Is there more luck involved in tournies or cash games?

[octop]

I was discussing this with my friend today and he was laughing when I said cash games required more skill.
In touriens,even big ones there are so many preflop all ins you have to get very lucky to win. And online, with the blinds escalationg so fast there is a great deal of luck involved on almost every hand.
Granted it takes skill to be a tourny winner long term but I still think more luck is involved
Thoughts?

[mudbuddha]

IMO
The two are different games and require skills in different areas. In cash games, there is no changing of the blinds, and simply, solid poker will prevail.
I feel that tournaments, it is always a dynamic scenario, where inflection points and understanding the field is more important and there are times that you will gamble more than in cash games.
With proper overall strategy it is possible to gain a substantial edge because ability to switch gears is much more important.

[Guernica4000]

Being that everyone agrees that luck is much more a factor in the short term and skill in the long term. I would have to agree that playing cash game with the same blinds would require more solid poker and skill to win.
With increasing blinds in a tourney and being that it only takes one hand to get knock out, I think luck plays a bigger role.

By the way I still think the more skillful players will prevail in both.

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]
I was discussing this with my friend today and he was laughing when I said cash games required more skill.
In touriens,even big ones there are so many preflop all ins you have to get very lucky to win. And online, with the blinds escalationg so fast there is a great deal of luck involved on almost every hand.
Granted it takes skill to be a tourny winner long term but I still think more luck is involved
Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a no-brainer. deeper stacks mean better players win more.

Overlay(cashgame)>Overlay(tournament)


fim

[Xhad]

Short term, both cash games and tourney results are dominated by luck. Long term, both cash games and tourney results are dominated by skill. Asking which is more skill-based isn't a very well-defined question IMO.

[TomCollins]

Uh.... tournaments are a lot more luck, I have no clue what you mean you can't compare the difference.

[NYCNative]

I guess it depends on your definition of "luck" here.

In a tournament situation, getting "lucky" in the sense that the best hand played well doesn't withstand a bad beat, can be the difference between not making money, making money or making more money. Whereas if you lose even your entire stack in a cash game with the same hand you can buy back in and win it all back and more and if you win a hand you shouldn't have, you can lose it back even more quickly.

But then you get into situations of coin flips. In tournaments you sometimes are quite happy to get all of your money in as a 53% favorite or even a 47% underdog because that can very well be optimal considering your stack, the blinds, the payouts and other factors. You don't win a tournament without doing well in races and losing only one can devastate you - even though a nearly 50/50 shot is, by nature, not a case where the loser was statistically "unlucky."

There's no need to put your stack in jeopardy against a coin flip in a cash game because a good player should be able to lay that down because he knows that he will be able to eventually have his stack as a 70-80% or better favorite if he just plays his game.

Then you can play your hand perfectly and still be a loser as often happens when AA and KK lock up. This can happen in a cash game or a tournament equally.

In summary, I'd say both tournaments and cash games are skill over the long run and have more luck in the short term, but the effects of variance are significantly more catastrophic (or euphoric the other way) in tournaments than in cash games.

[Xhad]

Maybe it has to do with the fact that I've played a lot of games besides poker and what that has to do when I think of "luck based" versus "skill based".

In game design terms, a pure luck-based game is one in which any contestant is as likely to win as any other. A pure skill-based game is one in which a player demonstrating some ability tested by the game will always defeat someone without this ability, or with the ability to a lesser degree.

This model applies somewhat to poker tournaments, because these tournaments have clear winners. Cash games, on the other hand, are not "games" in the classical sense that they are not competitions with a clear winner or loser. You just play for awhile, and end up with either less money or more money than you started. This means that we must view cash game poker in the sense of "the long run", the problem being that while this definitely allows us to say qualitatively that the game is skill-based, it doesn't allow us to measure how skill-based it is by any metric that I can see, which means that we can't compare it to tournments in terms of skill-based vs. luck-based except in that we can say that both are skill based to some degree, and both are also luck-based to some degree.

So, I am not saying the statement "Tournaments are more luck-based than cash games." is incorrect, I am saying that it is meaningless.

If I'm wrong, can you present the statement "Tournaments are more luck-based" in such a way that is falsifiable (meaning we can debate it logically)? Or define luck-based/skill-based in a way that allows us to make a comparison between cash games and tournaments? I don't know how to do either of these or that there is a way to do it, which is why I think it's a bad question.

