Cash vs Tournaments preference? (2 Viewers)

[Poker Zombie]

I think @Gobbs nailed it.

Tournaments need to be structured well. There should never be a point when it becomes a shove fest. One or two players may be short-stacked and need to shove, but never a whole table full of shoving. Your structure needs work.

After reading some other responses, and thinking about it for a while, I think my only real gripe with shorter home tournaments is the phase I call "the hump." Basically, it's that time in almost any given structure where average chip-stacks and blinds converge, and you see a massive reduction of the field in a short period of time.

Even "the hump" can be mitigated. @BGinGA may want to look away at this point...

Small Blind	Big Blind
25	25
25	50	100%
50	100	100%
75	150	50%
100	200	33%
125	250	25%
150	300	20%
200	400	33%
300	600	50%
400	800	33%
500	1000	25%
600	1200	20%
800	1600	33%
1000	2000	25%
1500	3000	50%
2000	4000	33%
2500	5000	25%
3000	6000	20%
4000	8000	33%
5000	10000	25%

I have refined this structure over the years to my group and the number of players I have. You can see some "unusual" small 20% jumps. These are times with "the humps". The structure slows down, and players get an extra level to make their moves. One just before the rebuy period ends, one at the classic hump (for my group this is around the starting stack is now worth ~16BB), and one when we get toward the end.

I think there is too much focus on "even" jumps, and the effect on gameplay is ignored. Not that there's anything wrong with even jumps, but there is another way.

Limited rebuys prevents lottery-reload fever. Once again a well designed tournament takes this into account, and rarely is someone eliminated early. I typically avoid games that run cash afterwards, because some players will play stupid, just to get get deep into the money and into the more lucrative cash game. After reading through the posts, there are a lot of cash game preferred players here that play exactly this style.

As for the poll, I greatly prefer tournaments.

• It feels like a complete strategy game, not a series of independent hands.
• In my events, a $20 risk usually pays ~$250 to the winner; where a $20 risk in a cash game rarely sees more than $80 being taken home by the best player.
• Poor players rarely see profit in cash games, but a deep-field paying tournament will usually allow a poor player to either cash, or get very, close. Let the fish celebrate their final table, or even the bubble. It gives them hope, and they can see changes that actually improve their game. Keeping the fish happy keeps the game alive.

Oddly, even though I prefer tournaments, I am -EV with them. I am +EV in cash games though. I will play both, but I find tournaments more fun.

 

[Coyote]

I respect what @Poker Zombie says, but for all this to work you need a large field (more than one table for sure).
STTs in homes, IMHO, have a more educational / recruitment function.

 

[BGinGA]

I think @Gobbs nailed it.

Tournaments need to be structured well. There should never be a point when it becomes a shove fest. One or two players may be short-stacked and need to shove, but never a whole table full of shoving. Your structure needs work.


Even "the hump" can be mitigated. @BGinGA may want to look away at this point...

Small Blind	Big Blind
25	25
25	50	100%
50	100	100%
75	150	50%
100	200	33%
125	250	25%
150	300	20%
200	400	33%
300	600	50%
400	800	33%
500	1000	25%
600	1200	20%
800	1600	33%
1000	2000	25%
1500	3000	50%
2000	4000	33%
2500	5000	25%
3000	6000	20%
4000	8000	33%
5000	10000	25%

I have refined this structure over the years to my group and the number of players I have. You can see some "unusual" small 20% jumps. These are times with "the humps". The structure slows down, and players get an extra level to make their moves. One just before the rebuy period ends, one at the classic hump (for my group this is around the starting stack is now worth ~16BB), and one when we get toward the end.


I think there is too much focus on "even" jumps, and the effect on gameplay is ignored. Not that there's anything wrong with even jumps, but there is another way.

Limited rebuys prevents lottery-reload fever. Once again a well designed tournament takes this into account, and rarely is someone eliminated early. I typically avoid games that run cash afterwards, because some players will play stupid, just to get get deep into the money and into the more lucrative cash game. After reading through the posts, there are a lot of cash game preferred players here that play exactly this style.

As for the poll, I greatly prefer tournaments.

