Tournaments versus Cash Games

[Al Mirpuri]

Cash Games have a greater EV than Tournaments, do they not?

[dogmeat]

Al,

All those good responses from you, and then this week some interesting questions. Amnesia?

Alright, a tournament has a higher (+) EV than a cash game if your competition is weaker, especially if the tournament is very small, say a sit-n-go with poor players. Obviously this is reversed as the calibur of players in the tournament (and their overall number) increases as opposed to a cash game with better players.

If this was a very general question, I think for the sin-n-go crowd you will find many that think they are better EV than a cash game, but for a Multi-table tournament, given larger size and more hours to devote, I think the cash games are higher EV. A few players might feel differently like Cmburns, Gotmilk or even Greg Raymer.

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[Iceman]

[ QUOTE ]
Cash Games have a greater EV than Tournaments, do they not?

[/ QUOTE ]

In deep money no-limit tournaments with large fields, the best tournament players have an expected win of about equal to the buy in. If the game is limit holdem or Omaha-8, if the blinds increase rapidly, or if the field is unusually strong from top to bottom, then even the best players will only have a moderate EV. Regardless of which game and structure, the variance is huge in large multitable tournaments. Winning mid-limit players who are also good tournament players at the $500-1000 level can usually win more with a lower variance in cash games. That's not necessarily the case for high-limit players who can do well at the $5000-10000 level tournaments, since their cash game hourly win rates are often only slightly higher than mid-limit players' win rates in $/hr terms, and so their EV in a big tournament is greater than for a similar time in cash games, and so they should play them when they can assuming they have the bankroll to withstand the variance.

[Gotmilk]

[ QUOTE ]
If this was a very general question, I think for the sin-n-go crowd you will find many that think they are better EV than a cash game, but for a Multi-table tournament, given larger size and more hours to devote, I think the cash games are higher EV. A few players might feel differently like Cmburns, Gotmilk or even Greg Raymer.

[/ QUOTE ]

i've always played more cash games and sit and go's than MTT's. very few MTT's have a higher EV per hour because there simply aren't enough of them with a high enough buy-in available. but sometimes they are more fun, and +EV and fun is often way better than ++EV and boring ass grind.

[Kaz The Original]

Yes.

After all, you make plays, win "X" BB's, and yet do not get an equal value of $$$ ---- BB.

If you buy 10k worth of chips for a ring game, and win 1k times 10k, you get $1,000 * $10,000.

If you 10k worth of chips for a tourney, and win 1k * 10,000, you get $1,000 * 300.

The only thing that makes the trade off better is the fact that the competition might be worse, or you are better at the game (increasing blinds NLHE as opposed to static blind NLHE).

[MikeGuz]

Over a 2 year period when I was playing every day both tournaments and ring games my hourly rate was almost exactly the same.

But I would say ring games are an easy call even in a weak field there is always a gauntlet to get through to make the money. I am talking about "live" play. I haven't played on line for several months - but when I was I'd say the single and double table games 0ver $50 were high EV for me.

[Doubling12]

Tournament strategy is such a specialized thing, that it would take quite a lot of work for a ++EV ring player to get the same hourly earn playing tournaments.

There is the well-known story about Jennifer Harman winning a gold bracelet in the $5,000 Deuce-Seven Lowball having never played the game before, with an hour of coaching from Howard Lederer. Shows how important it is to know how to play tournaments, vs. how to play the actual game at hand.

[Gotmilk]

Kaz, this line of thinking couldn't be more wrong, that is if I understand you correctly.

[tubbyspencer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cash Games have a greater EV than Tournaments, do they not?

[/ QUOTE ]

In deep money no-limit tournaments with large fields, the best tournament players have an expected win of about equal to the buy in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. That sounds WAAAAAAAY too high an ROI for me. Is that true?

[Iceman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cash Games have a greater EV than Tournaments, do they not?

[/ QUOTE ]

In deep money no-limit tournaments with large fields, the best tournament players have an expected win of about equal to the buy in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. That sounds WAAAAAAAY too high an ROI for me. Is that true?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's probably true over the long-term, but since so much of a tournament player's total revenue comes from finishing in the top few places, it's quite likely that even most great tournament players will be negative in the short-run. The best player might have a 1 in 1300 chance of winning a 2600 player WSOP - that's definitely positive EV, but it's not likely that he'll ever win it in his lifetime or even come close. If he plays hundreds of events over several years, then over that whole period he's likely to win significantly more than the buy-ins he pays. How much more is open for discussion, but David Sklansky and Ray Zee both estimate that the best players under the best conditions can have an expected win of about the buy-in.

[Kaz The Original]

Oh?