Tourney Rebuys without encouraging "reckless play"? (1 Viewer)

[L3urntout]

Your first paragraph point out your inconsistencies in cash games. I’m a successful tournament player who loses some like anyone else, but overall I’m up.
Ive got a friend that played at my last meetup who plays cash in casino 3-4 times a week. He’s a good player and a modest winner (money wise, but he has a big head) and he also plays tournaments. He has had some thousand plus winning sessions and some just as big losing sessions. Last year he played in a two day tourney and won a wsop ring and $250,000. Sure he’s lost tournaments along the way, just like he had losing cash sessions along the way, but his cash bankroll pretty much stays the same yet his tournament bankroll has grown a lot.
My point centers around there are losing sessions in both scenarios - cash and tournament - but I never will have a chance to win $250,000 dollars in a two day CASH session by only risking $1500 (capped).
Yet the general feeling is that somehow tournaments are worse for players and only ignorant players who can’t handle strategy play them, they have to rely on luck in every situation. Maybe YOU aren’t saying this specifically but that’s the love tournaments get here.


Lets play a game where I fold every hand. In the tournament situation you win and go home with more money than you came, or if I don’t fold I may leave with more money than I came with. It’s variable and inconsistent, but one of us is going to win.
In a cash situation we both go home with less money because of the rake (affects you) and my folding (affects me). That’s pretty consistent all right, but not a scenario I want to repeat multiple times.

NGL your story sounds sus.

How can you be a good player play multiple times a week and all ya got is some 1k+ sessions? I'm a rec and sessions can literally swing 10x that easily at 2-5 let alone higher stakes.

If you can't beat 1/2 live at a casino (doesn't mean it is worth your time) you aren't strong, you're a rec imo, but that's probably a high standard

 

[ekricket]

So you think people prefer cash because they're basically all losers who pretend they're break-even? What about losing tournament players? There are a lot of those too.

Ironic that you were just talking about people making statements with nothing to back them up a few replies ago.

Im using the same data the cash side uses. My feelings. My responses are generally the the replies that insinuate tournament play is just for losers who can’t play Man’s poker and just want to flip a coin a bunch of times. You get upset when I mention deep pockets, yet that’s the main difference in the two. Both produce inconsistent short term results. Both have to have a bunch of loser for a few big winners. I do think that most of the hate for tournament does in fact come from bad( I was going to say poor, but like modest it can be intentionally misconstrued) players who have to have that rebuy crutch. Certainly not you, you are one of the best!

 

[Taghkanic]

Meanwhile, a tournament player with endless rebuys who does not really care about the money can put a ton of unearned pressure on someone with only 1-2 rebuys in their pocket, because the escalating blinds/antes mean the lesser-rolled player can’t be as patient.

I just don’t know many players in home tourneys who show up eager to rebuy constantly. (Maybe others here do.) Not because they’re nits, but because it’s not a very interesting game. It dulls the skill edge of good players, and makes it so that fewer hands involve any strategy post flop besides calculating basic outs and then flipping.

The rare games I’ve played where this does happen typically either:

(a) have very low buy-ins, making the rebuy trivial, and the gameplay simplistic.

(b) are populated mainly by rich guys who don’t care much about either the money or the game;

(c) break up eventually because of friction between the serious players and the BINGO players.

I played 4-5 times in a game like (a) — very low stakes, endless rebuys — and I cant say I learned a thing about poker. These were players who really would prefer to be at a craps or roulette table. It reduced poker to pulling a lever and hoping three cherries come up.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Certainly not you, you are one of the best!

I'm going to choose to laser-focus on this point and agree wholeheartedly.

 

[Anthony Martino]

Sure seems like you have just as negative an opinion toward cash poker as you're claiming other people have toward tournament poker.

The first thing I said that set you off wasn't even negative about tournaments. It was just that tournaments typically produce long runs of losses with occasional large wins (usually much larger wins than cash, relative to the money and time invested). You're literally making that same point right now with your anecdote about your friend. Cash typically produces smaller and more consistent wins. I do prefer cash to tournaments, mostly because I don't enjoy being locked into my seat for hours on end just to end up losing most of the time, especially when the game is NLHE. But I'm making judgment-neutral observations when it comes to consistency of results.

It's true that you will basically never get a chance to win 167:1 on your money at cash. If you're the kind of guy who enjoys longshots with massive ROI potential, then clearly tournaments would appeal to you more than chipping away consistent but modest wins at cash. But it's also worth noting that only a tiny percent of players relative to the tournament field get to pull down big wins like that. Unless you play big tourneys all the time, you're unlikely to ever see that kind of win, never mind seeing it more than once.