[kschellenger]

Here's the problem with the comparison: You are likely comparing a SNG (60-100 hands, maybe less) to a session at a ring game.
As pointed out, luck is the overriding factor in success rates in the short term. If you play 10 hands at a cash game and win 50BB, that is not an indication of your level of skill but an indication that you got one, or more than one, really good hands.
That being said, to win any individual SNG probably requires more luck than winning 5BB over 100 hands in a ring game. But long run it would seem sustaining a winning rate in tournaments is a product of playing hands at the most opportune times and therefore more skillful.
But, you won't have a sustained winning rate in either without skill and you won't have a short run win streak without luck.

[Ghazban]

[ QUOTE ]
There's no need to put your stack in jeopardy against a coin flip in a cash game because a good player should be able to lay that down because he knows that he will be able to eventually have his stack as a 70-80% or better favorite if he just plays his game.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is flat out wrong. +EV is +EV. If you won't take a coin flip (with correct pot odds if you're on the 47% side), you're playing suboptimally. Assuming you are properly bankrolled, the only possible justification for avoiding a close play EV-wise in a cash game is if you are in a capped buyin no-limit game, there are several poor players with deep stacks who are likely to leave soon, and a big loss will prevent you from getting the maximum from the other poor players in the near future.

I can't believe how many times I read things like "waiting for a better spot" misapplied to cash games on these forums.

[elmitchbo]

this is the point that i agree with the most. the people who argue cash game skill is > tourney skill always act like there is only one tournament. ever. you can't compare one SnG to a session at a ring game. you can compare 3 years of play in tournaments to 3 years of play in ring games.

if two players have the same winrate over 100,000 hands and player A won all of his in a ring game, and player B won all of his in a tournament, which player is better? i say player B.

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]
this is the point that i agree with the most. the people who argue cash game skill is > tourney skill always act like there is only one tournament. ever. you can't compare one SnG to a session at a ring game.

[/ QUOTE ]

you obviously don't get it.

consider this:

tic tac toe and chess are two games entirely devoid of luck. TTT optimal play can be derived by any semi-smart person on a napkin in a bar. chess can be studied for a person's entire lifetime.

in which game will a more skilled player win more often?

fim

[meow_meow]

[ QUOTE ]
this is the point that i agree with the most. the people who argue cash game skill is > tourney skill always act like there is only one tournament. ever. you can't compare one SnG to a session at a ring game. you can compare 3 years of play in tournaments to 3 years of play in ring games.

if two players have the same winrate over 100,000 hands and player A won all of his in a ring game, and player B won all of his in a tournament, which player is better? i say player B.

[/ QUOTE ]

What?
How exactly do you compare winrates in cash vs. tournament games?

I guess one way would be to compare earn/hr for games with similar bankroll requirements - say 5-10 limit HE vs $100 SNGs (I have no clue about bankroll requirements for MTTs, but they must be higher than for same buy-in SNGs).
Anyway, even comparing these numbers doesn't tell you which player is "better", as quality of opponents isn't taken into account, and variance is still a huge factor even at 100k hand sample sizes.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess one way would be to compare earn/hr for games with similar bankroll requirements

[/ QUOTE ]

Fallacy. Bankroll requirements are determined by variance, which is a factor of fluctuations of luck. So you can't bankroll requirements in any metric used to measure luck, or it's circular.

Oddly enough, my response is that tournaments require more of both - skill and luck.

If you sit down at any specified ring game, you are basically required to be proficient at that one game - you can adopt a particular style that works for you and play that way (and obviously, part of that style will have to involve some level of varying styles to keep your opponents off balance).

In a tournament, you have to shift styles as you move through the tournament - ie. as the blinds and antes go up. So you can start playing a TAG style, but by the end, you have no choice but to play more loose - whereas in a ring game, you can basically play TAG from now until eternity and just throw in the odd play against your style to keep people off balance.

I think that if you try and make it through a tournament without skill, you may get "lucky" here and there and get some good results, but in the long run, you will be a loser.

At the same time, luck plays a much bigger factor because the "one bad beat" that can set you back a few $$$ in a cash game, can completely knock you out of a tournament - so the stakes at play in EACH hand are much higher - thus you have a shortening of the time horizon.