• It feels like a complete strategy game, not a series of independent hands.
• In my events, a $20 risk usually pays ~$250 to the winner; where a $20 risk in a cash game rarely sees more than $80 being taken home by the best player.
• Poor players rarely see profit in cash games, but a deep-field paying tournament will usually allow a poor player to either cash, or get very, close. Let the fish celebrate their final table, or even the bubble. It gives them hope, and they can see changes that actually improve their game. Keeping the fish happy keeps the game alive.

Oddly, even though I prefer tournaments, I am -EV with them. I am +EV in cash games though. I will play both, but I find tournaments more fun.

^^ nothing wrong with that structure, provided you start at L3 and include 250/500 and 1200/2400 levels.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I respect what @Poker Zombie says, but for all this to work you need a large field (more than one table for sure).
STTs in homes, IMHO, have a more educational / recruitment function.

I did taylor make it for MTTs, but with a little effort all the "shove-fest" problems can be mitigated in a STT as well.

 

[APatHand]

Put a 35/70 round in after the 25/50.
No need to thank me.

 

[APatHand]

Regarding the original question: both.
I don't particularly like NLHE cash games, but have a fairly good record in tournaments of this flavor.
I'll take a limit mixed cash game over a tournament, just about any time.

 

[Coyote]

Put a 35/70 round in after the 25/50.
No need to thank me.

Well, that's exactly what we did a while ago, playing .25/.50 Euros, in relation to the EUR/USD exhcange rate

 

[APatHand]

Well, that's exactly what we did a while ago, playing .25/.50 Euros, in relation to the EUR/USD exhcange rate

New chips in play!

 

[Gobbs]

Whatever @Poker Zombie says above on this topic, put me down for x2. I could not agree with him more. Also, let me x2 on @BGinGA about having cash games BEFORE the tournament(s). I ran my last big(ger) event that way at his suggestion and it worked beautifully, especially since the players tended to have longer drives. I plan to run my next one that way, too.

I think there is too much focus on "even" jumps, and the effect on gameplay is ignored. Not that there's anything wrong with even jumps, but there is another way.

Regarding even jumps in tournaments, I’m all for them and think it’s important, but certainly don’t mind some smaller jumps sprinkled in. As long as there are no big jumps, I’m good with it, and smaller, strategically-placed jumps can improve play even more as long as it works into the desired length of the tournament.

I say all that just to piggyback on previous posts to say a lot of the cons listed here for tournaments are avoidable.

 

[Rhodeman77]

This feels appropriate here too!

 

[Thomacetti]

Playing AA in cash game

Then this happens

Q8s got there

 

[surfik]

Cash game because I can quite whenever I want to. I also like it because they are mostly played with the same group of people. I play poor poker.. I overpay draws and do not charge enough people when value bet is required. But I learn people I play with so I can sometimes fold my hand in a set over set situations. It's hard do do so with random players on tournaments.
Either way I am treated as a criminal in my dear lovely Poland. God I wish I have been born in Vegas or Macau. Take care fellow pezzonovante.....

 

[abby99]

It feels like a complete strategy game, not a series of independent hands.

Hmm, that's not how I view cash games.

Here's a game that is a series of independent hands:

Zone Poker is designed to cut out the time spent waiting for your folded hands to end and new cards to be dealt. The moment you fold at a Zone Poker table, you’ll instantly be redirected to a new table with new players. This fun, fast-paced poker format gives you the chance to see more hands and play more in a shorter period of time. (Bovada)

 

[Poker Zombie]

In a (proper) tournament, you get to play deep-stacked, middle-stacked and most players eventually short-stacked. In cash, you (are wise to) reload so you can always play the same depth stacks. The tournament plays a complete range of stacks.

Also, I have no doubt that "Zone Poker" is a cash game, not a tournament. Zone just makes it harder to get reads on your opponents, but in online poker, everyone is running dashboards, so you basically have a very good read on your opponents range.

Basically, cash games (to me) are like going to watch the thoroughbreds run. Leave whenever you like. Your ups and downs are yours alone, nobody else cares. In a tournament, the players that leave early always ask the next day "Who won?" Winning matters in a tournament.

...but I'd rather play in a cash game than no poker, or even a poorly run tournament.

 

[Rhodeman77]

Basically, cash games (to me) are like going to watch the thoroughbreds run. Leave whenever you like. Your ups and downs are yours alone, nobody else cares. In a tournament, the players that leave early always ask the next day "Who won?" Winning matters in a tournament.

