Cash Game A progressive stakes cash game? (2 Viewers)

[graystown]

I don’t disagree.

However, I do see a countergument:

1) The stronger/better rolled cash players who don't want to play for small stakes can just show up in hour 3 or 4—which is equivalent to when the existing cash game now starts anyway. They can play only 1/3 or 2/5; and presumably the max buy-in (half the biggest stack) will already be substantial by then, if they want to play deeper.

2) As for the tournament players who don't like cash—yes, they are drawn in many respects by the prospect of making a “big” score in a tourney. (In a 14-16 player tourney, the payouts tend to be something like 700/450/250/100 plus bounties, so you need to get in the money about 1/3 of the time just to break even). But the reality is this is generally a mirage... They seldom get there. The non-cash players tend to be the weaker players.

One of them—who refuses to play cash!—has gotten in the money in the tourney a grand total of 3 times in 40 tries, once for 1st, once chopped four ways, and once for just $100. So he’s down about $3,600, or 30 tourney buy-ins (after the add-on). If he had the discipline to buy in for $120 at 50c/1, play for a couple of hours, then leave with whatever he had, it would be hard for him to be a bigger loser than he is in the tourney.

But of course, the problem is that what makes a guy like that a bad tourney player also makes it impossible to explain to him why he might be better off in cash.

Really my (somewhat Machiavellian) goal here is to initiate more people to cash so they develop a taste for it, and then dispense with the tourney.

What about just planning to straddle after a couple hours.

Agreed, straddling is a nice way to mix it up. You maintain your desired stake [$1/2?] while adding a dynamic to the game which will build pots and make the game play bigger.

 

[Taghkanic]

In a tournament, all players are equal. If you have $100 for the night, you get to play the same game as the guy that has $1000 for the night. That's not the same in a cash game. The player with $1000 in his pocket can make hero-calls without missing a beat, especially if he is about to make that hero-call vs a fish, where he can get his money back.

That easily can happen in tourneys if there are rebuys/re-entries (which is one reason why I don't feature rebuys in my game.)

I once played in a casino $250 buy-in tournament with unlimited re-entries. It was the casino’s first “big” tournament, and they seemed to have given incentives to various pros to attend, guys whom the new director seemed to know from a previous gig.

These pros were making a total mockery of the tournament and its stakes, boasting about how many times they had rebought, yelling to each other across the room as if it were absolutely hilarious how they were playing BINGO with us dumb, poor amateurs.

One such guy at my table claimed he had rebought 12 times, and would just keep doing so as necessary. Another had bagged a huge stack on Day 1b, after multiple rebuys, but now was back to throw around his money and see if he could bag an even bigger one. After he (and a similar buddy) busted and were sat at another table on their rebuy, the infamous Mike Dentale sat down, having also just rebought.

Having not been at the table for the past couple hours, Dentale didn't know that UTG had been playing ridiculously tight. UTG made a huge raise preflop; Dentale UTG+1 shoves with 33. Everyone folds, UTG shows KK and busts Dentale. Dentale shrugs and goes off to buy in again.

Such behavior is good for the prize pool, I guess, but in a large field tournament it gets diluted, and mainly means that the guy who showed up with one buy-in and a dream is at a huge disadvantage (and made to feel like a sucker).

Anyway: I don't think the key question is really whether the weak players are going to be bullied more or less at cash. Most likely they are. But they also are not going to have to survive a lengthy tourney grind which will almost certainly end without them cashing. Weak players like the one described almost never get that deep in a tourney, because their lack of skill can't sustain that many tests.

But in a cash game where they shortstack for a couple hours, they actually might be in better shape if some of the higher-rolled players take loose shots at them, not really caring about the outcome. The weak player who doubles up can milk their profit a while, and leave with a modest profit at any time, or else piss it away at their leisure and get more hands in overall... Whereas in a tournament they are going to either be blinded off (because they don't manage blinds and levels well), or their poor play is going to be subjected to a lengthier test which they fail 95% of the time except for rare nights of run good.

 

[Taghkanic]

P.S. By the way, at my game last night the infamously terrible player described above lasted 41 minutes in the two-table tourney (which took about 4 hours to complete; I got knocked way down to 13BB but recovered and came in second.)

