ekricket
Royal Flush
He would use his lucky powers in the middle instead of the end? That’s a pretty good way to use luck.
Tourney Rebuys without encouraging "reckless play"? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter legonick
- Start date
He would use his lucky powers in the middle instead of the end? That’s a pretty good way to use luck.
ekricket
Royal Flush
Two players have $100 each. They decide to have a heads up tourney, and pay a dealer $25 to deal. At the end of the tourney one guy has $175 and the dealer has $25.
Two players have $100 each. They decide to play cash game, and pay a dealer 4% of each pot. At the end of the session both players have <$10 and the dealer has >$180.
which one is better for the players?
Two players have $100 each. They decide to play cash game, and pay a dealer 4% of each pot. At the end of the session both players have <$10 and the dealer has >$180.
which one is better for the players?
Found it. This is about the role of luck vs skill, using Deeb as an example.
Note that this may have more relevance for large fields than 1-2 table tourneys.
Note that this may have more relevance for large fields than 1-2 table tourneys.
Quicksilver-75
4 of a Kind
Reckless play?
We love reckless play!
Over time, players like this either walk away from the game or “mature”. We have players like this and from time to time they’ll get squirrelly but they have definitely learned the rule of variance. Give them time. Besides, these people will also make a game interesting.
We love reckless play!
Over time, players like this either walk away from the game or “mature”. We have players like this and from time to time they’ll get squirrelly but they have definitely learned the rule of variance. Give them time. Besides, these people will also make a game interesting.
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
Accurate, and funny
.I guess I did say "there is no denying" and I understand where you are coming from that's a poor way to frame an argument. But I did try and back that up with the example of the huge laydowns that become strategically correct that are unique to tournaments. (Which I concede, does make it a skill, but it is still a reward for passivity.)
If we are talking casino play, you won't get an argument from me that the rake has become unbeatable at most lower levels. You have to at least be a middle limit player to make the rake negligible. I figure a casino is getting at least $120/hr/table for spreading cash games. ($4 rake average * 30/hr), meaning a player in a 9 handed game is "contributing" about $13.xx an hour. You can't play 1-2 or 1-3 NL and expect to beat that unless you have 2-3 absolute donors in the game. For those games to be profitable, you can't just be a little better than the opposition, you have to be way better. My assumption is that, if you can't beat 5-10 NL or 6/12 limit or up, the rake will eat everyone alive unless the skill gap is huge.
That said, I won't disagree that tournaments can often be a better deal for players rake-wise. Casinos probably look at them as a "loss leader." Consider a 35+15 tournament that will have 50 players and go about 4 hours. Well that will require about 12 table hours assuming a table breaks every 0.8 hours, or they collect about $62.50 per table hour.
But I was really making my point more form the standpoint of rake-free home games in both cash and tournament cases than casino games, and which is a more interesting test of "poker skill." (Which is obviously subjective.) But it's good to always be aware of rake.
ekricket
Royal Flush
Changing the basis in the middle of the debate is also a poor debating skill. I’m not arguing against cash, I’m more against the general statements that get put out there, and then when they get challenged there’s a ton of qualifier statements to narrow the scope and throw out key variables such as rake.
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? Maybe it’s because you have to risk more money? Sounds like another pesky variable to toss out.
Thanks, I’ll watch this when I get a chance. But what you describe is totally true, and also the key to skillful play. If you can build a stack , then you can continue to play good poker. If you’re getting short stack, you’re going to end up in a lot more bingo situations. You can pick those situations smartly, but it’s still bingo.
ekricket
Royal Flush
Are you talking about cash or tournament? Because it sounds like both. Difference is in cash you can throw more money into that bottomless hole.
Jimulacrum
Full House
In cash, you don't have to build a stack unless the game has an unusually short buy-in cap. In a typical game, you can just come in for a full stack of 100-200 BB and rebuy if necessary at any point. No need to "play bingo."
Not sure what makes that a "bottomless hole" in your eyes.
ekricket
Royal Flush
In your example you mentioned being short stacked. Happens in a cash game as well, players skill is so poor that they are short stacked (it’s mostly skill based here) So they add more cash, and because their skill hasn’t improved they become short stacked and play bingo again before they reload. “I’ve only got $28 left, may as well shove with Ax so I can reload”
Because of rake, variance, donks, Cubans, etc... whatever it all affects their skill in a negative way.
