Thanks for your replies. I'm asking to get some confirmation on what I've heard from a few professional poker players who says that "this is where the money is nowadays". Because the poker boom a few years ago brought lots of players to the cash tables and the cash palyers that are left today are the really skilled ones (well many of them anyways). What do you guys think?
Cash games bore the hell out of me. I find tournaments to be more exciting. I also like the prospect of a big cash - not working my ass off to win small amounts at a time.
The players I've talked to mean that if your aim is to become really good and possibly even play professionally one day you should go for tournaments bc the competition is softer in tournaments than in cash games. Your chances of getting ahead are a lot better in tournament play.Depends on what you mean by "money" tbh.
Well the players I've talked to make well over 10k usd a month, some months more and some less ofc, but that's the range they're talking about. 500 quid is a lot to me too at this point but if I there is any chance I could get to their level in a few years I definitely want to take their advice. But they started playing during the "boom" so maybe the lower limit games have changed since then so I'm looking for some more newer players to confirm this. I'm thinking that they wouldn't know what the players at the lower/mid level tables are like today if they started while there was still plenty of fish at ther low limit tables.I understand that, what I meant was it depends on how much money seems like a lot to you. E.g. I'm a student so 500 quid a month seems like a lot to me because my living expenses are tiny; but to a man with a wife and kid it wouldn't be enough.
Thanks for your input, this was helpful!You need to find out what's more profitable **for you**. This is far more important than what's more profitable for people in general.
MTTs, SNGs and cash are all best for different people. If your personality is equally suited for all three, that's fortunate for you. But it's far from automatically correct to assume it's so.
If you are equally capable at all three, I'd guess cash games would be most profitable. It's an anecdotal example, but let's assume Phil Ivey is the best tournament player in the world and the best at cash games. When the WSOP is on, he'll only play most of the events if he has large side bets going. Otherwise, he'd rather play cash.
The most likely reason is that his EV is higher. Take a $5k event. If we assume his ROI is a very healthy 200%, he can expect to make $10k. That's dwarfed by the amount he can expect to win in the same amount of time playing cash.
Cash games bore the hell out of me. I find tournaments to be more exciting. I also like the prospect of a big cash - not working my ass off to win small amounts at a time.
I like the more competitive feel of a tournament and also the evolving strategy as blinds change and you get closer to the bubble.
Strategy constantly changes, plus giant payday compared to investment.
I find tournaments to be more exciting.
Cash games bore the hell out of me. I find tournaments to be more exciting. I also like the prospect of a big cash - not working my ass off to win small amounts at a time.
Bizarre generalisation, imo. Debbie is good people and I am alright on a good day.Nothing against you, but this is the reason why I've found most cash players are much nicer people in general.
Yeah that's why I said specifically not her (and that most are good people), it's just generally that tourneys attract degenerates and cash games attract people who love math/logic/strategy games. I'm also biased because I play cash