Cash Game How to bring players that only played tournaments to cash game ? (home games) (1 Viewer)

1A25R

1A25R

Flush
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
1,843
Reaction score
2,447
Location
Montreux - Switzerland
How to bring players that only played tournaments to cash game ?

for the background, around 2008 I started playing poker with co-workers, we usually play a T1000 with 20 to 30 min levels.
The guys where all exited to reserve their Friday night after work to play poker, but as it must happen: the first guy is eliminated. Then he waits for other people to get busted so they can play a side cash game, but as you know, sometimes the second or 3rd busted decides to go home and people feels that they wait for nothing.
Then, we discussed about it and we decided to go for cash games instead of sit'n'go kind of game, so everyone can play as long that he wants.
We've playing a lot of small stakes since then.

Now, I would like to bring new players to the party, but they don't want to made the jump from traditional $30 home tournament to cash game.
Very often is that they never played cash games and they have some misconception.
Their answers are:
  • No, I do not want to play with a guy that can rebuy 10000 of times.
  • No, I do not want to play with a guy that can raise me all in preflop because he don't care about the money
and blah blah blah.. it's always "the other"

no matter how hard I try to explain that in tournament you play for all the chips in the game and in cash game only for the size of your stack, the people don't buy. And it's not about the stakes, I don't bring new comers to a $2/$5 game..
People will gladly put $50 in a tournament but don't want to play a $20 max buy in cash game.

What do I miss to "sell" home cash games?
How do you bring sit'n'go players to cash games?
What's your recommendation on this?
 
two and half words ......

LIMIT HOLD'EM

I've been able to transform some Tourney only guys into low stakes NLHE with this stepping stone. You most likely wont get those guys to play in $100-200 buy in games, but some may make the jump.
 
Who is the guy they are worried about raising so much??
Sounds like you could introduce at micro stakes level with your group once players bust out of the tourney and are waiting around. That is what a group that I played with did. We used to play tourneys only and changed to cash games. Players started micro stakes no limit cash game on the side after they busted out of tourney. I remember wanting to lose in the tourney to play in the cash game towards the end as they became more exciting and profitable for more people more often. We only play cash now.
Cash games allow freedom and flexibility that tourneys do not such as staggered start times and end times for players. It is also easier to take breaks from the table and the players have no pressure decisions or decisions in which they feel they have no choice because they are short stack. I am sure others have other good reasons too
 
Two suggestions, first I have successfully implemented, second is theoretical (though I think others have done it).
  1. Tell players honestly what kind of action there typically is in terms of maximum loss (I.e. like a tournament would be). When I started bringing new people into a 25¢/50¢ game, I explained that the maximum I had ever had was 3 buy-ins from a single person, meaning in a typical game, they'd only ever have the chance of losing $150. Obviously they set their own max, but having this number as a benchmark helped a lot of my new players feel more at ease about the game.
  2. Spread limit poker. Never spread it personally, but in my mind it should work well, as it kind of feels like NL but caps potential losses (or potential bullying). I recommend $0.50-$5 SL. It should play smaller than 25¢/50¢ NL but still gives the opportunity for action. Only problem would be if new betting structure scares people, but if fear of bullies is the big issue, I'd sell SL as a defense against that.
 
  • No, I do not want to play with a guy that can rebuy 10000 of times. (aka, a guy that busts 9,999 times!)
  • No, I do not want to play with a guy that can raise me all in preflop because he don't care about the money (aka, he'll be giving it away to you!)
:D

I do understand the certain security that comes from knowing your max loss, and once you pay your money, you're just playing for points. But I don't understand not wanting to play against the maniac with no concern for money.
 
Don't they already all play with each other? Seems to me then they know what each other are capable of.
 
+1 on the 3 buy in suggestion. If you explain that 3 buy ins a night is good for most players it won't be an issue. I think if 50 is your typical tournament, I think a 20 max cash game is where you should be. Either do blinds of .05-.10 (deep stack 200BB.), .10-.20 (average stack 100BB), or .25-.25 (shorter stack, but no nickels :) ).

You could also consider a hand cap to alleviate concerns about big stack bullying. Full Tilt used to do this back in the day. So basically only chips up the hand cap "play".

So if you set the hand cap at 20, then all wagers are between the minimum and the remaining cap. Once the hand cap is reached, it is treated as an all in pot.