It just sounds bottomless.
Jimulacrum
Full House
There's still quite a bit of chance from hand to hand in cash poker. Getting short-stacked isn't always a result of poor skill.
I'm not sure where you're getting all of this from, or if you're just being sarcastic.
CrazyEddie
Full House
(quoting myself)
This scheme also means that losing players don't put more money into the prize pool. This is either a flaw or a feature depending on your attitude towards your home game.
If you want bankrolled losers to throw more money into the tourney without it feeling like they can just buy their way into the top spot, then instead of the scheme I proposed above, do a typical tournament structure with rebuys, but only allow rebuys every Z minutes. So if someone busts out they can buy back in, but a) it costs them and b) they have to wait up to Z minutes. This is effectively the same as having a maximum number of rebuys, but forcing players to spread them out rather than letting them be back-to-back-to-back.
This forced delay gives a further incentive to avoid busting out besides the financial one; a wealthy player might not be deterred by the cost of the rebuys, but might be sufficiently inconvenienced by having to sit out for a short while such that they reconsider flipping for stacks every hand.
This scheme also means that losing players don't put more money into the prize pool. This is either a flaw or a feature depending on your attitude towards your home game.
If you want bankrolled losers to throw more money into the tourney without it feeling like they can just buy their way into the top spot, then instead of the scheme I proposed above, do a typical tournament structure with rebuys, but only allow rebuys every Z minutes. So if someone busts out they can buy back in, but a) it costs them and b) they have to wait up to Z minutes. This is effectively the same as having a maximum number of rebuys, but forcing players to spread them out rather than letting them be back-to-back-to-back.
This forced delay gives a further incentive to avoid busting out besides the financial one; a wealthy player might not be deterred by the cost of the rebuys, but might be sufficiently inconvenienced by having to sit out for a short while such that they reconsider flipping for stacks every hand.
I was originally talking about the merits of poker tournaments from a "fun" standpoint.
Discussion has turned towards skill now.
I argue that poker tournaments actually require MORE skill. It's an added layer on poker skill. It's like a cash game, but you have to consider ICM and meta-ICM etc. Yes the variance on wins will be greater, but skilled tournament players will beat out less skilled opponents over the long haul. I often feel like sometimes the die-hard "cash game only, tournaments suck/are bad poker" players are uncomfortable playing tournaments and that causes them to attack the structure. Easier to deny than practice/learn!
Disclaimer, I am not good at cash games or tournament poker. Just sayin'....
Discussion has turned towards skill now.
I argue that poker tournaments actually require MORE skill. It's an added layer on poker skill. It's like a cash game, but you have to consider ICM and meta-ICM etc. Yes the variance on wins will be greater, but skilled tournament players will beat out less skilled opponents over the long haul. I often feel like sometimes the die-hard "cash game only, tournaments suck/are bad poker" players are uncomfortable playing tournaments and that causes them to attack the structure. Easier to deny than practice/learn!
Disclaimer, I am not good at cash games or tournament poker. Just sayin'....
ekricket
Royal Flush
I have a hypothesis that overall, players lose more money playing cash than tournaments. Largely due to rake, variance (another word for luck I believe), poor play, fatigue, drinking, smoke, drugs, etc.... but when you try to talk with people you get “you can’t argue with” or “well throw out all that stuff that’s inconvenient” etc....
“Everybody knows” the casino spreads cash more because it’s more profitable. Everybody knows you can’t beat the rake unless you play in high buyin games (more money HAS to be at risk)
Everybody knows most tables are full of casual players who lose.
yet because a few elite gross millions a year cash is seen as more profitable. How much do they net is a good number to know before we start talking about profitability.
I don’t play good golf, and think anyone who takes the time to try and get better is wasting time. But I don’t go around bashing golf with generalities.
Jimulacrum
Full House
I play low-stakes cash poker at least once or twice a week, and I've been a net winner for years now. I have bad hands, sessions, and even streaks like anyone else, but it comes out positive in the end. Not everyone who's winning at cash poker is an elite player grossing millions a year. Some folks are content to squeeze out a modest side income at low and medium stakes, whether in casinos or home games.
Most cash tables are definitely full of casual players who lose. The same could be said of tournaments. It takes quite a run of luck for a casual player with little strategic understanding to even make the money in a MTT. The same is true of such a player sitting at a cash game and pulling out a profit over a long session. That type of player loses far more often than not, especially with a NL or PL betting structure. That's poker. It's a significantly skill-based game.
