Greenstein - Good Article.

[adamstewart]

I like this article.


Adam

[elmitchbo]

that was extremely interesting. barry is a badass. i was just asking in another post who the big 4 are in the big game. apparently it's the big 5... barry, chip, doyle, chau, and phil. i'll say they're all badass.

i must be wrong, but i always thought that tournament play required more skill than cash game play. i realize that barry is talking about a special breed of cash player.... but is it true in general that cash games players are the real studs? it just seems to me that tournament play requires two sets of skils, the poker skill and the tourney management skill. but maybe the tournament structure really negates the poker skill necessary to win.

i feel like i may be falling into the trap... buying what ESPN is selling me with daniel n., howard lederer, and other tourney players.

[dealer_toe]

My first response too, he's badass. But you are falling into the "trap" if for one second you think tournaments take more skill than cash games. Cash games are the marathon and tournaments are the 20 ft dash.

[elmitchbo]

explain. i don't think it's the media that made me think tournaments require more skill. if all you play are tournaments, and you play them all the time, how is that less of a marathon than playing cash games?

my other point... in a cash game you only have to beat 9 players under one set of conditions. in a tournament you have to beat hundreds or even thousands of players. and you have to deal with constantly changing conditions. in a cash game you can just get more chips if you bust... in a tournament you can't just get more chips.

what is it about a cash game that requires more skill?

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
what is it about a cash game that requires more skill?

[/ QUOTE ]


Its not so much to do with the struture, but the players.

Tournament players face far weaker players. People who arent great players.

In big cash games, the bad players are still very good players. They are just slightly worse than the best.


(FWIW, this is 100% from reading, and 0% from any first hand experience)

[elmitchbo]

so that means i'm right. hypothetically....you take any group of players. what's the best way to decide who's the best? play a tournament and see who wins, or play cash games and then see who walks away with the most money? i think the bes tway to decide is to play a tournament.

playing in either situation better players are just plain better players. my point is that the structure of a tournament requires more skill.

[michiganfan9]

callmeishmale does have a good point but in tournaments when you get to the final couple of tables you can't tell me those players aren't good.

[grimel]

In a cash game the blinds stay the same.

In later stages of a tourney, as the blinds rise, the players are forced to pick a spot and push with any two cards and the rest of the table knows this is happening.

[michiganfan9]

I totally agree with elmitchbo. In tourny's you have to beat so many people and are moving tables and what not. Cash games your at the same table against the same people. Easier to learn to play with those guys and pick up on tells and betting patterns.

[michiganfan9]

How are cash games the marathon's when you can cash out anytime you would like. Tournaments are much more mentally strenous than cash games.