Then you aren’t playing in the right cash games!!! Every Saturday after a game my phone is blowing up with texts of “who was the big winner/loser. Who went on tilt, what crazy hands happened, how late did you play?” Etc...

My wife gets mad pretty quickly and tells me to turn the phone off. Poker is all about winning, tournament and cash games!! Everyone wants to know what happened.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Then you aren’t playing in the right cash games!!! Every Saturday after a game my phone is blowing up with texts of “who was the big winner/loser. Who went on tilt, what crazy hands happened, how late did you play?” Etc...

My wife gets mad pretty quickly and tells me to turn the phone off. Poker is all about winning, tournament and cash games!! Everyone wants to know what happened.

I suspect you are buying in for a tad more than $20.

Obviously, if you have hundreds/thousands to risk, cash may be the better option. With smaller risks, the tournament is superior as the winnings are concentrated.

 

[AnteAndy]

I suspect you are buying in for a tad more than $20.

Obviously, if you have hundreds/thousands to risk, cash may be the better option. With smaller risks, the tournament is superior as the winnings are concentrated.

Many regulars who can't play for hundreds or thousands still treat money as low as $20-$30 just as valuable. My guys sure do, even when they all make good money in their careers. Which I think is good, since they'll always play poker seriously, regardless of stakes.

Everyone who I play with almost all prefer cash games. And this was after we finished our league's end season. Everyone was so burnt out on tournaments and preferred doing cash games when they; started playing them after a tourney, especially the new poker players to our group. From all the ones I've played and seen, tournaments mostly just play straight forward, trying to get as many chips as possible, even when it comes to just stealing blinds pre or on the flop, not trying to extract more value from players since that could be too much of a risk, when the blinds may raise soon. Watching tournaments even appear not as interesting than cash games when I watch them, where no one is willing to commit most of the time. Cash games at least has more action, thus more interesting to me.

And tournaments still become shovefests, regardless of structures when it comes to the final table, where it's more luck than skill at that point. Yes, you can have a well structured tournament, but there'll still be shoving when it comes to the final 3-4. And I don't like the idea of playing well so long and my stack basically shortens over time no matter how well I play. In cash, even if I lose all my money, at least I'd be happy making the correct calls based on the play of the hand(s), not having the thought of needing to hurry before the blinds go up and constantly needing just to grab chips.

The money is not the end goal for us. Yeah it's valuable for the sense of risk and is nice to have some winnings, but we just love the game itself, the strategy and skill needed to be good players. Besides they all like the idea of not having to play where it's essentially all or nothing, especially when on average you won't win or place ITM consistently. In cash you have more control essentially of gains or loses if you play right. And people can keep playing, where tournaments no one likes sitting and having to wait, even for others to play a cash game, which appears somewhat alienating.


This is all my perspective and experience, not putting down tournaments at all. I'm always up playing the occasional tournament someone else throws, and nothing can beat that feeling of final tabling or making ITM. But in terms of my hosting, always cash games. Espeically for a good time shooting the sh*t with people in and out of hands. And much easier to set up to boot.

 

[Old State]

I think low limit low buyin cash games are a great way to get people off the perceived safety of tournaments and build their confidence in their play. However there is a problem with that.

A friend of mine, who is an outstanding poker player and got a bunch of into the game, once told me a story. Basically his grandma taught him and his cousins how to play with pennies. However, she used to keep the money she won. She told them, “you will never get good at poker unless fear losing money”.

I definitely agree with this principle. Poker is at its best only when there is a fear of loss. Otherwise it’s just turns into “no Foldem Holdem”. Problem is that risk tolerance varies widely among people and often doesn’t have to do with how much money someone makes, etc. Hardest part of maintaining a regular game is finding that sweet spot.

Im my experience most players moving from low buyin tournaments to cash eventually want to up the buyin and stakes as they get more comfortable with their game. They go from the mind set of “how much money could I lose” to “how much money can I win”.

 

[JScott]

I disagree about the fearing losing money. And it’s only because you shouldn’t play scared, never play with more than 10% of your poker bankroll on the table at a time. Because you will lose. That’s why I like cash, I make sure I made the right play and don’t worry about results as long as it’s +ev long term.

My biggest negatives with tournaments beyond shove fests, is the anxiety of the blinds and the clocks. I never get that with cash games.

