Is there more luck involved in tournies or cash games?

[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.