[21times20]

the fact that tournament results are more based on luck than a cash game is the very reason why one must be more skilled to win on a consistent basis, you need a bigger advantage over your opponents in order to counteract the increased variance, so based on how the OP worded his and his friends opinions they are probably both technically correct

[sully4321]

tourneys, because you need to win the entire thing to see any payout.


i am awful at tourneys and great at cash games because i have a very conservative, TAG style. i usually make a couple times the buy-in when my friends and i play cash games, but i come in around the bubble in tourneys. this is because you can't play ultra-tight in tourneys cuz the blinds get yah.

[odellthurman]

Get out of the kiddie pool and start making some moves.

[AaronBrown]

Let me make it more specific. Suppose you owned two Poker players, one very good and one average. You are going to give each $10,000, one to enter the no-limit hold'em event at the World Series of Poker, and one to play in side games for the same amount of time. You get all the money both of them win. Would you put your very good player in the tournament or the side game?

I would put my good player in the side game. The average blinds are smaller so there is more Poker, less showdown. Moreover he can exercise his skill not just by cardplay, but by picking games and opponents.

To me this says the tournament is more luck than the side game.

[kschellenger]

[ QUOTE ]


Let me make it more specific. Suppose you owned two Poker players, one very good and one average. You are going to give each $10,000, one to enter the no-limit hold'em event at the World Series of Poker, and one to play in side games for the same amount of time. You get all the money both of them win. Would you put your very good player in the tournament or the side game?



[/ QUOTE ]

It has been made clear that luck dominates the short term. And you are asking a question about the short term.

[Xhad]

Here's the problem: you're assuming blind levels that make the variance acceptable for a bankroll of 10,000. What if it's a $1000/$2000 limit game? Is that really any better a situation than the WSOP? But if I make it a $1/$2 game, then all of a sudden the risk of going broke in the amount of time that it would take to play the WSOP is nil.

So how do you choose the "correct" live blind level for the comparison? Objectively, you can't.

[ninjia3x]

I think you ppl are comparing apples to oranges.

Each game requires a very different arsenal of skills, its virtually impossible to compare.

Winrate is another story.

[meow_meow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess one way would be to compare earn/hr for games with similar bankroll requirements

[/ QUOTE ]

Fallacy. Bankroll requirements are determined by variance, which is a factor of fluctuations of luck. So you can't bankroll requirements in any metric used to measure luck, or it's circular.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are proving my point. We are using variance vs. earn to measure luck - variance is standing in for luck obviously.

Example: The "best" winrate that can be achieved by top players in a given holdem limit game with bankroll requirement x is $y/hr. If the "best" winrate that can be achieved by top players at a given MTT buy-in level requiring bankroll x is $z/hr. If y>z, then MTTs require more luck than limit games....seems clear cut.

[AaronBrown]

[ QUOTE ]
It has been made clear that luck dominates the short term. And you are asking a question about the short term.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are still relative degrees of luck. I think luck dominates a three-day tournament more than it dominates three days of side game play. But I would say the same thing if there were a ten-year tournament versus ten-years of side game play.

[AaronBrown]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the problem: you're assuming blind levels that make the variance acceptable for a bankroll of 10,000. What if it's a $1000/$2000 limit game? Is that really any better a situation than the WSOP? But if I make it a $1/$2 game, then all of a sudden the risk of going broke in the amount of time that it would take to play the WSOP is nil.

So how do you choose the "correct" live blind level for the comparison? Objectively, you can't.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not just talking about the risk of going broke, I'm talking about the overall expectation of playing. I think in the WSOP, the difference in expected winnings between a very good and an average player is smaller than the difference in expected winnings in side games. In side games, you get to choose your limits and your table, and your game. That's one of the reasons skill matters more.

If the side game had the same blinds as the WSOP, and you were required to play a specific game against a specific table, for times set by the casino until one player held all the money; a side game would be a one-table tournament and the degree of luck and skill would be the same.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
I was discussing this with my friend today and he was laughing when I said cash games required more skill.
In touriens,even big ones there are so many preflop all ins you have to get very lucky to win.
Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, there is just as much skill in both except one bit, when you get to 10-20 players in a tourney, and the blinds are between 20-50% of a significant number of players' stacks.


Those players (and those who decide to call em) are the lucky or unlucky ones, and very little skill other than knowing which hands to go with in which position in an unraised pot.