 

[Mojo1312]

I enjoy playing both, but I favor cash. In terms of stakes, I prefer $1/$3 for hold-em and $2/$5 for PLO and tournaments with buy-ins of $40 to $400.

I disagree with the statement that tournaments require the mastering of a greater number of skill sets. A more accurate statement IMO, is that each requires their own set of skills.

 

[Steve Birrer]

We’re getting a bit off topic here, but coyote makes a bit of a point there with straddling. Albeit very blunt. That said I’d allow it periodically from UTG.

part of the reason I don’t mind us travel to two times the big blind is every hand should have an open to at least three big blinds Unless it’s folded around to the small blind and they limp.

To me this is where games get really messy. What is periodically? Only when Harry is the BB? This can really create or at least seem to create an unfair game. To me you either don't allow them, or always allow them and specify which position is ok.

 

[JScott]

Sorry, to clarify I meant some games we’d allow straddling. If we have newbies playing I like to avoid it altogether.

 

[Steve Birrer]

Sorry, to clarify I meant some games we’d allow straddling. If we have newbies playing I like to avoid it altogether.

Ok think I get what you are saying. So if its a game where you are allowing it then its allowed every hand.

 

[Mojo1312]

To me this is where games get really messy. What is periodically? Only when Harry is the BB? This can really create or at least seem to create an unfair game. To me you either don't allow them, or always allow them and specify which position is ok.

I don't understand how straddling creates an unfair game. I allowed a straddle from the button of UTG declined his option. Over time, there were fewer and fewer straddles.

 

[JScott]

Ok think I get what you are saying. So if its a game where you are allowing it then its allowed every hand.

Exactly.

it’s moreso frowned upon in our micro stakes games with newbs because we want them to learn the game “properly” and understand position etc.

 

[Steve Birrer]

I don't understand how straddling creates an unfair game. I allowed a straddle from the button of UTG declined his option. Over time, there were fewer and fewer straddles.

This was from the initial post where JScott said he "periodically allowed straddles from UTG." My impression was that there was some decision being made as to when a UTG was allowed to straddle which was not what he was trying to say.

What would create an unfair game is a situation where somebody picked and choosed whom and when a straddle was allowed. For instance, I would be pretty pissed if the only time they allowed an UTG straddle was when I was in the BB. I'd never get the advantage of closing first round action.

 

[Old State]

I disagree about the fearing losing money. And it’s only because you shouldn’t play scared, never play with more than 10% of your poker bankroll on the table at a time. Because you will lose. That’s why I like cash, I make sure I made the right play and don’t worry about results as long as it’s +ev long term.

My biggest negatives with tournaments beyond shove fests, is the anxiety of the blinds and the clocks. I never get that with cash games.

“Playing scared” and playing at stakes that are high enough to make one hesitant to play recklessly are two completely different things.

”playing scared” is bad and indicates someone is playing out of their comfort zone or with money they can afford to lose. That is a bad thing with all gambling activity.

 

[Old State]

I disagree with the statement that tournaments require the mastering of a greater number of skill sets. A more accurate statement IMO, is that each requires their own set of skills.

100%. Both require different skill sets. IMO cash is by far the toughest of the two...and I say that as a person who tends to do well at tournaments but prefers cash.

The biggest skill for tournament poker In my opinion is discipline and patience. I have some friends that crush cash games at home and at the casino on a regular basis but do terrible on tournaments. Almost all the time it’s because they lack discipline and patience not that they don’t understand how to change for the game. After rebuys if you lose your stack you are done so you must be methodical. In cash there is much more playing the person. There are many skills that simply can’t be learned from a book.

 

[JScott]

“Playing scared” and playing at stakes that are high enough to make one hesitant to play recklessly are two completely different things.

”playing scared” is bad and indicates someone is playing out of their comfort zone or with money they can afford to lose. That is a bad thing with all gambling activity.

no disagreement there.

 

[marriedman]

Depends on what game we are playing, NL Holdem Cash is boring as there is no pressure to create action(folding up to 80% of the time) and 2 to 3 big pots will decide your night, where else scenarios in tournament forces you to constantly assess your situation and you just cant nit it up and win.
I think there is a reason why PLO is so popular now and games like SOHE, Pineapple holdem, Big O(Why have 4 cards when you could have 5?) are created. Its for the action.