I found it interesting that you claimed that your friend is a "modest winner" but also that "he has a big head," and "his cash bankroll pretty much stays the same." Seems like he's blowing smoke up your ass about being a winning cash player, then. If he's winning over time and not spending his poker money on other things, his roll should be gradually growing. If it's hovering around the same amount, he's a break-even player.

@Anthony Martino, I'm curious what you have to say on this topic, being a professional player with experience in both cash and tourneys.

My understanding is that most poker pros focus on cash games, as they are a more consistant and stable source of income

That's not to say tournament pros can't do well making a living, but it's difficult to achieve playing dalies where the rake is excessive.

And traveling the tourney circuit presents lots of additional expenses, tougher fields and larger variance than cash games. Even "the best" pros in the world can suffer breakeven or losing years on the circuit grind, which is unlikely for a cash game pro

Yes, the cash game player isn't going to hit that huge score, but they will have less swings

With most tournaments paying the top 10% of the field, you will essentially lose 9 times to hit a big score on that 10th run to carry you through the next bout of losses

Couple that with being locked into a tourney until you bust or win means you are committed to playing 8-14 hours, with usually only the very top spots in the event being worth the time sink on an ROI basis

Playing cash I get to win 2/3 of my sessions, which for me is less stressful than 1/10 in the tourney circuit

Likewise, I can play a 10 hour session or a 2 hour session, and leave as I please

So from most of what I've read on the subject, and my own experience, I prefer cash games overall.

I still enjoy tournaments from time to time, but I'd hate to rely on them as my bread and butter

I guess it would be like comparing the daily lotto vs Powerball. I can't win as much in the daily as I could binking powerball, but my odds are better for a more consistant return in the pick 4 lottery

 

[JustinInMN]

Changing the basis in the middle of the debate is also a poor debating skill.

Dude! Who is "changing the basis in the middle of the debate?" Nobody brought up the rake effect until you did.

Casino makes $125 an hour off of cash table but $62.50 an hour off of a tourney table? And that’s better and more profitable for the player somehow?

Again, I don't think you can construe anything I said as disagreement with you on the rake point. That said there probably are tournaments with rake structures out there that may be less favorable than a cash game. I was just thinking of a pre-covid daily tournament at my local room. If you know how to do the math, you can tell which is which.

Hell, Sweden beat Italy and took "their" place in the 2018 World Cup (soccer).

Italy is weak unless their refs are rigging the game.

Wut did I do?

Ooops, probably a misclick or I was going to say something snarky I have since forgotten. In either case, I will just mention that if you prefer cash, tournament or both, buy some cards from this guy.

 

[Josh Kifer]

Dude! Who is "changing the basis in the middle of the debate?" Nobody brought up the rake effect until you did.



Again, I don't think you can construe anything I said as disagreement with you on the rake point. That said there probably are tournaments with rake structures out there that may be less favorable than a cash game. I was just thinking of a pre-covid daily tournament at my local room. If you know how to do the math, you can tell which is which.



Italy is weak unless their refs are rigging the game.



Ooops, probably a misclick or I was going to say something snarky I have since forgotten. In either case, I will just mention that if you prefer cash, tournament or both, buy some cards from this guy.

I LIKE IT.

 

[CrazyEddie]

Knish grinded cash games because he had bills to pay
Mike dreamed of the WSOP final table because he had big dreams

 

[Jimulacrum]

My understanding is that most poker pros focus on cash games, as they are a more consistant and stable source of income

That's not to say tournament pros can't do well making a living, but it's difficult to achieve playing dalies where the rake is excessive.

And traveling the tourney circuit presents lots of additional expenses, tougher fields and larger variance than cash games. Even "the best" pros in the world can suffer breakeven or losing years on the circuit grind, which is unlikely for a cash game pro

Yes, the cash game player isn't going to hit that huge score, but they will have less swings

With most tournaments paying the top 10% of the field, you will essentially lose 9 times to hit a big score on that 10th run to carry you through the next bout of losses

Couple that with being locked into a tourney until you bust or win means you are committed to playing 8-14 hours, with usually only the very top spots in the event being worth the time sink on an ROI basis

Playing cash I get to win 2/3 of my sessions, which for me is less stressful than 1/10 in the tourney circuit

Likewise, I can play a 10 hour session or a 2 hour session, and leave as I please

So from most of what I've read on the subject, and my own experience, I prefer cash games overall.

