Cash Game Tips

[ActionMatt]

i am a successful tournament player, but have tried a few nl cash games recently and have found that i do terribly in them... i dont know what it is. Anyone have some good tips on the how i should alter my play when i move from a tournament to a cash game. i play tighter in rings games than in tournaments, but that doesnt seem to be enough to make the switch. suggestions please

[toby]

Stealing the blinds no longer increases your stack by much, so you may need to tone down the aggression without a hand. That's why people can wait around and nut-peddle in low stakes and make money, whereas in a tournament they would blind out if they didn't get great cards.

[theblitz]

A few points:

1. Being the big stack is nowhere near as important as in Tournament play. You can't bully someone with your stack as they can always buy-in again. The only advanatage is a phsycological one - people think that if you have a big stack you must be a good player.

2. There is no point going all-in with a mediocre hand when short on chips. There is no such thing as a "do or die" situation in cash play.

3. Most people (me included) don't like to let their stack dwindle too much. I generally top-up when I get below 80% of the max buy-in. Pity to lose the chance for a big payoff when you get all-in.

4. You MUST be willing to put your stack at risk more often. That is the only way to make money.

[Cased Heel]

[ QUOTE ]
A few points:

1. Being the big stack is nowhere near as important as in Tournament play. You can't bully someone with your stack as they can always buy-in again. The only advanatage is a phsycological one - people think that if you have a big stack you must be a good player.

2. There is no point going all-in with a mediocre hand when short on chips. There is no such thing as a "do or die" situation in cash play.

3. Most people (me included) don't like to let their stack dwindle too much. I generally top-up when I get below 80% of the max buy-in. Pity to lose the chance for a big payoff when you get all-in.

4. You MUST be willing to put your stack at risk more often. That is the only way to make money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with all of this except for 4.

You put your chips at risk far more often in tourney's than cash game.

[bingledork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A few points:

1. Being the big stack is nowhere near as important as in Tournament play. You can't bully someone with your stack as they can always buy-in again. The only advanatage is a phsycological one - people think that if you have a big stack you must be a good player.

2. There is no point going all-in with a mediocre hand when short on chips. There is no such thing as a "do or die" situation in cash play.

3. Most people (me included) don't like to let their stack dwindle too much. I generally top-up when I get below 80% of the max buy-in. Pity to lose the chance for a big payoff when you get all-in.

4. You MUST be willing to put your stack at risk more often. That is the only way to make money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with all of this except for 4.

You put your chips at risk far more often in tourney's than cash game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what he's saying is you should take every +EV opportunity, even if its a stack-committing 55/45 coinflip that you wouldn't take in a tourney. Bankroll permitting...

[theblitz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A few points:

1. Being the big stack is nowhere near as important as in Tournament play. You can't bully someone with your stack as they can always buy-in again. The only advanatage is a phsycological one - people think that if you have a big stack you must be a good player.

2. There is no point going all-in with a mediocre hand when short on chips. There is no such thing as a "do or die" situation in cash play.

3. Most people (me included) don't like to let their stack dwindle too much. I generally top-up when I get below 80% of the max buy-in. Pity to lose the chance for a big payoff when you get all-in.

4. You MUST be willing to put your stack at risk more often. That is the only way to make money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with all of this except for 4.

You put your chips at risk far more often in tourney's than cash game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what he's saying is you should take every +EV opportunity, even if its a stack-committing 55/45 coinflip that you wouldn't take in a tourney. Bankroll permitting...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. that's what I meant.

In a tourney you wouldn't go all-in with the same hands you do in a cash game (except when you are down to desperation status).

[Cased Heel]

I still don't really believe in that. At least at low-limit.

I find myself folding the best hand often when the original pot is small and the bettor moves in or whatever. I don't feel the need to "race" for my money at low-limit. Folding the $2 in the pot seems a better use of your time than racing for a $20 pot.

(I know technically this is wrong, but I hate stomaching bad beats and drawouts to low-limit bums), and I would rather build my roll up slowly than +40bb, -60bb, +25bb, -20BB, etc.

But yes, in tourneys there are situations when it makes sense to fold the best hand. (you are 2nd in chips and the chipleader has pushed you all in and you are on the bubble, and you've been playing for 3 days..). That sort of thing.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
I still don't really believe in that. At least at low-limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I think whether you "believe in that" or not doesnt mean it isnt correct. Sure nut peddling works but you are definitely giving up EV too if thats all you do.

[pokernicus]

I think correctness should be defined by whether a play has positive expecation. If your hand is a %50.0001 favorite to win, and you're facing an all-in bet, then it's correct to call in a cash game. If your opponent sucks-out and beats you, then you can simply re-buy.

This isn't so much a matter of wanting to build your bankroll slowly. If you make negative expecation plays like folding when you're a favorite, your bankroll will decrease rather than increase.

There's also a meta-game question. If people see you fold, you may get bluffed more often, which could cost you more (this is less of a concern in online low-stakes games because opponents might be multi-tabling so may not pay attention to your big laydowns).

There's a lot of variance in these games, and that's something you have to stomach at NLHE. The way to handle this is, in part, to have an adequate size bankroll. There are lots of threads that discuss this issue, but a good rule of thumb is to have about 20 buyins.

[edge]

[ QUOTE ]
If your hand is a %50.0001 favorite to win, and you're facing an all-in bet, then it's correct to call in a cash game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heads is more of a favorite than 50.0001% (over large samples of evidence). I suppose you'd want to flip a coin for large amounts of money?