Tourney NLHE Tournaments are boring (1 Viewer)

[abby99]

After years of playing but not enjoying NLHE tournaments, I finally decided to stop torturing myself. Life is too short!!! At meetups I usually nap during the first part of the main event if it's NLHE. Single-table or mixed game tournaments are OK, though.

Cash (ring) games are much more enjoyable for me, and they're so much easier to host.

 

[Legend5555]

If you aren't willing to fold 80%+ of your hands pre, then hold em isn't for you. Hell, I've put a bit of study into PLO, and even there you are supposed to fold like 75% of hands at a full table.

I'm not a huge fan of tournaments because I don't like the forced time commitment. And because unless the buy is at least $600 or more (maybe $1k), I'm just losing $/hr compared to playing cash. Though every now and then I do actively want to play a tournament for fun.

As someone whose primary purpose of playing poker is to make money, I play mostly Holdem because I'm good at it compared to people I play with, and you get more hands per hour than pretty much any other game. I'm not good enough at PLO to overcome this yet. I enjoy playing limit mixed, but that's when I'm actually playing almost entirely for fun.

 

[CHP TD]

no

 

[Rhodeman77]

If I had the time to play poker 3-4 timer per week, every week then I’m sure I would appreciate the patience that is needed to properly play hold’em tournaments. But as someone that is only able to carve out 1 night a week (and often it is not even weekly) to have that small amount of time spent playing the slowest form of poker doesn’t make much sense. Cash games with 4 (or more) cards allows for people with limited time to play to maximize that time.

 

[RocAFella1]

I put you out of your misery.

 

[CraigT78]

I put you out of your misery.

I wish you would have done it in the first hour.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

I'm with Craig, but I don't hate on tourneys in general. I just don't like them personally.

Tourney players have different skills and different mindsets than cash players. My personality and my skills make me a better cash player, and I don't play often enough to deal with the huge variance that tournament poker can have.

So, I often get bored in NLHE tourneys, and I view turbo circus tourneys much like playing a slot machine.

 

[upNdown]

Do I see a reasonable response over there??????

I'm with Craig, but I don't hate on tourneys in general. I just don't like them personally.

Tourney players have different skills and different mindsets than cash players. My personality and my skills make me a better cash player, and I don't play often enough to deal with the huge variance that tournament poker can have.

 

[CraigT78]

I'm with Craig, but I don't hate on tourneys in general. I just don't like them personally.

Tourney players have different skills and different mindsets than cash players. My personality and my skills make me a better cash player, and I don't play often enough to deal with the huge variance that tournament poker can have.

So, I often get bored in NLHE tourneys, and I view turbo circus tourneys much like playing a slot machine.

I very much respect good tournament players, like @Frogzilla (before he retired) I am hyper aware that I do not have the patience to be a successful tournament player. I can't go an hour of folding, and even when I do, I will eventually look down at K10o, or A10o and decide this is good enough, let em rip. Or I decide to double up @RocAFella1 trying to draw the nut flush crippling my stack. Never fails.

So yes, give me a cash game where I can play the hands above and if I'm wrong, I can immediately pull another buy-in out and try again.

 

[ekricket]

I can't go an hour of folding, and even when I do, I will eventually look down at K10o, or A10o and decide this is good enough, let em rip.

Quit playing Cards, and play more Poker

For me, I like the additional tools and gameplay planning that a tournament requires.
One of the goals in Poker is to put pressure on your opponents.
A ticking clock on value helps do that.
A small or big stack they can’t replenish/manage helps do that too.

I’m fine with cash play too but I enjoy the different mental gymnastics a tournament offers

 

[louBdub]

This…cash is king.

Tournaments are the feeder league for cash games.

YUP! Don’t tell my group this

Tournaments are for the poor and meek…. Low entry, low risk, high reward.

But!

Cash is where Kings are crowned….

 

[k9dr]

Well, I think they’re great

 

[CantSpellPoker]

if I'm wrong

Does not compute….

 

[CraigT78]

Does not compute….

I only get there in cash games. It's weird.

 

[JustinInMN]

Strategy in tournament poker is overrated. TV skews this, but tournament play rewards the exact passivity that @CraigT78 is complaining about and apparently executing.

