player playing in the highest stakes with the best structures. Most of us play low and micro stake games and have to dodge way more bullets and will dilute our winning percentage dramatically.

There are going to be outliers, like Fedor Holz epic year (2016 I believe) when he just won every other tournament he played in it seemed. But this is by no means the norm.

I'd also like to add that private games like the cards chat freerolls kind of fall into the better players/better structure category. It's been a while since I played in one but the two level late reg they had and player pools of about 150 makes it easier for the better players to win way more often than they would in other freerolls and micro stakes games open to the public.

Hopefully this doesn't sound like I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing. Even if I'm not exactly right, which I don't know that you could actually get an exact answer, it's more realistic for low/micro stake players to not expect to win one in every 100 tournaments they play that have hundreds or thousands of entries.

celtics33 said:

the statistics I quoted are not my own but from the poker data base/google and they specifically say per 1 thousand player tournaments. are you making the 1 in 1500 up? if not please supply a link. if you have no proof or link then this is your imagination? imagination and reality are 2 different things.

Click to expand...

Tournaments are much better, because everyone initially has the same number of chips and equal conditions. Also, due to the change of places of players during the game, we get protection from those who play as a team.

But the most important thing is that the tournaments are more logical and understandable, but in the cash very many people use slowplay tactic. Because of this you often lose money, even having high odds.

LJG23 said:

Honestly it's just something I heard Jonathan Little say in one of his recent webinars. If I can find it again I will send you the link. Though, I'm not sure it's something you can Google and get an accurate answer either.

Click to expand...

I like jonathan little as well. he does have some good info and seems to be well updated. although i dont know why you cant find statistics on google related to poker tournament win %. now everything is logged making numbers/statistics readily available. like i said, the numbers i posted are not my own. they are in the poker data base/google.

LJG23 said:

Consider this. Phil Helmuth has won 15 WSOP bracelets, more than any other player. Yes he's won other events but for this example I'm just considering WSOP events because we know about how many there are each year. He won his first one in 1989 and his latest in 2018. So over thirty years he's only won 15 events. How many do you think he's played? Better yet, how many entries do you think he's had since several events are now reentry/rebuy?

Click to expand...

first of all, the wsop in 1989 had a 178 player pool eventually rising to over 8500 entries in 2019. how can you formulate a hypothesis on such vast number variance? we cant discuss something if you keep moving the goalpost to fit your narrative. it would be like comparing apples to oranges. as far as wsop is concerned people would be lucky to win it once in a lifetime with todays scheme. imho i dont think its your average tournament to base a formula for winning tournanent % on. not even gonna mention the fact that a great number of pros play here too which makes winning 100 x harder then your average tournament.

LJG23 said:

I'd also like to add that private games like the cards chat freerolls kind of fall into the better players/better structure category. It's been a while since I played in one but the two level late reg they had and player pools of about 150 makes it easier for the better players to win way more often than they would in other freerolls and micro stakes games open to the public.

Click to expand...

Concerning this, i believe the more smaller the pool of players is, the less concrete stats we can find online in relation to tournament wins within the poker community. i believe thats why google and the poker data base focuses at or around 1000 player tournaments. private games i guess are private as the name suggests so numbers might not be readily available there, and besides that how many are around 1000 players? not many right?
all in all i believe the stats given to us. i cant vouche all stats online stats are 100% correct, but then again we must rely on some objective source in order to reach a more credible conclusion?

lately poker is more for luck than for strategy I usually play MTT micro limits that get used to the bads so when I play a regular tournament and suddenly take a slice with a pair smaller than mine and find that variance is not bad . I know you have nothing to do with your question anymore and something similar, like in a cash game, if you are not aggressive until the end of a hand that you enter the deck will draw you in and straighten you out.