When do you play to win/cash?

Lheticus

Lheticus

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Total posts
1,198
Chips
0
Several times, I've heard some thoughts bandied about on the concept of playing to win the tournament or playing to make the money in the tournament--differences between the two of them strategically, stylistically, etc. I haven't really heard much on circumstances--when it is good to do one or the other, so I thought I'd put in my proverbial two cents.

I feel that nearly all the time, you should play to cash. Going for first place is all well and good, but if in doing so you make moves that routinely cause you to hit the rail before reaching the money where you would have had a legitimate shot had you played more conservative, going for #1 to the exclusion of all possible profitable outcomes strikes me as impractical and prideful. If you have such a prodigious bankroll that you can afford to enter a tournament solely for the purpose of pride, well, good on you, but as for the other 99% of us, well...when I enter a poker tournament, I feel my sole objective should be to get more money out of it than I put in to it, and everything else should be immaterial--including winning the entire tournament. If that seems to have a chance to happen anyway, that's great, but it should never be my actual objective. Many times, I have difficulty following my own advice and make dumb plays, but I never stop working on it.

However, there is one circumstance where I believe playing to win is appropriate--namely, in tournaments where the stakes are micro enough that if you make the money and don't make the final table and/or win the tournament, the amount you gain for your efforts is infinitesimal. If I enter a tournament for $1.10 online, in some tournaments with large fields, making the money on the bottom rung of the pay ladder would net me something like $1.20--and the tournament will have possibly gone on for an hour and a half or more by that point. An hour and a half for 10 cents? Not exactly time well spent. Two hours and thirty minutes to make the final table and get something like $7? Now we're getting somewhere.

I welcome anything anyone has to add to this/say about this.

From my pocket to your brains,
--Lheticus
 
Arjonius

Arjonius

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Total posts
3,167
Chips
0
You're using reductio ad absurdum to support your position. I've never seen anyone reasonably try to suggest playing in a way that "routinely" leads to not cashing.

Also, your BR should be large enough so that any time you buy in to an MTT directly, your goal is to go deep, not to min-cash for a little more than your entry.

And your example of the $1.10 tournament seems to be based on projecting your personal values onto others. You say it's better to try to go deep because min-cashing works out to almost nothing per hour. But for example, let's consider a $110 MTTs with $120 for min-cashing.

If you'd want to play to cash because $10 is meaningful enough for you, that's your prerogative. But why should someone who normally plays at this level think like you? Winning $10 after playing for 90 minutes means the same to him and his BR that winning 10 cents after 90 minutes does to you. So if it's right for you to try to go deep in the $1.10, it's equally right for him to do so in the $110.
 
Akorps

Akorps

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 1, 2008
Total posts
450
Chips
0
Depends on the situation and tournament structure. One thing is that when multi-tabling, it gets too complicated to figure out the ICM issues related to getting past the bubble, so it is simpler just to play for a win :)
 
Lheticus

Lheticus

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Total posts
1,198
Chips
0
This seems absurd to you? Then clearly, I need clarification on just what it means to "play to win" as opposed to playing to cash. My *clearly flawed* understanding of the concept is that when playing to win instead of playing to make the money, a poker player would, as one example, put all his money in the pot to risk his tournament life against a reckless larger stack far more readily than if 1st place was not his primary objective.

An example of what I'm talking about: I have AK suited. The player a few seats to my left has been bullying the table in a manner most annoying, and in this case he raises enough to put me all in before play comes around to me. This is the early stages of the tournament, and thanks to a good few lucky hands in a row, the bully's stack is several times the size of anyone else at the table.

From my understanding, if I was playing to win, I would totally go for it provided no one else does, because I've seen him shove this much with silly garbage hands, and he only happened to win with them through sheer luck, and if his luck runs out I'll be in great chip position. If, on the other hand, I'm playing to make the money, prioritizing cashing over winning, I fold my hand and all other hands in that spot except for premium pairs, because if by some event he gets that sheer luck again, I'm out of the tournament immediately when if I'd just waiting for this idiot to go away, I would have still had a good chance of accomplishing my objective--making the money.

