Which is more profitable online - cash or tournaments?

[hobojim1247]

This question is akin to asking which offense wins more games in football, a running offense or a passing offense. There is no objective answer to this question, everyone gravitates to which ever game they are more comfortable with and they will express their opinions as to why..

 

[Doubledunk]

IMO... It depends on which format you studied and how many tables can you handle at the same time.

 

[Igor G]

For me personally, tournaments are more profitable. So I basically gave up cash games and focused on tournaments. Thanks to this, I have quite good results and my bankroll is growing.

 

[VikK030p13]

There are players who specialize in certain types, such as Omaha, 2-7 Draw, Sit and Go, etc. Each game requires special skills. But the time spent pays off

 

[No Bologna]

For me tournaments are the way to go. In the last 5 Sundays I won 1 (5k) and placed 2nd in another, for a $871 and a $676 payday. Point being, I know how to play poker. Then I play cash game and dink off $100 at a time. I win some cash but win more in tournaments. This is online. Hopefully my cash game will improve but it hurts to get slapped down regularly.

 

[ikescherer]

Cash, defitely, but mtts are WAY MORE FUN.

 

[Snake2007]

I think that you can be much more profitable from played tournaments than from cash games.

 

[Rvstam]

I think the most you can earn in the tournament.

 

[JhonnyThe357]

I can't answer precisely because I don't know what it's like to be profitable yet.

 

[Poker Orifice]

Well the question is whether a player is able to win consistently at least in one variant of the game. It's a lot more rare thing than it might appear. Then if he manages to win in several variants of the game, the player have to compare where he wins more... It's easier said than done. One thing's sure is that you can lose money in cash games A LOT faster than in tournaments. So for your question I would answer tournaments.

I disagree.
Playing MTT's it is common for me to lose 20 buyins in one day... sometimes even if only playing 20 MTT's that day (or more common say if I'd played 25 mtt's but still be - 20 buyins). Where on cash tables I don't think I've ever had 1 day where I've lost 20 buyins.. EVER! Much more often it is -5, +3, +2, -4, +6, 0, -1, +3 etc etc. "IF" a person was a decent player at both at a particular stake/buyin level, in the short term the cash game is much more consistent & stable & steady for income. (I know.. this is what I play and have played more than 5 million hands online). Whereas in MTT play, it could take me 2 months, 3 months... maybe 6 months, playing ~ 100 tournaments per week, for me to stabilize at a ROI +15%. (in the first few hundred games I could be minus LOTS!!... in the first 1,000 games I could be minus LOTS... even as a winning player 'or' as a player who has an edge on the field at the buyin level they're choosing to play at).

Now if a player was choosing to only play '1 cash table' OR 1 tournament. With the tournament they buyin 1x (usually) and make a go of it. THey know how much they're losing if they don't cash. On the cash table... they might quickly lose a few buyins.

 

[Poker Orifice]

I'm also stuck on this one.. one thing that makes me question it is in a tounry, I have to beat 100% of the players to win 30% of the money.

True but 70% of the players in the tournament are not good players. (cash table, closer to 70% of the players are decent players)

 

[mina271]

I like to play tournaments but if things don't go so well in the tournaments then switch to the cash game and then usually have more luck there. But I also think that everyone should find out for themselves what suits them better and what they feel comfortable with

 

[Majaloja]

If you are beginners, my recommendation is that you start with tournaments and much later, try cash, but applying a strategy.

 

[iwont20]

I disagree.
Playing MTT's it is common for me to lose 20 buyins in one day... sometimes even if only playing 20 MTT's that day (or more common say if I'd played 25 mtt's but still be - 20 buyins). Where on cash tables I don't think I've ever had 1 day where I've lost 20 buyins.. EVER! Much more often it is -5, +3, +2, -4, +6, 0, -1, +3 etc etc. "IF" a person was a decent player at both at a particular stake/buyin level, in the short term the cash game is much more consistent & stable & steady for income. (I know.. this is what I play and have played more than 5 million hands online). Whereas in MTT play, it could take me 2 months, 3 months... maybe 6 months, playing ~ 100 tournaments per week, for me to stabilize at a ROI +15%. (in the first few hundred games I could be minus LOTS!!... in the first 1,000 games I could be minus LOTS... even as a winning player 'or' as a player who has an edge on the field at the buyin level they're choosing to play at).