Example, .10-.20 blinds. So if the pf wager is .60 that means 19.40 left in the cap. If on the flop there is a bet of 2 and a raise to 8 then 8 comes off the cap and 11.40 is the max on the turn and so one on.

It's easier to figure online. In real life it's little effort to calculate (more that it was worth with my group) you probably want to segregate one bet from each round when scooping to keep a running total.

But what this does is effectively fix the "effective stack" in every hand unless someone has a stack shorter than the cap.

This might be the answer if players are looking for some protection from big stacks and could grasp this concept. It is a little extra effort to manage, but this is how I was doing a cash games a few years ago and I thought it was a success. But most players decided it was more trouble than it was worth and preferred the traditional buy in caps.
 
There's an old saying... "You can not teach old dog to bend over". :D I have diffrent issue convincing limit player to play no limit.
 
I think the time element is an important consideration. How often have we waited to start a tourney for that one guy who is "on his way"? In a ring game, you can leave early or arrive late. In a tourney, ~75% will leave empty handed. With cash, you are in control on when you step away, ahead or behind.
 
For me, the big selling point when I was transitioning the game I attended from tourneys to cash was:
  1. The start time is somewhat flexible. The game doesn't wait for a few late comers.
  2. If you lose, you can rebuy. Nothing worse than getting knocked out of a tourney an hour in, when you were planning on an entire night of poker.
  3. In a tourney, only the top few players cash. In cash, people leave up or down... occasionally someone leaves with nothing.

If you establish buy-ins at a level that is comfortable for people... and establish re-buy "rules" that are in the best interest of the game... the players will enjoy it.
 
I introduced my tourney players to cash games by playing a spread limit game for the first 90 minutes each night and then transitioning into no limit with a capped reload up to half the big stack. The 90 minutes set the tone for the next hour and then drinks get to people and it gets crazy. I would also keep it low stakes like .25/.25.
 
A cash game is essentially a tournament with late registration, very long blind levels (the longer the better, right?), an unlimited number of rebuys and add-ons subject to a cap, no bubble (everybody with chips gets paid), players can buy in within a range instead of for a fixed amount, and perhaps most important, you chips are redeemable for cash even if you don't have one of the three largest stacks. :tup: ;) :D
 
Beakertwang said:
  • No, I do not want to play with a guy that can rebuy 10000 of times. (aka, a guy that busts 9,999 times!)
  • No, I do not want to play with a guy that can raise me all in preflop because he don't care about the money (aka, he'll be giving it away to you!)
:D

I do understand the certain security that comes from knowing your max loss, and once you pay your money, you're just playing for points. But I don't understand not wanting to play against the maniac with no concern for money.
Click to expand...
A player with a limited budget will not have fun against the maniac with no regard for money.

Think of it this way...

Richie Rich and Nick McNit buy in to the game for $50. Richie has $5,000 in expendable income for the night, Nick has $50 in expendable income for the month. Richie only folds or jams. If he gets money in, he wants to be for stacks, anything less is not exciting. Let's face it, Richie's playing for pennies while Nick's playing for dollars.

Can this game be profitable for Nick? Sure, if Nick tightens up. But what if Nick isn't a nit? What if Nick also like to expand his range on occasion? Nick can either play like a nit and be profitable (if he doesn't get sucked out on) or he can play his game and go broke in a hurry, because the effective stakes are too large.

There are cash game players, there are tournament players, and there are those that enjoy both. I prefer tournaments - and it's not even remotely close - but I will play cash games if that is the only option. I understand those that don't want to switch to cash. The games are not the same. There is a difference in the risk. The poor player is more likely to double up at the end of the night in a tournament than they would in a cash game.

Despite the fact that I prefer tournaments, I host one cash game a year - I have 3 cash-game sets, so I might as well. But as a primarily tournament player - I know the two are not as comparable as others seem to indicate.
 
@Poker Zombie Succinct analysis. I wonder what's worse for these guys: busting out early and being bored hoping for a side cash game or just being a little too tight with their range, but still getting some action in. It sounds like the game breaking is the real problem.

Maybe cash games aren't the answer for your crowd. It may be that your tournament structure needs tweaking, you may allow rebuys a little later, or you could introduce bounties. Yes - there will be the first donk who busts out after the rebuy break and has to pick lint while the other guys play, but maybe that's okay for him to bounce if it's late and he's had a decent amount of time at the table.