Thank you for your input--I hope this example helps you clear up just what these concepts mean for me.
 
magicius

magicius

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 28, 2013
Total posts
1,822
Chips
0
Well i never had though like that,when i enter tourney if like i am in average stack near bubble and not getting good cards i would tighten up and get into money (better 1.20 than 0) but if i get some good cards thats worth to gamble with i would defo try to stack up

Sent from my HTC Desire X using Tapatalk
 
steveiam

steveiam

CardsChat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Total posts
3,625
Chips
0
what are your goals in poker ?

If it's purely to min cash then that's fine you will probably be successfully.

If your goal is to make as much money as possible then you should always play for the win and make the right decisions based on the hands and situations you find yourself in as the tourney progresses.If you lose the hand that's just poker.and you move on. If the right decision is to call or shove with AK then that's what you do..

Better players can quickly identify when players are looking to min cash and they will take advantage of that and put you under more pressure.
 
Last edited:
Lheticus

Lheticus

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Total posts
1,198
Chips
0
what are your goals in poker ?

If it's purely to min cash then that's fine you will probably be successfully.

If your goal is to make as much money as possible then you should always play for the win and make the right decisions based on the hands and situations you find yourself in as the tourney progresses, the results of your decisions are irrelevant.

Simple example would be $1.00 entry 1000 runners $500 first place.

You play 100 times and min cash 60 times and win $120.00
Or you play to win and cash only 5 times i guarantee you will win more than $120.

I think I see now exactly how I've been thinking about all this the wrong way. See, I've never actually had funds yet approaching an acceptable tournament bankroll, so when I play a tournament that's not a freeroll, I play in that tournament because I want to because it's fun on top of playing to win. What I failed to consciously recognize is that, in terms of motivators, those two parameters are totally mutually exclusive. It seems that there are two things I need to accomplish to attain MTT tournament play competency:

1. Treat my tournament entry fee as I would tournament chips or money that has already been put into a pot.

2. For crying out loud, follow my own advice and not get emotionally invested in how idiotically lucky that jackass three seats to my left, or wherever he is in relation to me, is getting.

That second thing is a real problem for me. I see a player online getting stupidly lucky at the table I'm at with asinine, ba donk-a-donk hands, and a thought shoots involuntarily through my head: "What the hell is he even doing here? What an asshole! If he's going to play poker could you he least try to play with some degree of competence that says you want to succeed at this tournament?" This affects me emotionally, makes me tilt--and the rest is history, and has led to the stance I've expounded on above where you only go up against these people with premium pair hands--because of all the times I've gotten merely good hands and been just another stack shipped to said jackass. That occurrence gives me a horrible feeling inside, and so I adopted the aforementioned stance to stop me from any possibility of feeling that way again. I earnestly, legitimately don't know how to deal with this feeling--and I'm very aware I need to figure it out. If anyone has any advice that could help with this, I would be extremely grateful.
 
steveiam

steveiam

CardsChat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Total posts
3,625
Chips
0
When i first started i would tilt all the time when i saw my hands run down by the donk's and gamblers who like to play any 2 cards.

Now many 1000's of hands later i just concentrate on making the right decisions and if the results don't go my way then i just move on..

When i put money in a tourney that money has gone it's not mine anymore. But its money i can afford to lose...it wont stop me from making the right decision if in a tight spot.

In the long run you make your money from the donks and fishes... not the good players.
 
Arjonius

Arjonius

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Total posts
3,167
Chips
0
IMO, "play to win" is something of a misnomer. You can't actually do it until very late anyway. Until then, it's about getting yourself in a position to go deep. And the earlier you are in a tournament, the less directly you can influence that as well. For instance, doubling up on hand 1 when you obviously have an avg stack is nice, but would you rather double up from an avg stack then, after half the field is out or after 3/4 have busted?

While this question is rather artificial, I hope it helps illustrate that playing to win is a process, not an binary, all or nothing concept.

The problem with playing to cash is that it tends to erode your chances of going deep. The most common example is tightening up near the bubble and folding hands that are +EV to play. While your tournament life does have some value, there are plenty of situations where it's not immediately at stake. For instance, when the table bully raises in front of you, calling or even 3betting doesn't always pot commit you. Yes, if you lose the hand, your chances of going deep decrease. But you're +EV, which means that after averaging out the wins and losses - of all sizes, not just big pots - your chance of going deep increases.

The way payout tables are typically structured also factors in. Basically, if your ITM drops *somewhat* but your average cash increases *somewhat*, you're likely to end up winning more money. Yes, you can easily come up with scenarios where you win less. But if you consider the full range of scenarios, you're more likely to come out ahead.
 