Now if a player was choosing to only play '1 cash table' OR 1 tournament. With the tournament they buyin 1x (usually) and make a go of it. THey know how much they're losing if they don't cash. On the cash table... they might quickly lose a few buyins.

Well I don't disagree with you. If we're talking about where there gonna be a consistent income for a good player who knows how to play both formats of the game, then cash games would be an answer. I'm not arguing with that.
Now, maybe I assumed too much or misunderstood the question, but given that the majority of the members here are rather new players, I would not expect that the member choosing the format of the game to play is a seasoned player.
In such case, one needs to learn the game and basic situations in it, therefore for the same amount of the "mistakes" one makes, the losing in cash will be a lot more costly.
Plus, it's sort of an established logic, that due to the nature of MTTs and their variance, bankroll management for MTTs is a lot tighter than for cash games, where you can start with 25BI and take shots higher pretty quickly with a well defined stop-loss. With the same bankroll for MTT you have to play for lower BIs. SO if you have 50$ you can play NL2 and take shots for 1 NL5 table with 1BI stop loss after it's 75$ for example. If you have 50$ for MTTs you are forced to play only up to 0.50$ tournaments. So for the same amount of $ you'll play a lot more hands in MTTs, and are allowed to make more mistakes.

But I'm not arguing with you as I said. I agree that for a winning player it's better to play cash games for a number of reasons: consistency of the income, better regime, easier for mindset (one is free to take brakes), can build BR faster if disciplined, etc.

 

[smuckenfart]

Would I be wrong in saying that it depends on your current play level or experience?

For beginners, or idiots like me, playing on the Tournaments is a better place to start.

As with any skill when just starting out, like the stock market, you're going to lose money for the first while as you get the gist of the game until you garner enough experience to break even, and eventually start to make money.
That money lost is an investment, like university tuition. You've got to put in the table time, see tens of thousands of hands, which costs money. Table tuition.

To sit down at the cash tables is a 1:1 chip to dollar ratio. One dollar gets you a one dollar chip. If you go all in for $200 dollars and lose, you are down $200.

A low stakes Tournament buy-in costs a fraction of the price and gets you a higher chip to dollar ratio. $11 can get you $5000 in chips, 10,000 in chips, whatever. You can play a lot of hands and if you bust out, you can still buy in to 18 more tournaments for that $200. Sure you could say the same about micro-stakes cash tables, but from my experience players end to play somewhat more serious in tournament's as if they bust out, they can't just buy back in an unlimited number of times.

For intermediate players and beyond, I wouldn't presume to assume I was one, but I still enjoy tournaments or sit n go because I enjoy the structure and additional strategies to consider. Cash tables are probably more profitable as it's easier to come back from a downturn, but that really depending on your MTT win rate.

 

[treblek1]

in cash games it is possible to increase the bankroll faster in less time, but boring, tournaments are much more interesting

 

[Pindiez]

I think that its depends of the player. Cash and tournament are two differents game modes. I think that is better play the mode that you like and study 😀

 

[Holdem Tycoon]

Depends on you strengths, not everyone can grind out tourneys. Cash games are not affected by constant blind changes and what elements that may invoke in a game.

 

[DiazPoker3101]

I think the tournaments take longer since I think that out of 100 tournaments you play you have the possibility of winning at least ten tournaments if you are constant, but the difference you make is a lot.

 

[dreamer13]

These are two very different formats that require two different sets of skills to be in the black and different mindsets to stay mentally healthy. No one knows your skill set and situation better than you do. In a cash game, you will be charged rake for every pot you win, but in tournaments you pay the raise once with the buy-in. In a cash game, this is an inherent tax on the winner. In tournaments, this is just a registration fee.

 

[offeron]

I play mostly MTT, I rarely play cash, I can increase the buy-in 2-3 times, but then I lose it.

 

[denisthemenys]

I think it’s all about your preference to play can make money playing cash game or tournaments and in the same time can loose money playing!! Must of the time it’s loosing money and keep in mind must important it’s the affordability to loose

 

[offeron]

I decided to play for cash again, raised the MTT a little, increased the buy-in four times and stopped controlling the situation, in the end I lost everything, how to deal with it?

 

[AzdajaD]

Both...from personal experience, I give an advantage to cash games.

 

[legend309]

Funny cause I only play cash games live, and only play tournaments online. Both can be very profitable. I think cash games are easier to learn. But both are hard to master