To balance this would be the range of skills needed in tourneys is bigger than ring games (knowing how to play short-stacked + short tabled etc in necessary in tourneys)

so overall, about the same, I guess?


(about the all-in comment - only a tard would risk his entire stake calling an all-in without AA unless he was short stacked. I can see a case for KK and even AK if the raiser was a clear lag - but even then AK would be if you aren't too put out about being knocked out, such as you know another tourney is about to begin, and this one isn't going your way).

[NYCNative]

Another factor is in cash games you get to choose your opponents. Sure, some people are in one-horse casinos where the only game running is the game they have to play, but with the internet and the many places where there are always multiple tables going, you can decide who you will be playing with a lot more often than in tournaments. If table selection is one of the most important aspects of winning poker as I have been told, then tournaments involve more luck before you ever sit down since the draw is (ideally) random and you don't know who you're gonna get.

[meow_meow]

[ QUOTE ]

(about the all-in comment - only a tard would risk his entire stake calling an all-in without AA unless he was short stacked. I can see a case for KK and even AK if the raiser was a clear lag - but even then AK would be if you aren't too put out about being knocked out, such as you know another tourney is about to begin, and this one isn't going your way).

[/ QUOTE ]

This probably sounds harsh, but that type of weak/tight thinking is generally scoffed at in these forums it put it mildly.
Oh, and I'd rather put my stack in with QQ or JJ than AK any day of the week.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]

This probably sounds harsh, but that type of weak/tight thinking is generally scoffed at in these forums it put it mildly.
Oh, and I'd rather put my stack in with QQ or JJ than AK any day of the week.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be, but it's sound play when it's a large tourney (say 200+), and I should have been clearer on that. If you play otherwise in such tourneys, you gotta be real lucky not to be busted out by seeing so many coin-toss all-ins.

I prefer AK to QQ cos so many of these all-ins tend to be Ace-something (Q/J/T often).

I would agree that the play I suggest would be unsound in tourneys with less than say 100, and I wouldn't suggest to play like that there.

[BarronVangorToth]

What if you gave Player A $1000 and Player B $1000.

Player A was only allowed to play ring games for the next month.

Player B was only allowed to play tournaments for the next month.

Each comes back and shows how much they have.

Which are you more impressed by? Why?

What if instead of a month it is a week? or a year?

Why?

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[ QUOTE ]
What if you gave Player A $1000 and Player B $1000.

Player A was only allowed to play ring games for the next month.

Player B was only allowed to play tournaments for the next month.

Each comes back and shows how much they have.

Which are you more impressed by? Why?

What if instead of a month it is a week? or a year?

Why?

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[/ QUOTE ]

Over a month, I would say I am probably more impressed with the ring player. Over that span of time, you would really only need your cards to run good in one tournament to make up for all your buy-ins. I don't think the same is true for a ring player - they would need to play consistently well over the course of the month to come out on top.

Over a year, I would say I am probably more impressed with the tournament player.

[elmitchbo]

what you just said is that it's easier to make money in a side game. that means it requires less skill.

that is the point i'm making. over coming increased variance is part of what makes a succesful tourney player more skilled than a ring player.

[elmitchbo]

i tried to make a similar point earlier in the thread. a month is too short of a time peiod to really make an assessment. but over the course of a year, it would be very impressive to see the tourney player ahead.

[meow_meow]

This thread has become a bit thick, and I think it's because of the wording (or maybe just the nature) of the original question.


There seems to be one group of people saying (to paraphrase):
"Variance is a good estimate for the amount of luck involved in a game. MTTs therefore involve more luck than cash games, because it's pretty clear if you take two skilled players, one playing cash games and one playing MTTs, the MTT player will experience more variance (i.e. require a greater bankroll) than the cash player for the same expected winrate."

The other group of people are saying something like:
"There is more variance in tourneys, so you have to be more skilled to make money there."
Maybe I am selling this second group short, but I don't think so.

Again, the question being asked is: "Is there more luck involved in tourneys or cash games". Relative variance is an excellent measure of the amount of luck in games. No one seems to disagree that tourneys involve more variance than cash games.
QED(?)

there is skill involved in both. i would have to say that there is more skill involved in cash games because you are playing on the the same level the whole time and dont have to adjust to the blinds. your play can be accelerated in tourneys and you have to do things you normally wouldnt do, due to the size of the blinds