Edit: to me (or, more accurately, my group) poker nights aren't just poker. Yes, it's the reason we gathered, but there's action everywhere - sports side bets, box pools, TV on, food on the warmer in the kitchen. If the only reason to be there is to hope to double up your $30, I think nobody would come to my house for poker.
 
In @Poker Zombie 's analysis, Nick McNit is playing in too big of a game. If he has $50 for the night, he should be playing in a game with $15-$20 buy-in. In that game, he can comfortably combat Richie Rich's aggression... and not go broke when he takes a stand. Will that be as fun as his normal style of play? Well that is the question. Everyone's definition of "fun" and why they play is different. I find it fun to win money... If that means I’m folding a lot and picking my spots rather than splashing around... so be it.
 
Last edited:
Shaggy's comments make sence.. I think that I have to see things differently, from the other side of the fence.
Definitely cash game isn't suited for everyone, no matter how much I can love the game I can't expect change people minds. There still people considering that poker is like scratching a lottery card but with complicated rules...
 
It's been impossible to convince anybody here to play home tourney, with the exception of doing a favor to absolute beginners for education and recruitment purposes.
The idea of inviting people to one's home only to tell them to fuck off (or to shut up and watch and drink to intoxication) even after 2 hours just isn't socially digestible.
Only solution for players with limited skill and / or finances has been for me to stage lower stake nights. Extra safety features would be PL pre-flop and, most importantly, a cap of total buy-in per player per night (eg 500BB), so that Richie Rich just can't bring all his money to the table.
 
... or a $20 tournament with a $20 rebuy (and have $10 for next month). Either way, tournaments put all players on the same footing (if the tournament limits or bans rebuys). Richie can Jam all he wants, but if he cannot rebuy, his deep pockets are meaningless.

I even dislike cash games following a tournament, because I've witnessed too many "I don't care" moments at the end of a tourney just so deep-pocketed players can get into the more lucrative cash game.
 
Poker Zombie said:
... Richie can Jam all he wants, but if he cannot rebuy, his deep pockets are meaningless..
Click to expand...
Which is also the beauty of limit and spread limit games.....now richie can toss raises all the way to showdown on every hand but he still cant play for stacks....which will also help Nick see more hands and typically low stakes limit favor the nittier player IME
 
Limit is a way to protect nitty players. That's why Limit games in casinos seem to always be filled by pensioners.

However, limit loses some of the excitement that you get when you look down at pocket aces. It does not limit the losses of truly terrible players... the ones that call every 4 to a draw hand. Reasonable raises in no-limit pushes them off some draws, but limit keeps them in forever, losing money 4 out of 5 hands.

In the end, depending on structures, hands per hour, and payout schedules, the poor player can hit that "scratch off" win to double up - or even more. That is far more difficult in a cash game. Great players aren't eliminated in a cash game, they just rebuy - sometimes (usually) for more than the crappy player has in his stack. The odds are against the fish in a cash game.

On the other side of the coin, a lot of professional players don't like tournaments. Some will only play cash, and never play tournaments. I have yet to read an article about a professional player that only plays tournaments.

Cash favors the better players.
 
Poker Zombie said:
On the other side of the coin, a lot of professional players don't like tournaments. Some will only play cash, and never play tournaments. I have yet to read an article about a professional player that only plays tournaments.
Click to expand...

Phil Hellmuth?
 
Start by recognizing that tournament games are significantly different than cash games. The same kind of players are not necessarily attracted to both. That reality will keep some people playing only one of those games and they will not have an interest in the other. I don’t know what that percentage is, but that is reality.

Recognizing the differences and addressing them might help some.

Tournaments use fantasy chip amounts. The value of chips can’t be correlated to a $ amount. As the tournament goes on, the value of chips goes down (inflation is real), but in a cash game, the value of a chip remains the same. In tournaments, you play until the winner has all the chips, and then a certain number of places get a specified payout in either cash (no re-buys) or percentage (re-buys).

