tourney poker much more skillful than cash poker

[BadVoodooX]

There are numerous factors that are far more complex in NL cash play than tournaments that you haven't even attempted to address.

Foremost is the necessity to vary your game far more in cash games if you have regular opponents. In a tournament if you sit at a table with someone who has seen you play 300 hands in the last 3 months they are the exception, this is not the case in many cash games, 1/3 to 1/2 the table might have seen you play thousands of hands in that same time span. In cash games you have to shift gears constantly depending not only on who your opponent is & your respective stacks but how both of you played this situation against your opponent(s) the last few times they were at the table. If you are repetitive you are going to get hurt far more in cash games than in tournaments. Sitting at a table where 1/2 your opponents are skilled players who have seen you play 5k+ hands in the last few months with deep stacks in a NL game can be a brutally nerve wracking experience as the mental 'I think he thinks I'm thinking I can semi bluff here' mental chess games go into high gear.

Secondly, the post flop decision making in NL cash games can be far more complex because the size of the pot on the flop frequently doesn't justify the mindless all in lunge with a big pair that the blinds and antes justify in a tournament. You have to keep playing after the flop in deep stacked NL games because the implied odds will frequently draw multiple callers; tournament blind/stack ratios don't allow this. In deep stack NL cash games your better opponents are aiming for your whole stack, not the current $ in the pot. And at the higher levels, aggressive players who will make massive stone bluffs are commonplace, it's a necessary play you have to make to be profitable, otherwise your river value bets don't get action.

A tournament player has some additional tangible considerations to worry about with blind escalation, payout, etc, but the mind games, requisite level of opponent observation & post flop decision making are far more complex in deep stack NL cash games than in most tournaments. I'm not saying that one discipline is more complex than the other, just that you aren't demonstrating an understanding of deep stack NL cash play.

[sdplayerb]

There may be a bigger variety of plays, and I think there is, but less skill. There are much bigger decisions to be made in deep stack NL poker.
Most players tournament success in a given event will be greatly effected by a few 50/50 outcomes, which is usually obvious plays by both players.
You really never have such events occur in deep stack poker. I really can only think of once that I have gotten allin preflop at a B&M, and that was due to a really terrible call by the other player..i won't bore you with the specifics.

Since I have played more NL ring lately, tournies almost suck in some ways to play. You only get to play big stack poker early, where the skill is, then a lot of things do become obvious plays. To me the best part of poker (where the real skill comes in) is the tough decisions to be made...and you just get a lot more of these in NL ring games.
I keep playing tournies since I am supercompetitive plus I have fun at the point of a tourney where I get to play like a maniac.

[sdplayerb]

please add this stuff on to my response too.

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
i agree in limit games cash games require more skill than tournaments. However i think in no limit the structure of the tournament forces you to have a couple skills not necessarily required in cash games.
a. being able to play both agressively and conservatively dictated by stack size (i.e. bluffing without any hand at all seems like a more profitable strategy in a tournament than in a cash game)
b. blind and ante stealing is much more important in tournaments.

i think you are required to make a bigger variety of plays in tourney than in cash games but i could be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to be able to play both aggro/conserv in cash game too. What you're missing here is that cash games have important decisions on every street, due to the usually deep stacks. Tourneys are often in the situation where you have 1-2 decisions preflop or on the flop, and thats it. So you're making more decisions, and more difficult decisions in cash games. So i think its the opposite -- more variety of plays in cash games.

[Sephus]

you probably don't really care but ive played somewhere around four thousand games of euchre (online obviously) and i promise you there's a lot more to it than meets the eye. the reason that two expert players will only beat two reasonably good players about 66% of the time is the very high luck factor, not a lack of complexity. it's an intriguing game, you should give it a chance [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Bolivia]

They are two totally different monsters. Both are very complicated and have unique intricacies that need to be mastered to in order to become winning players. In tournamants over-aggressive types are often rewarded, while the same style can be absolutely devastating in cash games. So basically some essential poker attributes may be more important in one form over the other. In the end, I think they are equally difficult to master. But I would say that I find large buy-in tournaments to be much more interesting to play and more exciting to watch.

Then again, what do I know, I'm Bolivian and I suck at both.

[William]

[ QUOTE ]
the variety of skills and differences of decisions makes tourney poker a much more intriguing game. importance of blind stealing being able to play different styles etc. granted short term results may not reflect skill levels but in long run is much much better game

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read what the other posters have answered to your ridiculous assumption, but you must be completely out of your mind.

The only thing we get out of your post is the assurance that you are one of those fishes that can only play tournament poker(or as most, THINK they can) and gets decapitated every time he looks at a ring game.

I am not saying that one cannot be a good tourney poker or that there aren't many skills to master at that form of poker, but even when you are a good tournament player, you are not even close to being a good poker player.

What a joke [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Easy E]

Too much of a greater luck factor to make tournaments better than cash games.

[turnipmonster]

at least for no limit hold 'em, short stacked play (50-100 big blinds) is pretty basic in a cash game. when you have more than 200-300 big blinds play is going to be more complex no matter what the arena.

I don't know that much about tournaments, but it seems like apples and oranges to me.

this is off topic, but to me a more interesting comparison is NL vs. PL.

--turnipmonster

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
I think O8 is profitable since most people are completely clueless on how to play. Many play any four cards, or chase non nut flushes, even for half the pot. There starting hand requirements (A4 they think is a great low) and bad postflop play make it quite profitable.

I don't think LHE can plausibly bring much of a profit til you are playing 10-20, due to the rake. But O8 is beatable at much lower buyins.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying it's not profitable or beatable. I'm saying the edge your good play attains in omaha/8 is much less than many other games.