2 Reasons

1) The penalty for losing chips in tournament poker is far greater than the reward for acquiring chips because elimination is final.

2) The player that wins all the chips in the end still gives about 70% of the prize pool away to near finishers.

These two factors mean "correct" tournament strategy points toward being very conservative and survival as long as possible. Again, the two things that annoy @CraigT78

That said, I think I look at tournament poker the same way "Fast Eddie" Felson looks at 9-ball in "The Color of money." Nine-ball is popular and good for tv, but to players of his era, it isn't "real pool."

 

[Schmendr1ck]

Strategy in tournament poker is overrated. TV skews this, but tournament play rewards the exact passivity that @CraigT78 is complaining about and apparently executing.

I disagree.

Even with the slowest structures like the WSOP ME, you can't just wait for strong hands in a tourney. Do this in a home game with 15 minute rounds, and you'll get destroyed week after week.

Good tourney players know how to constantly adjust their ranges to the structure and their current stack depth, while also balancing the competing needs to grow your stack but also preserve it.

It's not the same as cash play, but it's not easier or less strategic.

 

[CraigT78]

Do this in a home game with 15 minute rounds, and you'll get destroyed week after week.

I have data that would counter this statement.

 

[JustinInMN]

I disagree.

Even with the slowest structures like the WSOP ME, you can't just wait for strong hands in a tourney. Do this in a home game with 15 minute rounds, and you'll get destroyed week after week.

Good tourney players know how to constantly adjust their ranges to the structure and their current stack depth, while also balancing the competing needs to grow your stack but also preserve it.

It's not the same as cash play, but it's not easier or less strategic.

There are strategic concepts unique to tournaments obviously. Counting blinds and clock watching are important in tournaments and non factors in cash of course.

I am not saying play top 10 hands only, but I am saying take little risk until the structure forces you.

But this really isn't a counter to the fact optimal tournament strategy always bends toward conservative play for the two reasons I laid out above. It's more likely to cooncide with correct strategy to be more careful that aggressive.

Cash is about acquisition, tournaments are about preservation.

 

[BarrieJ3]

If I had the time to play poker 3-4 timer per week, every week then I’m sure I would appreciate the patience that is needed to properly play hold’em tournaments. But as someone that is only able to carve out 1 night a week (and often it is not even weekly) to have that small amount of time spent playing the slowest form of poker doesn’t make much sense. Cash games with 4 (or more) cards allows for people with limited time to play to maximize that time.

This.

I can’t spend hours and hours doing something where I shouldn’t be playing/engaging 70-90% of the time. I have limited time for personal social things, so it just doesn’t make sense. But that’s just taking into consideration “fun”.

What about, “money”? Whelp, my time is far too valuable to spend the time to learn and perfect a solved game in order to bink or cash some tournaments. If money was the focus, I’d just take those hours and spin up another business or 5.

So holdem tournaments just aren’t for me. I’ll still do it with friends to shoot the ish and be social, just wouldn’t be my number one choice.

And while I don’t judge what others like, I’d imagine that people who do enjoy tourney poker to have a laid back life with many hours of freedom - or simply a strong background in many hours played and it being a comfort thing.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

I have data that would counter this statement.

I'm assuming long-term against competent tourney players.

I'm also assuming "strong hands" doesn't mean "any hand with a nine or higher." I've played against you, I know what your preflop range is...

 

[Schmendr1ck]

There are strategic concepts unique to tournaments obviously. Counting blinds and clock watching are important in tournaments and non factors in cash of course.

I am not saying play top 10 hands only, but I am saying take little risk until the structure forces you.

But this really isn't a counter to the fact optimal tournament strategy always bends toward conservative play for the two reasons I laid out above. It's more likely to cooncide with correct strategy to be more careful that aggressive.

Cash is about acquisition, tournaments are about preservation.

I originally took issue with your statement that "strategy in tournament poker is overrated." But from the above, it sounds like maybe we agree that tournament strategy is just as important as cash game strategy. It's just different.

I do agree with you that winning tournament strategy is generally more conservative. Not passive, but conservative.

 

[BGinGA]

Obv answer is obv. Play circus tournaments.

Definitely not boring.