I still enjoy tournaments from time to time, but I'd hate to rely on them as my bread and butter

I guess it would be like comparing the daily lotto vs Powerball. I can't win as much in the daily as I could binking powerball, but my odds are better for a more consistant return in the pick 4 lottery

One less technical but still very relevant issue for cash versus tourneys, for me anyway, is that my wife doesn't really like gambling and doesn't understand the underlying math. She worked in a casino on a cruise ship for a long time, so her whole experience of gambling has been watching people get more and more miserable (and ruder to the staff) as they throw their money in the trash.

When she asks me how poker went, if I'm playing cash regularly, I can tell her that it went well far more often than I tell her that "I did the other thing" (hint: not winning). That makes it a lot easier to float the idea of spending entire nights playing poker with friends, even if it's all online at the moment.

 

[JustinInMN]

As to casino-hosted games, I specifically avoid playing $1/2 NLHE because (a) the rake is usually excessive, if not unbeatable, and (b) the games are just not fun anymore. Too many players take it too seriously. The sunglasses, headphones, hoodies, stoic behavior, all of it is just awful. It drives away fun, recreational players and leaves the games full of grinder types and OMCs.

If you can't beat 1/2 live at a casino (doesn't mean it is worth your time) you aren't strong, you're a rec imo, but that's probably a high standard

Honestly, if your share of the rake is $14/hr or so, you have to be good enough to win 12BB an hour just to clear $10/hr for yourself. You almost need one or two players in such a game with an EV of -100% to profit over the rake.

Wait another round, and you’re getting into fold-or-shove land.

Another example of tournaments being the limitation of strategy compared to cash.

With most tournaments paying the top 10% of the field, you will essentially lose 9 times to hit a big score on that 10th run to carry you through the next bout of losses

I would hope a "tournament pro" would be cashing at least at a 15% clip or more. But your point is well taken about the swings.

 

[JustinInMN]

Knish grinded cash games because he had bills to pay
Mike dreamed of the WSOP final table because he had big dreams

It is effectively the same debate, isn't it .

I wonder if @legonick regrets inviting the threadjack yet .

 

[CrazyEddie]

Rounders isn't about poker, it's about bankroll management.

 

[JustinInMN]

Rounders isn't about poker, it's about bankroll management.

And...

Spoiler

Don't base deal with the "municipal workers."

 

[Jimulacrum]

Rounders isn't about poker, it's about bankroll management.

I contend that Rounders is actually about cramming as many unique poker jargon terms as possible into a single movie.

 

[Taghkanic]

I would hope a "tournament pro" would be cashing at least at a 15% clip or more. But your point is well taken about the swings.

As the video linked above notes, Deeb profited by $1.8 million playing 20,000+ online tournaments over a period of 4 years, cashing “only” 13.5% of the time.

Average buyin $135, average field 1,400 players.

The analysis notes that while 13.5% doesn’t sound impressive, it is actually very good... About 3.5% above expectations if everyone were an average player and payouts are 10% of the field.

Much more importantly, he was final tabling more often than one would expect. The vlogger posits that his huge profit came largely by final tabling 2.5% of the time, in the top three 1% of the time, and winning it all 0.5% of the time. Doesn’t sound like much, but considering a field of 1,400 it’s actually staggering.

Point being that tourney performance needs to be measured quite differently than cash. Cash players I think tend to focus on “did I have a winning session today?” while for tournament players making big scores matters more because you’re not going to win very often.

 

[upNdown]

Point being that tourney performance needs to be measured quite differently than cash. Cash players I think tend to focus on “did I have a winning session today?” while for tournament players making big scores matters more because you’re not going to win very often.

I've walked out of a lot of tournaments with empty pockets, but feeling pretty good. Obviously I feel better when I cash, but I still feel pretty good if I've played well, went deep, but just got knocked out because - poker. I think you kinda have to retrain yourself to ignore results almost entirely to stay sane as a tournament player.

 

[Mr Winberg]

So if you play enough tournaments, your skill will prevail? In any SINGLE tournament luck may rule, just like in any SINGLE cash session?

@ekricket, I'm honestly a bit confused. I basically wrote that in poker (just like anything else with skill involved) skill prevails in the long run, but the shorter the "run" (be it sessions, tournaments, or tournament length for that matter) the more luck (variance) will matter. Your first response to me was sarcastic and seemed to imply that somewhere somehow I had written that there's no luck in cash games. Then this response seems to be (and please correct me if I'm wrong here) that you think that skill prevails in the long run, but the shorter the "run" (be it sessions, tournaments, or tournament length for that matter) the more luck (variance) will matter.

I'm honestly confused right now. What is it that I've written that you don't agree with? Or did you just misunderstand me? Or I you?