Tourspil overfor cash game

De sidste par år har jeg mange gange tænkt over, hvorfor jeg er langt mere komfortabel i tours end ved cash games, når jeg er on-line. Jeg har givet mig selv mange forklaringer. Nu er jeg er faldet over en tråd på 2+2, der giver mig lidt mere indsigt i sagen.

Så hvis andre har det som jeg, så tjek lige den her tråd:

forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15/poker-theory/why-do-i-crush-tourneys-suck-cash-games-549147/

Fin tråd, har selv gået og tænkt på at poste noget lignende her på PN et stykke tid... Crusher mtt's p.t(ligger på roi på 100+ over de sidste 700 mtt's) men kan ikke holde en posetiv winrate på nl100 om mit liv så afhang af det...

har det lidt på samme måde. synes jeg har gjort det fint i den relativt få mtt's jeg har spillet i år med en del FTs til følge.
på NL100 eller NL200 synes jeg dog det er svært rigtigt at vinde noget i længden hvis man ikke regner rakeback/bonus med fx. - omend jeg har en positiv winrate, men den er forsvindende lille imo...
mit problem er så, at det er nemmere tidsmæssigt at spille cashgames end mtts....

samme problem her.... - cash er for længst droppet! Lige med undtagelsen fra i nat hvor jeg sad med 800 dollz på et hu NL50 bord :)

same

Her er et resumé fra 2+2-tråden for de dovne:

Om tourspil
A:
Also, because of the above tournaments require more luck with shallow stacks. For example winning 5 pots where you get allin as a 70% favorite for your entire stack only happens about 17% of the time. If you're going for the money in tournaments this is critical as you won't win anything before you get into the money if you lose your stack.

B:
Tournament players have to make faster decisions with far less information than cash players, and mistakes cost a lot more. We have to deal with more variance, longer downswings, and even at mid-stakes we're often facing a table with 4 or 5 unbelievably bad players who are liable to do anything.


Om cash game
I agree, and I see the over-agressive flaw a great deal. Aggression is still a valuable tool in cash games, but my own bread and butter when playing live 1-2 is in catching these kinds of (either bad or tournament) players, who are addicting to moves like a big all in bluff. If my money is all getting in during a cash game, 99% of the time I think I have the best hand AND I think you're gonna pay me off. My observations have been that most of my opponents typically use the all in as a bluff instead (and I intend to send out thank you cards).


Om tours og cash games
C:
Remember, cash games are more dependent on extracting value through post flop play. Tourney players as a whole, may not be as talented in extracting maximum value from post flop play as their cash game counterparts. But the reason for that is that the structure of tournament play requires aggressive double up strategies, which can only be performed by going all-in, and isn't usually possible by playing normal cash game post flop strategies.
In cash games, you're attempting to extract value from your opponent's. Going all-in will not maximize expected value, because frequently, players will only go all-in with very strong hands in cash games, plus there is no need to try to double up in cash games as there are in tourneys, because there's no escalating blinds and the purpose of tournments (at least to win the tournament) is to win everyone's chips.
So because the ultimate goal of one and the other is different, players in tournaments need to be aggressive and double up more, which requires going all-in, and cash game players need to extract value for their hands from post flop play.

D:
It's easier to get someone to fold a hand in tourneys so aggressive play is more rewarding and fun. Cash games are full of nits trying to hit their set hoping you will pay them off when they do. I think the boredom factor is a major factor stopping tourney players making it in cash games.

E:
You can check "Mucky McMuck" on PokerStars if you want, I've been around for years and played thousands of tourneys, my tournament success is no fluke. I didn't say I couldn't beat 10NLHE, but above .25-.50 not so much. I think boredom is a big part of it as Dobinuvik said, because compared to tourneys I just find cash games nitty and dull. Without the forced action of escalating blinds and the clear goal of getting all the chips in play, I find myself losing interest and after a while I do something stupid like stack off with QQ on a rag board to some set miner. All I can say is this kind of poker, which seems to be the standard for low stakes on-line, bores me silly.