Cash games should operate on the “gold standard” system. You buy in for an amount, and you get exactly that amount in chips. Re-buys are almost always allowed. When the game is over, everyone receives in cash what they have in chips. Generally players can cash out any time they like, but if they come back that night, they should be required to buy-in for what they walked out with. For cash, you decide whether it will be a certain game or multiple games, and if multiple games, how that will be decided (dealer’s choice is or at least used to be common). The stakes (which might vary with the game type) are very different.

Here are some things that might help get tournament players to play cash.
  1. Have a separate set of chips that are only for cash. I’ve refused to play in otherwise attractive cash games because I was concerned that chips could be easily mixed if there was only one set. Those concerns proved to be well-founded at times, though certainly not all the time. But the one time it might happen accidentally can be a nightmare. Having 2 sets also shows you recognize the games are different.
  2. Make the game closer to what the tournament player is used to, or make it quite different. I’ll use this example. Suppose you have a $30 buy-in.
  3. Similar -- How many BB are there at the beginning? If tournament is 300BB, and you play with blinds, that’s a $.05/.10 game with 300BB. If you are playing $.25/.50, that’s 60BB (competitive, but not a lot of room to maneuver), or $.50/1.00, that’s 30BB (short stacked). I see a lot of $20 buy-in, $.25/.50 games. That’s only 40BB for no limit. No thanks! If you are going to play no limit, I think 300-500BB is what you ought to start with, though I know many don’t. I’m just saying as a tournament player that makes cash games a wildly different animal.
  4. Dissimilar – There are ways to make the game dissimilar. I think dissimilar helps because what seems odd to me is that people playing $.25/.50 with short BB don’t seem to get that is radically different than a tournament deep stack, but it is. If you are going to play the same games as a tournament, don’t do it the same way. [1] Make it either limit or something like pot limit (which I’ve never played). [2] Make it different by doing something like playing low-end circus or kitchen table games (a wide variety of games) for relatively low stakes.
  5. When I see comments about “the more lucrative cash game,” I think that turns tournament players off. I think what they hear is “way more expensive; I could lose a lot more!” Players who prefer cash games and who want to attract tournament players to cash game should really guard their terminology.
  6. “Cash games are more fun.” That may be true for you, but you aren’t trying to attract you. You already play cash games. Say it’s fun too, but some think tournaments are more fun. They view it differently than you. The two of you aren’t going to agree that cash games are more fun because they aren’t for the tournament player.
  7. “Cash games are more profitable.” For whom? Years ago when I played both (I’ve only played tournaments for years), I could compare both on equal footing. The buy-ins for both were the same. I could cash in a cash game 60-70% of the time (meaning going home at least something of a winner), and about half that in a tournament game that was truly comparable (see 3 above). I could win more money in tournaments. Part of that was many more players. Players in tournaments can sustain losses better, which affects how much you can win. Now I’m just one person, and YMMV, but realize that tournaments may be more profitable for amateur players.
  8. “You can come and go when you want.” That sounds attractive, but what a tournament player might hear is “You can make a big score and leave while you are ahead.” Or rather the unasked question. “You mean when I have an excellent hand, play it well, and get all my money in, some donkey needs 2 cards to win after the flop. The flop and river are those two cards. He can then leave with MY money and I have no chance to win it back.” We used to require one orbit notice before a guy left, barring an emergency. No one objected. Of course, we were friends who played together and weren’t going to be hit and run artists.
  9. “It’s all poker.” I’d focus more on the differences than trying to convince someone that red and blue are both colors. They are, but they are different colors.
  10. The threat of a large bankroll is a problem for some. See 3 above to understand why there is real fear of that. You can have rules that help. Limit the number of buy-ins. Limit the amount of rebuys.
  11. Realize this – Tournament players feel about cash games the same way cash players feel about tournaments. Both may have fear of the other type of game. So why don’t the cash players want to play tournaments?
  12. Finally, instead of having cash players carry the torch for you, let players who used to fear cash games do the talking. They can talk about what their fears were, and how the game in question alleviates those fears.
 
Last edited:
TexRex said:
Start by recognizing that tournament games are significantly different than cash games. The same kind of players are not necessarily attracted to both. That reality will keep some people playing only one of those games and they will not have an interest in the other. I don’t know what that percentage is, but that is reality.

Recognizing the differences and addressing them might help some.