SeaRun

SeaRun

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 26, 2014
Total posts
697
Chips
0
Being somewhat of a noob here to serious poker, I may be talking BS, but here's my thought:

If I'm in an MTT, I'm playing for the final table, then once I'm close to that or at the table, my eyes are on the big prize.

I'f I'm only playing to get more back than I put in (for any one of several reasons, including I don't have a couple or more hours to enter a tourney), I'll grind out the cash games at an appropriate level that suits my BR. Less risk that way.

My thoughts only.
 
R

rumsey182

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Total posts
432
Chips
0
playing correctly should find an equilibrium between both icm takes money in account and you need to not bust to have a chance to win

it is all about just playing as well as you can and try to not spew
 
Lheticus

Lheticus

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Total posts
1,198
Chips
0
IMO, "play to win" is something of a misnomer. You can't actually do it until very late anyway. Until then, it's about getting yourself in a position to go deep. And the earlier you are in a tournament, the less directly you can influence that as well. For instance, doubling up on hand 1 when you obviously have an avg stack is nice, but would you rather double up from an avg stack then, after half the field is out or after 3/4 have busted?

While this question is rather artificial, I hope it helps illustrate that playing to win is a process, not an binary, all or nothing concept.

The problem with playing to cash is that it tends to erode your chances of going deep. The most common example is tightening up near the bubble and folding hands that are +EV to play. While your tournament life does have some value, there are plenty of situations where it's not immediately at stake. For instance, when the table bully raises in front of you, calling or even 3betting doesn't always pot commit you. Yes, if you lose the hand, your chances of going deep decrease. But you're +EV, which means that after averaging out the wins and losses - of all sizes, not just big pots - your chance of going deep increases.

The way payout tables are typically structured also factors in. Basically, if your ITM drops *somewhat* but your average cash increases *somewhat*, you're likely to end up winning more money. Yes, you can easily come up with scenarios where you win less. But if you consider the full range of scenarios, you're more likely to come out ahead.

This is some very good advice, thank you. However, you state that "there are plenty of situations where your tournament life is not immediately at stake." In the example I illustrated in an earlier post, my tournament life is at stake--indeed, in instances where my tournament life is not at stake, I almost always have very little doubt about what to do. I guess my real question boils down to: Should I risk going out early from a shove with an average/maybe slightly above average stack, like say with less than half of the field gone, if I feel that I am a significant favorite? Or given that it is early on in the tournament, should I avoid all-in situations even if it means giving up a +EV situation or two if I'm not short stacked and thus can feasibly keep playing for some time if I decline the all in? This second strategy is the one I seem to want to favor. This thread has helped me clear up a great many things, but the question as to which of these two strategies is the more valid for profitable play remains unanswered, to me.
 
steveiam

steveiam

CardsChat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Total posts
3,625
Chips
0
The problem is that their are many ways to play this game and the more people you ask the more strategy's you will get.

For example playing one way in one tourney might differ in another tourney because of the structure of the tourney and the players on the table.

A good rule to follow is to play opposite to the style of the table. If the table has a lot of loose players then you tighten up, if it's a passive table then you up the aggression.
 
psychotie

psychotie

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Total posts
324
Chips
0
I always put my goals in a tournament from step to step.
First is to be in the tournament after late reg
second is to come ITM
third is to reach FT
and from there on I try to shove it
Its for me the best strategy cause I have only to focus on short steps
gl on and off the felts
 
Arjonius

Arjonius

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Total posts
3,167
Chips
0
This is some very good advice, thank you. However, you state that "there are plenty of situations where your tournament life is not immediately at stake." In the example I illustrated in an earlier post, my tournament life is at stake--indeed, in instances where my tournament life is not at stake, I almost always have very little doubt about what to do. I guess my real question boils down to: Should I risk going out early from a shove with an average/maybe slightly above average stack, like say with less than half of the field gone, if I feel that I am a significant favorite? Or given that it is early on in the tournament, should I avoid all-in situations even if it means giving up a +EV situation or two if I'm not short stacked and thus can feasibly keep playing for some time if I decline the all in? This second strategy is the one I seem to want to favor. This thread has helped me clear up a great many things, but the question as to which of these two strategies is the more valid for profitable play remains unanswered, to me.
Poker is a situational game. Among other things, this means that the best answer to the same question can be different depending on the circumstances. As an artificial example, let's say you know you'll be a 3:2 favorite if you call a big stack's shove with your medium stack.