F:
The argument about who is more skilled is a sidetrack from the OP's question but does reveal some interesting psychological stuff. He says he thinks he plays better in tourney's b/c he gets bored in cash games and loses concentration (and implies loses discipline) due to the boredom. A lot of the cash game players talk about how they hate playing solid in a tourney and then getting sucked out on. I think that speaks to the psychological difference of the two groups. If you really like more control in your life cash games will fit you better. If you find the everyday humdrum boring beyond tears and welcome some of the excitement that comes with tourneys then tourneys will fit your psyche better. And it stands to reason that people play better at games they are getting psychological reinforcements from.
So my answer to the OP is, as far as I know, the answer is there isn't a whole hell of a lot you can do to make your psyche fit cash games. I'm like you personality wise, but switched to playing cash games the last couple of years because a) I figured that is where the most money is (consistently), and b) because I thought it would make me a better poker player. But I can tell you that while both have proven true, I still play tournaments better than I do cash games and enjoy them more, and think I probably always will. I have no fear (good at tourneys) which sometimes means insufficient caution (bad at cash). So while I will always mix in cash games (especially live) I recently have decided to go back to playing more tourneys and just accept that this is my game.

Tours belønner nogle andre skills end cash games.

Diskussionen om hvem der er "bedst" er næsten religiøs, så den vil jeg ikke blande mig i.

To ting vil jeg dog fremhæve:

- Som nævnt i det indlæg Holstt har hentet fra 2+2, så er variansen i tours ekstrem høj -- så høj er det rent faktisk er meget svært at leve af tours fordi der kan gå rigtig laaaaang tid mellem hvert signifikant cash. Det kræver en kæmpe bankroll at spille tours, formentlig 3-10 gange større end cash. Det er ikke tilfældig at man se mange dygtige tour-spillere som "fylder op" med cash games eller SNG'er (typisk PLO cash game fordi de er nogle syge gamblere som elsker varians). En dygtig cashgame spiller vil have en mere "stabil" indkomst.

- tours tager lang tid at spille. Det være svært at holde koncentrationen i så lang tid og næsten umuligt at holde pauser (medmindre man specifikt spiller på FTP/PS som har synkroniserede pauser). Derudover kan det være svært at forene med et familieliv og arbejdsliv, hvis man ofte skal spille 4-10 timer sessions, men en cashgame spiller kan tage en 1-times session hvor det passer ind.

Jørn

Jeg er af den overbevisning, at fish-to-shark-rationen er en større i MTT > cash. I hvertfald, når vi snakker low-mid level buy-in.

Dette skyldes vel til dels:
1) Den indbyggede appel aka FT-spændingen
2) Muligheden for den hurtige gevinst (overfor den stille og rolige grind).
3) Desuden tror jeg, at den langt større varians holder fiskene i spillet længere. Herunder "skjuler" MTTs bedre, at vedkommende måske er tabene, og det er nemmere at forsvare en rød bundlinje med self-deceit ala: "CL clicker på knappen, jeg har en M på 4 og min AJ var et nemt push - han snappede med JTs. og suger - rigged - men jeg gjorde det rigtige" (ubevidst om, at hero måske skulle have været aktiv noget før og ikke ladet sig blinde ned). "SIIICKK, jeg taber en 70/30 på boblen" (glemmer de 3 flips op til, hvor H caller AI med AQ og vinder over JJ)


For at blive en rigtig god tour-spiller, skal man nok kunne nogle andre skills end cash (Som Thyssen: lang diskussion om, hvem der er bedst):

Jeg forstår dog ikke "boredom"-argumentet. Det er rigtigt, at MTT's er langt mere spændende omkring boblen og frem - men op til der, kan jeg ikke følge argumentet (og i større turneringer kan det altså tage en rum tid).

Desuden tager late stage vel ofte karakter af et shortstack cashspil uden rebuys og med langt stejlere pay-outfordeling - hvilket kræver god ITM og PF-spil forståelse. Her er cash-spillere måske bedre rustet ift. "isolerede" situationer (jf. mulighed for rebuy, 1-1 pay-out) og dybere post-flop spil.

For mit vedkommende er det primært tidsfordringen, der afholder mig fra MTTs (selv om den øgede varians også er et turn-off).