Tournaments use fantasy chip amounts. The value of chips can’t be correlated to a $ amount. As the tournament goes on, the value of chips goes down (inflation is real), but in a cash game, the value of a chip remains the same. In tournaments, you play until the winner has all the chips, and then a certain number of places get a specified payout in either cash (no re-buys) or percentage (re-buys).

Cash games should operate on the “gold standard” system. You buy in for an amount, and you get exactly that amount in chips. Re-buys are almost always allowed. When the game is over, everyone receives in cash what they have in chips. Generally players can cash out any time they like, but if they come back that night, they should be required to buy-in for what they walked out with. For cash, you decide whether it will be a certain game or multiple games, and if multiple games, how that will be decided (dealer’s choice is or at least used to be common). The stakes (which might vary with the game type) are very different.

Here are some things that might help get tournament players to play cash.
  1. Have a separate set of chips that are only for cash. I’ve refused to play in otherwise attractive cash games because I was concerned that chips could be easily mixed if there was only one set. Those concerns proved to be well-founded at times, though certainly not all the time. But the one time it might happen accidentally can be a nightmare. Having 2 sets also shows you recognize the games are different.
  2. Make the game closer to what the tournament player is used to, or make it quite different. I’ll use this example. Suppose you have a $30 buy-in.
  3. Similar -- How many BB are there at the beginning? If tournament is 300BB, and you play with blinds, that’s a $.05/.10 game with 300BB. If you are playing $.25/.50, that’s 60BB (competitive, but not a lot of room to maneuver), or $.50/1.00, that’s 30BB (short stacked). I see a lot of $20 buy-in, $.25/50 games. That’s only 40BB for no limit. No thanks! If you are going to play no limit, I think 300-500BB is what you ought to start with, though I know many don’t. I’m just saying as a tournament player that makes cash games a wildly different animal.
  4. Dissimilar – There are ways to make the game dissimilar. I think dissimilar helps because what seems odd to me is that people playing $.25/.50 with short BB don’t seem to get that is radically different than a tournament deep stack, but it is. If you are going to play the same games as a tournament, don’t do it the same way. [1] Make it either limit or something like pot limit (which I’ve never played). [2] Make it different by doing something like playing low-end circus or kitchen table games (a wide variety of games) for relatively low stakes.
  5. When I see comments about “the more lucrative cash game,” I think that turns tournament players off. I think what they hear is “way more expensive; I could lose a lot more!” Players who prefer cash games and who want to attract tournament players to cash game should really guard their terminology.
  6. “Cash games are more fun.” That may be true for you, but you aren’t trying to attract you. You already play cash games. Say it’s fun too, but some think tournaments are more fun. They view it differently than you. The two of you aren’t going to agree that cash games are more fun because they aren’t for the tournament player.
  7. “Cash games are more profitable.” For whom? Years ago when I played both (I’ve only played tournaments for years), I could compare both on equal footing. The buy-ins for both were the same. I could cash in a cash game 60-70% of the time, and about half that in a tournament game that was truly comparable (see 3 above). I could win more money in tournaments. Part of that was many more players. Players in tournaments can sustain losses better, which affects how much you can win. Now I’m just one person, and YMMV, but realize that tournaments may be more profitable for amateur players.
  8. “You can come and go when you want.” That sounds attractive, but what a tournament player might hear is “You can make a big score and leave while you are ahead.” Or rather the unasked question. “You mean when I have an excellent hand, play it well, and get all my money in, some donkey needs 2 cards to win after the flop. The flop and river are those two cards. He can then leave with MY money and I have no chance to win it back.” We used to require one orbit notice before a guy left, barring an emergency. No one objected. Of course, we were friends who played together and weren’t going to be hit and run artists.
  9. “It’s all poker.” I’d focus more on the differences than trying to convince someone that red and blue are both colors. They are, but they are different colors.
  10. The threat of a large bankroll is a problem for some. See 3 above to understand why there is real fear of that. You can have rules that help. Limit the number of buy-ins. Limit the amount of rebuys.
  11. Realize this – Tournament players feel about cash games the same way cash players feel about tournaments. Both may have fear of the other type of game. So why don’t the cash players want to play tournaments?
  12. Finally, instead of having cash players carry the torch for you, let players who used to fear cash games do the talking. They can talk about what their fears were, and how the game in question alleviates those fears.
Click to expand...

Well said Sir!
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom
Cart

Cart

Total -