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.
I'm not sure where you're getting the claim that cash poker is more profitable to play. I haven't made any claims about that (and I don't play a significant enough number of tournaments to judge). I don't recall anyone specifically making that claim here. Your responses have been sarcastic and aggressive since my earlier post about tournaments providing less consistent results (for winning players) than cash games, and I just don't understand where it's coming from.
There's much less of this at cheaper tournaments (say up to $150 or $200.) Well, maybe just as many OMCs, but very few hoodie/backpack guys.
ekricket
Royal Flush
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.
Last edited:
ekricket
Royal Flush
I think a cash game is a tournament where the blinds are fixed at one level and you can rebuy indefinitely until you win or run out of something. So you can just eventually buy your way to a winning session, but a freeze out/limited rebuy tournament removes that crutch.
Last edited:
???
Jimulacrum
Full House
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.
ekricket
Royal Flush
Nah, I like cash as much as tournament. I just hate any argument about anything where one side says “I’m right because everyone knows”.
I enjoy the tournaments because of the squeeze plays, the traps, the incredible amount of successful bluffing you can di because other players are worried bout their chip stack size. Because of the time constraint and the limited resources it’s another whole dimension to playing opponents.
Remove the ability to top off or add on to your next cash session and then see who likes it. See if it changes their play.
ekricket
Royal Flush
I think it comes down to people like cash play because when they are lousy players they can just add more money and keep playing, and when they get discouraged they can just leave with their negative equity and say they “broke even”. Lots of $200 Coke’s there.
in tournament you have to stay focused every hand and play good poker to win - and that sometimes means playing your big hands less aggressive and even taking advantage of passive play. NOT better than cash, not worse, just different.
in tournament you have to stay focused every hand and play good poker to win - and that sometimes means playing your big hands less aggressive and even taking advantage of passive play. NOT better than cash, not worse, just different.
Jimulacrum
Full House
Ahh, the "deep pockets" theory of why cash poker is bad.
Rebuying isn't a crutch. It's just part of the game, and it's a good part IMO that lets people keep playing for long sessions. It allows the game to be a continuous contest instead of having a defined start and end.
It doesn't matter how many times you rebuy. You still have to win more than you've lost to come out a winner. Rebuying doesn't change that. You still have to win back all that money you lost just to get to break-even territory, and then win even more to turn a profit.
Some clueless rich guy may be able to rebuy his way to an eventual net positive for a session here and there, but overall, it's probably just going to cost him a mountain of money. There's no meaningful advantage to be gleaned from hemorrhaging buy-ins until you get unstuck.
I mean the same can be said for cash. The threat of a tourney buy in vs a 200bb over bet isn't the same. Deepstack cash is more accessible than an experience maybe only comparable at final table MTT. I want the full NL part of NLHE, and tourneys seem to artificially cap that initially. You are only playing for abstracted value, which is what matters.
Ofc winning MTT = the nuts
But I just want my fix and I want it NOW
Jimulacrum
Full House
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.
ekricket
Royal Flush
Man, I read your words and I can’t tell if your talking about cash or tourney cause the same reasoning and principles apply to both.
In cash you can always leave with what you have the table, up or down
In tournament you have to stay the entire time if you want to win, but you can leave at anytime except with $0.
You pay some form of rake in either.
you should have a stop loss in cash just like limited entry in tournament
I think they are the same, whether you look at inconsistent wins or whatever.
Edit: Actually, forget it. I don't want to join in on this. Sorry.
To state the obvious: Tournaments have escalating blinds, and often antes as well. That absolutely changes everything. It makes tourneys a completely different animal than cash.
You can sit down at cash with 150BB and fold every single hand for 10 orbits, and still have 135BB. You are still playing deepstacked poker.
Do the same in a tourney (assume two orbits per round), and you will be down to more like 20BB. Now you have very little room to maneuver, and your strategic options start to be limited.
Wait another round, and you’re getting into fold-or-shove land.
Jimulacrum
Full House
Your comment that I replied to implied that cash games require less skill due to the "crutch" of being able to rebuy indefinitely. I was specifically addressing that.
Much of the same reasoning (and skill set, and much else) does apply in both cash poker and tournaments, yes. But now the goalposts are moving around so much that I'm not even sure what points you're trying to make.
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!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
Similar threads