 

[Preditor]

Putting aside talks on actual strategies, I think another consideration is what helps you to build a home game. I think it depends if you're about money or community. If you're working with established players or new players.

For me, I am trying to establish a game, and I want to get people introduced to poker. There's a lot of new players at my game. I personally think tournaments are a much better way to get people willing to play. Something about having their buy-in divorced from their stack-size makes new players more likely to engage.

Even if the cash blinds are $.25/$.50, in the mind of a newbie who is already reticent to play poker, that's still $.50 each time they bet. It's a little more intimidating.

Contrast that to a tournament where it feels a bit more like a price of admission to a show, and I think people are more willing to show up. I also think the fact you only are supposed to play 20% of your hands works well in this. It allows people to talk and catch up.

I do a monthly tournament though. If I did a weekly one, I would completely understand why cash is better.

 

[ekricket]

Cash is about acquisition, tournaments are about preservation.

If you don’t acquire first, you have nothing to preserve. Preservation is not just sitting there, it’s proactively defending what you have and what you’ve acquired.
If you are just sitting there waiting for top ten hands to shove, well there you are, bored and not winning.

 

[dpeks13]

Poll Sitting at 50/50
...as it should be.

 

[JustinInMN]

If you don’t acquire first, you have nothing to preserve. Preservation is not just sitting there, it’s proactively defending what you have and what you’ve acquired.
If you are just sitting there waiting for top ten hands to shove, well there you are, bored and not winning.

I did explicitly say in another post, you don't shrink up to top 10 hands. But you are definitely more careful about going for max value in spots. Say something like top pair second kicker on the river, pretty standard value spot in cash, much higher risk spot in tournament.

 

[ekricket]

I did explicitly say in another post, you don't shrink up to top 10 hands. But you are definitely more careful about going for max value in spots. Say something like top pair second kicker on the river, pretty standard value spot in cash, much higher risk spot in tournament.

Yeah it’s harder. In cash you can leave value on the table because in a few hours you’ll likely have another opportunity. If you leave value on the table in a tourney it’s probably not coming back in time to matter.

I think this edge is the one of the big differences between sometimes winning a tournament and consistently winning tournaments. You have to skirt that edge of risk in order to increase your tournament value. Those that “check it down” (speaking colloquially to include passive conservative behavior) just in case are not going to make it consistently.

 

[Senzrock]

The funny thing is - most pros consider PLO tournaments way *less* interesting than NLHE tournaments, even if most of us agree that PLO cash is wayyy more fun (that is more or less the consensus at this point). I played one PLO tournament at the WSOP last summer and it was the least fun I've ever had a tournament, small sample size, but it rang true for me. It's even more folding ironically because you are pot committed so easily that you have to be very careful or your first hand will be your last hand. If you watch the PLO final tables on PokerGo you will see what I mean...

My advice: add side bets or added incentives whenever you can. More table talk/speech play can make tournaments a lot more fun also. There are ways... but yes no limit fold em can be extremely boring on any given day.

 

[ekricket]

. I played one PLO tournament at the WSOP last summer and it was the least fun I've ever had a tournament, small sample size, but it rang true for me. It's even more folding ironically because you are pot committed so easily that you have to be very careful or your first hand will be your last hand.

I did two plo WSOP tourneys. You are not kidding. It’s like the first two hours are just all in donkfests. There’s no poker, it’s just shove it bingo among half the table.
No thought, no play, just “do I want to get it all in here” from the first hand onward.

 

[JustinInMN]

The funny thing is - most pros consider PLO tournaments way *less* interesting than NLHE tournaments, even if most of us agree that PLO cash is wayyy more fun (that is more or less the consensus at this point). I played one PLO tournament at the WSOP last summer and it was the least fun I've ever had a tournament, small sample size, but it rang true for me. It's even more folding ironically because you are pot committed so easily that you have to be very careful or your first hand will be your last hand. If you watch the PLO final tables on PokerGo you will see what I mean...

A lot of NLHE strategy is based on looking for opportunities with huge preflop advantages, those just don't exist in PLO. Like AAJT isn't going to be a crushing 3-1 favorite against reasonable rundowns like 9876. Those hands are within 60/40.