If you know you're above average relative to the remaining field, you have to make a judgment that can go either way. Should you risk your tournament life as a 3:2 favorite, or do you have enough of an advantage so that it's better to plan to chip up less rapidly while also having the chance that an even better allin spot may come along?

Otoh, if you know you're well below average, this is an easy call.
 
Lheticus

Lheticus

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Total posts
1,198
Chips
0
Poker is a situational game.

That is pretty much the answer to virtually every question I have like the one I posed. If only I could get myself to fully realize that...but as I've said before, oftentimes I have a lot of trouble following my own advice. XD
 
Karozi615

Karozi615

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Total posts
517
Chips
0
Lheticus you bring up an interesting question - I started a forum asking the same question awhile ago. Interestingly enough it is in your best interest to take risks and go for 1st. The reason being is that tournament payout structures are extremely progressive, so coming in 9th place in a 200 player tournament 5 times would be impressive, but coming in 1st once would likely pay much more. Always play to win. The concept of playing to cash suggests that you will be playing less than optimal poker on the bubble. It ties right back into the concept of BRM, as others have said.
 
A

adepoker11

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 31, 2013
Total posts
74
Chips
0
always play to win, then you must respect the situation that you find yourself in the tournament, respect the blinds, position, while advancing the tournament, take conclusions as move forward
 
magicius

magicius

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 28, 2013
Total posts
1,822
Chips
0
Cant wait for my br to allow mtt :) i did well in few hot 0.50... I just got 5 tickets for 1.1 tourneys,spent one for 1.1 15min,got 6$ there :)
I just dont know which one to try atm... Gtd with higher field or something smaller like plo or limit

Sent from my HTC Desire X using Tapatalk
 
R

r3dt4rget

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Feb 13, 2014
Total posts
13
Chips
0
In the AK example, it seems like you are scared of luck, and passing on a good situation that has little risk and a lot of reward.

If someone is opening a lot, their range is wide. AK is ahead. You even said you know your hand is best. The only thing that stops you from wanting to play that hand is the fear of a suck out. If it's early in the tournament, you have little time invested. AK in the early stages against a wide opener is a good spot to double up. If you do get unlucky, you know that you got your money in the pot in a good situation. You have to realize that more times than not you will win those situations, and over the long run it's going to be profitable. If you win in that situation, you not only double up, but you send a clear message to the bully and he is less likely to push you around. But passing up on those spots simply because it's early, or you don't want to be sucked out on by a donk, is not winning or cashing play in my opinion. You're letting their aggression make you a tight, passive player, which will lead to them piling up chips and you blinding out.

Now there are different situations that could warrant a fold. If you are in the late stages up against a big stack with your medium stack, you might not want to get all the money in pre-flop. You have a lot to lose (payout structure) and less to gain now (since you already have above average chip stack). You can certainly play this hand, but me more cautious and realize the big stacks are going to be using their chips as a weapon.
 
Lheticus

Lheticus

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Total posts
1,198
Chips
0
In the AK example, it seems like you are scared of luck, and passing on a good situation that has little risk and a lot of reward.

If someone is opening a lot, their range is wide. AK is ahead. You even said you know your hand is best. The only thing that stops you from wanting to play that hand is the fear of a suck out. If it's early in the tournament, you have little time invested. AK in the early stages against a wide opener is a good spot to double up. If you do get unlucky, you know that you got your money in the pot in a good situation. You have to realize that more times than not you will win those situations, and over the long run it's going to be profitable. If you win in that situation, you not only double up, but you send a clear message to the bully and he is less likely to push you around. But passing up on those spots simply because it's early, or you don't want to be sucked out on by a donk, is not winning or cashing play in my opinion. You're letting their aggression make you a tight, passive player, which will lead to them piling up chips and you blinding out.

Now there are different situations that could warrant a fold. If you are in the late stages up against a big stack with your medium stack, you might not want to get all the money in pre-flop. You have a lot to lose (payout structure) and less to gain now (since you already have above average chip stack). You can certainly play this hand, but me more cautious and realize the big stacks are going to be using their chips as a weapon.