Lost his initial buy-in (150BB) near the end of the first level; took his 50BB add-on to continue playing (per our rules if you bust before the break), which then became 25BB in the second level, and blew through that as well. I still think this particular guy would last a little longer at cash, or at least when he was on a heater could leave before he lost it all. But it might run out about the same given his lack of impulse control...

 

[Poker Zombie]

That easily can happen in tourneys if there are rebuys/re-entries (which is one reason why I don't feature rebuys in my game.)

I once played in a casino $250 buy-in tournament with unlimited re-entries. It was the casino’s first “big” tournament, and they seemed to have given incentives to various pros to attend, guys whom the new director seemed to know from a previous gig.

This would also discourage tournament players on limited budgets. When we started out, we allowed unlimited rebuys. One player (Robbie) used so many one night, he won, but profited less than 4th place (paying 4). About 25% of our players started to become discouraged, and attendance started to drop.

I instituted a "One Rebuy Rule". Soon afterwards, attendance rebounded, and Robbie soon quit attending. The Rule became known as "The Robbie Rule".

My players that were discouraged would not enjoy a cash game as much, because their pocketbooks couldn't keep up with Robbies level of gambol. Sure, you can say "the other players just needed to tighten vs Robbie, and cash in when they have a big hand", but a lot of recreational players dont want to "tighten up". Folding isn't fun - it may be wise, but not fun. A player playing primarily for profit would be fine with unlimited rebuys, or in a cash game, but players that are playing primarily for fun, don't care as much about "profit". Sure, they want to win, and my tournaments are balanced in pay tables, time limits, blind structures, and limited rebuys so that the weak players have a chance. In fact, "weak" players in my tournaments cash in 3 out of 4 events.

 

[Gobbs]

To be blunt, not a chance in hell I would play in that game. The stakes are simply way too diverse and, for those players who find a $100 tournament just about right for them, you aren't going to find many who want to play a cash game for $2/$5 (at least, I wouldn't). I have no problem playing in $100 tournaments or higher, but I wouldn't be comfortable playing $2/$5 (more on that later). In general, except for the higher-staked players who play into hours 5 and 6, I doubt you will get many players to play in it for more than an hour or two. On top of that, many of your tournament players are still going to refuse to play cash games.

Also, there seems to be some consensus that only weak players avoid cash games. While that may be a trend, I would say it is certainly not true in many cases. The fact of the matter is, tournament play and cash play are two completely different animals and some people are simply better at one than the other. (In fact, I would argue that many cash game players tend to be weaker tournament players.) For example, I'm a much better tournament player than cash game player right now. I'm not going to say I'm a good tournament player because there are a ton of people better than me, but, at my level of play, I do pretty well and, overall, make a decent profit (and not just in NLHE). However, I am definitely not a good cash game player. I do not make a decent profit (or any profit ) and simply do not enjoy it as much. Does that make me a "weak" player? I guess it's all relative. Next to pros, sure, I'm a weak player, but at the level I play, I think I'm a pretty decent player. I wouldn't disagree that I'm a weak cash game player, but I wouldn't call a profitable player a weak player simply because he enjoys tournament play more and is better at it. I would say I'm just smart enough to know my strengths and weaknesses and, right now, don't care to put the time in to become a better cash game player.

 

[Taghkanic]

The problem remains that in our group there are really three types of regs: Tourney players I’d like to convince to try cash at low stakes, but who seem gunshy about joining in; 1/2 players who really don’t want to risk more than $200-$300 on cash; and 2/5 guys who will have as much as $1-2K available.

All of them like the tourney, because it is what brings everyone together and it is social.

So that’s why I even contemplated a non-standard format: To see if there was some way to involve all three groups, especially one which doesn’t leave anyone who busts early in the tourney waiting forever for cash. The higher percentage of people who will play cash after, the sooner it goes off, ergo less attrition.

There may be no perfect solution besides separate cash nights with two tables of different stakes. It’s just a shame not to find a way, on a tourney night when everyone is already gathered, to work something out.