Limit Cash vs Tourn. Possible to be good in one and not the other?

[Pylos]

As a player beginning and building my bankroll I play primarily online in $0.25/0.50 limit hold ‘em games. Live I play at the Bike and Commerce in LA in the $1/2 and $2/4 games. I frequently peruse the forums here for information and I wanted to say thank you all for your advice and tutelage, even if it has been passive.

I understand that I may just recently have been grazing a suitable statistical sample, in the past 3 months I have played around 25k hands. The starting hand strategy I use is consistent with Small Stakes Hold ‘em: Winning Big With Expert Play. I feel as if I have a good grasp of post flop and river play as well. It seems, however, that in ring games I am playing catch up most of the time. I sit, I play the hands I am allotted to play and as aggressively as I believe I can, yet I end up after a few hours balancing out my stack. Most of the time in live play, after 4-5 hours I will even up again and win a monster of a pot and cash out before I end up balancing it out again, while online it seems like I can never really walk away with significant earnings.

From my estimation this could be for a couple reasons:

1. It is a small stakes game and especially online, the stakes are so miniscule that even taking home 10+ BBs after 2 hours of play seems like nothing.

2. I am not playing as aggressive as I should. Although it feels as if I am following the advice that has been given here and within the books I have been reading.

3. I’m simply not that good and haven’t mastered these smaller ring games to snake a profit from them.

The real joker in the equation is I play sit-and-go’s frequently. Always limit hold ‘em on Stars and usually within the $5-$20 range. These are usually 9 player one table tournaments, but occasionally I will opt for a 18 player 2 table. I start off very tight when the blinds are low and take a few monsters. Then I will loosen up so much towards the end that I find many will fold and I am able to pick up some pots with some semi-bluffs and cards weaker then usual. Within my last 15 tournaments I have ended up in the money in 13 of them. I would count that as significant, even with such a low sample size.

Is tournament play at all reflective on ring game play? If not what on earth am I doing that consistently rewards me for my play in tournaments that I am not getting paid off for in my ring games?

[stlip]

Hey, I'm your mirror image -- I crush the Party 1/2 full ring and can barely keep my head above water in the Party 10+1 SnGs. In my case that's because I had a long history of limit play but had never played NL until 7 or 8 mos. ago. I can't imagine a "good" poker player not being able to win at both varieties, but I expect I'll always be a much stronger limit player.

I suspect in your case that variance is playing a role in making you temporarily look like a more successful sng player and less successful limit player than you probably are. You also need to look in more detail at your limit play for weaknesses post flop. It has often been said that just playing the proper starting hands will only make you a break even or modestly profitable limit hold em player, it takes solid post flop play to generate a consistent win rate. You could be over- or under-valuing certain hand types. Keep reading the forum, post some hands, join some hand discussions and see if that doesn't help you figure out what area of your game could get a lot sharper.

[jrz1972]

If you're a beginning player who follows the SSH hand chart, there's one explanation for why you merely break even that stands out above all others: Probably, you're just a break-even player at this point in your poker career. Preflop hand selection can get you to break-even, but you need to develop your postflop skills to do much better.

Keep playing, keep reading, and participate here in the forums. It's only a matter of time before you develop to the point that you can consistently crush these games.

[restless]

[ QUOTE ]
Within my last 15 tournaments I have ended up in the money in 13 of them. I would count that as significant, even with such a low sample size.

Is tournament play at all reflective on ring game play? If not what on earth am I doing that consistently rewards me for my play in tournaments that I am not getting paid off for in my ring games?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't read too much in to those stats based on 15 tournaments. You're off to a good start but IMO it is not a strong indicator of how your ROI% will look after 1000 SnG's.

When I started out I won like 9 of my 10 first HU matches and thought I was some kind of wonderkid. I don't think that anymore, quite the opposite!

As for your other question, I find that an interesting topic too. My opinion is that the tournament situation is quite different from a ring game. I haven't got nearly enough experience to draw some conclusions but the differences in my play when comparing tourneys to ring games, is how I look at borderline situations.
With a short/average stack I stay away from family pots, even though the situation might be slightly chip +EV. Of course, huge +EV situations has to be pursued.
In some sense I rather be a 40/60 dog in a HU pot, than 21% favourite in a 5-handed pot, if you know what I mean.
I don't value bet draws as often. I put more weight on the showdown value of a hand than in a ringgame. Don't know if that makes any sense at all?

Hopefully someone with more limit tournament experience, will chime in here and tell me the truth...