I really don't understand your logic here. In early stages, my medium stack vs. all in luckydonk big stack + being beat despite being ahead = no money, same scenario in late stages = some money, if it's late enough in the tournament that the bubble has passed. No money is definitely worse than some money, so I really don't understand why that risk is more viable in early stages than in late. In my mind, it's less--much less!
 
magicius

magicius

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 28, 2013
Total posts
1,822
Chips
0
"he who dares wins" only fools and horses :)

Sent from my HTC Desire X using Tapatalk
 
R

r3dt4rget

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Feb 13, 2014
Total posts
13
Chips
0
I really don't understand your logic here. In early stages, my medium stack vs. all in luckydonk big stack + being beat despite being ahead = no money, same scenario in late stages = some money, if it's late enough in the tournament that the bubble has passed. No money is definitely worse than some money, so I really don't understand why that risk is more viable in early stages than in late. In my mind, it's less--much less!

Why are you so certain you will be beat in that spot? As even you stated, you know you are ahead, more times than not you will win. The logic is simple. You have the cards on your side. You know your opponents cards are weak. All logic says get the money in and over the long run its profitable. There isn't any clear benefit of folding AK in the example you gave. You are simply speculating that if you avoid that spot you might make it to the money. If that is the case, late in a tourney where another short stack is all in and someone else calls, I can see folding AK because you know you make the money if the short stack loses. There is a clear logical reason, to move into the money without risking your stack. But your example says early stages, when with your average stack there is not reason to believe you can cash without playing. Early on you are not in a spot to just fold and wait your way to the bubble, so take the good spots.
 
Lheticus

Lheticus

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Total posts
1,198
Chips
0
Why are you so certain you will be beat in that spot? As even you stated, you know you are ahead, more times than not you will win. The logic is simple. You have the cards on your side. You know your opponents cards are weak. All logic says get the money in and over the long run its profitable. There isn't any clear benefit of folding AK in the example you gave. You are simply speculating that if you avoid that spot you might make it to the money. If that is the case, late in a tourney where another short stack is all in and someone else calls, I can see folding AK because you know you make the money if the short stack loses. There is a clear logical reason, to move into the money without risking your stack. But your example says early stages, when with your average stack there is not reason to believe you can cash without playing. Early on you are not in a spot to just fold and wait your way to the bubble, so take the good spots.

I feel that in a spot where I am faced with an all in from a larger stack than me and I am ahead in the early blind levels, and am not short stacked, the risk outweighs the reward, every single time. In my view, if I win, hey, that's great, I double up--but I still have a lot more chips to get in order to progress through the tournament all the way to the money. I get an advantage in that I get a lot more chips than I have right now, but it's a temporary advantage.

Losing the all-in, on the other hand, carries with it a permanent loss--I'm out of the tournament. There is no longer any chance at all that I will make the money, it's over then and there. I feel that when I fold to a lucky all-in player, I'm trading a chance at a temporary advantage for a guarantee of avoiding a permanent loss, and that seems like the smarter thing to do in my view.

One other thing, a refutation to something specific that you said: You state that "all logic says get the money in and over the long run, it's profitable." The problem I have with that is there is literally no tournament that has ever existed that reaches the proverbial game of chance "long run". Even the wsop Main Event only lasts for just over a week. To get into the long run requires months, years, of hundreds and hundreds of hands per day, and that simply cannot apply to a poker tournament because each individual tournament is an isolated case. When you bust out, you bust out and lose your tournament stake, and there is not a thing you can do about it. Personally, even if I wind up blinding myself out before the money, I feel that if I'd had a chance early to go for such a double up as I'd described and didn't take it, I made the right decision--because if I had lost with the advantage, I would have been out of the tournament, and if I had won, compared to how far stacks have been built 10 blind levels later, that double up really wouldn't have made that significant a difference anyway. Doubling up from 3,000 chips is utterly meaningless in terms of the entire tournament if you don't keep building that greatly, or the blind levels will catch up to you--and that kind of building is extremely difficult for any poker player, I'd imagine.
 
S

Swickster007

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 13, 2014
Total posts
175
Chips
0
I've seen this question asked before and the best answer I heard was, play to cash...then once you get in the cash, play to win first. Tournaments are a marathon, not a sprint. Being chip leader early doesn't mean anything if you donk out before you cash.
 
Real Money Poker - Real Money Casinos
Top