This is a discussion on Cash Games & Tournaments Are Not Different But More Profit In Cash within the online poker forums, in the General Poker section; For a long time I have had the misconception that tournaments are for dumber players and in retort people told me they are just different
Cash Games & Tournaments Are Not Different But More Profit In Cash
For a long time I have had the misconception that tournaments are for dumber players and in retort people told me they are just different but one isn't better than the other for profiting. This is impossible because if two things are different, one will be better at a specific task than another (at least by a minute degree).
The fact of the matter is that all a cash game is, is a tournament where your M-zone is always equal to your BB. Make decisions you'd make in a tournament with the M-zone set equal to your buy-in and you will understand that all a cash game is a perpetual early-game tournament setting.
Tournaments aren't different because they end, they are different because of the maximum loss and minimum gain and THIS is why ultimately you can make more at cash games than tournaments on average because you have no cap on the amount that your exploitative hands on other's profit you in real hard cash.
I agree that tournaments are more thrilling though and will keep playing them as you can't become a top tier world renowned poker player if you sit at cash games all day. We must ask ourselves if glory or raw profit matters more and for me it was always both so I will get better at tournaments but I will know that cash games are my fallback if I have a couple losing sessions.
For me, both kinds of games are good and tournaments and cash games when good tournaments are played I play only in them but when tournaments are not very serious then I play in the tournament and in the cash game simultaneously to win money while the game goes on for a long time in the tournament, occurs, and does not
it is always possible to get into the prize zone in the tournament and get a win, and the cash games are good because you can win money in a short time!
I haven't been playing live games very long, but I usually go to the casino on tournament nights/days expecting that if I go felt I can make my buy-in up in the cash games. It's worked pretty well so far, but I've been wary of being on tilt after a bad tournament beat. Usually I'll give myself 15-30 minutes before I try to recoup my tourney losses at a cash table.
re: Poker & Cash Games & Tournaments Are Not Different But More Profit In Cash
The problem with this line of thinking is the assumption that you will always win regardless of which you play. yes, Cash Games can result in a much higher profit, but it can also result in a much higher loss rate if you are having a bad day or week.
Second, this only holds true for min cashes and/or small tournaments. Yeah, going from $5 to $100 after winning a 6 hour tournament isn't a monstrous ROI, but play in a 10,000 player tourney and take home first and your ROI will rival that of a good cash game session.
And finally, because tournies have changing strategies based on blind and stack sizes, I would argue that tournaments require more intellect than cash games because there are more strategieis. As you said, Cash Game is like ONLY the first part of a tournament, whereas the tournament has MANY parts.
With that said, I do prefer cash games to tournaments, unless the buy-in to 1st place ratio is massive.
Personally I think, that tournament poker is more sporting then cash game that is more gambling just because in the tournament you can't lose much money. So, I prefer the tournament poker. But If you never lose self-control and have strong phycology the cash game will be more profit.
I would say people would generally call more ranges in MTT rather than cash games. Probably because of how deep you are in a MTT. But I do agree that you can make more money in the long haul in cash games than you would in MTT.
re: Poker & Cash Games & Tournaments Are Not Different But More Profit In Cash
They are different. Similar but different. So are people. The trick is figuring out which is most profitable for you.
I really enjoy both.
Especially when I'm sitting at a cash table with a freeroller's new found tourney winnings.....
They know what they're doing
then again....in a sense, I'd also like to be Jamie Gold.
and name a poker pro who doesn't want that guy at their table!
For a long time I had the misconception that tournaments are more stupid players and replita people told me that they are just different, but not better than the other for profit. This is impossible, because if two things are different, one can cope better with the specific task of another (at least one minute).
The point is that all cash game is a tournament where your M-zone is always equal to your BB. Make decisions that you would in a tournament with M-zone set equal to your entry fee, and you'll find that all cash games are timeless settings of the tournament.
The tournaments are no different because the end, they differ because the maximum loss and margins and therefore ultimately you can do more in cash games than the average for tournaments because you have no ceiling on the amount that your exploitative hands have other profit in real cash.
I agree that tournaments are more exciting and will continue to play them because you can not become the world's best known poker players if you are sitting on cash games all day. We must ask ourselves whether or raw glory profits are more important to me has always been both, so it will get better in tournaments, but will know that cash games are my reserve if I have a few losses.
I think cash games and tournaments differ and there is no basis for comparison some players are better at cash games and in others no good. In tournament you have to play 6 or 7 hours before you get first places and win, while cash games can become when you you want. Also so in both formats should invest different amounts to win.
It might be the same game but you have to use completely different strategies. Even in cash games full ring ranges differ from 6max ranges and Hu is completely different again. And in tournaments you have the push fold hand charts for stack sizes so it's very different in many respects. Football/Soccer is basically just 11 vs 11 but look at all the different formations and tactics that can be employed to win.
Cash players consider themselves to be more skilled than tournament players, but I think that this is not so! Yes, cash players are, on average, stronger in a postflop game, but they do not understand anything in the ICM and therefore the cash player cannot play tournaments well and the tournament player can play cash games well
I'm not sure that I agree that cash games are more profitable, nor am I sure that they are less time consuming either.
What's a good winrate for a game of $1/$2 live? 8BB an hour? ok That's $16 an hour, however that doesn't kick in until you are "in the long run". In other words you need to play tens of thousands of hands to get there. How long will that take?
On the other hand a first time player can win a $200 buy in tournament (same as the buy-in in most $1/$2 live games) and take home $6,000+
Now let's take about risk vs reward:
In a $1/$2 live game with a $200 max buy-in, I would take $500 with me (2.5 buy-ins) and I would be risking all of it. Sure, in the long run (in this example) I am a 8BB per hour winning player, however that doesn't mean I win every session. I wouldn't want to play more than 6 hours top, after that my A game is gone. So my expected win is 6 hours X $16 an hour = $96. Let's call it $100
With a $200 buy in tournament, your maximum risk is $200 (don't ever rebuy please). It will probably last longer than 6 hours, however tournaments don't require as much energy as cash games (Towards the end all decisions are preflop). So lets say it takes 10 hours, however the return is much higher if you finish in the top 3, it's higher if you finish 4 - 10, and it's acceptable even if you min cash.
I have sit in cash games for 5 hours plus and came out a little down, even, or a little up.
In the end, it may just be all the same - but different! - Bill and Ted