Question of the day - 28th Nov

Sky_Poker

Another question to discuss today...

Sky_Poker

Again, we are talking generally, it might depend on the person and there may be short-term variances but do you think it is more likely than not that they would win at cash in the longer-term too.

chicknMelt

interestingly, recent EPT Barcelona winner Tom Middleton, also an online tourney beast (hitthehole) said he had been unable to make the transition to cash, and has tried a few times.

Lambert180

Just depends how good they are.

A winning MTT player might be a winner when trying out cash, he might not be

A winning cash player will almost certainly be a winner when trying out MTTs imo.

If they're purely an MTT player and then jump into cash, I imagine they'd struggle at first.

rancid

no

they are not the same end game

cash has no end game

MTT has a very defined end game

this is why they do not play the same

FlashFlush

In Response to Re: Question of the day - 28th Nov:

Just depends how good they are. A winning MTT player might be a winner when trying out cash, he might not be A winning cash player will almost certainly be a winner when trying out MTTs imo. If they're purely an MTT player and then jump into cash, I imagine they'd struggle at first.
Posted by Lambert180

I disagree.

There are quite a few long term winning cash players on here who I think are hopeless when it comes to MTTs.

I'm more an MTT player than cash, I struggle when it comes to cash, don't know why, probably because I suck!

That being said though, overall I think if you are a long term winning MTT player, IN GENERAL you will have a good chance at winning in cash. I wouldn't say I'm a losing cash player personally, but it's certainly not a +EV format for me to choose.

rancid

In Response to Re: Question of the day - 28th Nov:

In Response to Re: Question of the day - 28th Nov : I disagree. There are quite a few long term winning cash players on here who I think are hopeless when it comes to MTTs. I'm more an MTT player than cash, I struggle when it comes to cash, don't know why, probably because I suck! That being said though, overall I think if you are a long term winning MTT player, IN GENERAL you will have a good chance at winning in cash. I wouldn't say I'm a losing cash player personally, but it's certainly not a +EV format for me to choose.
Posted by FlashFlush

I have to agree, just because you good at cash doesn't mean your going to be good at MTT's and vice versa.

F_Ivanovic

If you are a big winning cash player you should be able to break-even at least at tournaments (and possibly do v-well in them) If you are a winning tournament player it very much depends on what your strategy in tournaments are. I'd say if you are pretty aggressive though you will stand in decent shape to break even/do better than BE at cash.

BorinLoner

"Cash players" and "Tournament players"... What a load of nonsense.

If you think about the game well, you'll become a good player and will adapt to whatever you're doing.

If you don't think about the game well, you can find shortcuts to makes profit from particular common mistakes.

Really good players adapt. Mediocre players find a few little tricks that work in familiar scenarios. Weak players don't want to learn.

FlashFlush

In Response to Re: Question of the day - 28th Nov:

"Cash players" and "Tournament players"... What a load of nonsense. If you think about the game well, you'll become a good player and will adapt to whatever you're doing. If you don't think about the game well, you can find shortcuts to makes profit from particular common mistakes. Really good players adapt. Mediocre players find a few little tricks that work in familiar scenarios. Weak players don't want to learn.
Posted by BorinLoner

That's like saying if you're good at football you should be good at rugby. If you're rubbish at rugby it means you wern't a good football player to start with.

Just because they are both played in t-shirt and shorts with a ball on a pitch doesn't make it the same game. Just like playing MTT and cash, it's a different game.

OK, that may be an over exageration, but you get my point. Or just because you are good at holdem doesn't mean you will be good at omaha.

Lambert180

To be fair, BL is right. If you think about any every situation as just a poker situation then it shouldn't matter, sometimes you'll be playing effective stacks of 20xBB at cash (if your opponents are short stacking) and sometimes it's 100xBB. Sometimes effective stacks are 20xBB in an MTT, sometimes they're 100xBB.

You'd be a pretty rubbish cash player if you said 'urgh I don't know how to play against people who are only sat with £4 at 20NL so I'm leaving'.

There are 'cash players' and 'MTT players' but that's generally just based on either which one they're better at or which one they enjoy playing more.

The REALLY good players who have a sick understanding of the game will be good at NLHE, and PLO and would be good given time at any variant imo.

Your last sentence I think explains what BL is saying, the players who just find the 'tricks' to beat their one specific game won't be able to just flit from NLHE to PLO and expect to be a winner cos they don't know the 'tricks' to beat PLO (or whatever) yet, whereas the really good players just have a good poker brain that they can use for any format and any situation.

THEROCK573

In Response to Re: Question of the day - 28th Nov:

"Cash players" and "Tournament players"... What a load of nonsense. If you think about the game well, you'll become a good player and will adapt to whatever you're doing. If you don't think about the game well, you can find shortcuts to makes profit from particular common mistakes. Really good players adapt. Mediocre players find a few little tricks that work in familiar scenarios. Weak players don't want to learn.
Posted by BorinLoner

phil helmuth, need i say anymore

THEROCK573

depending on site and stakes even bad mtt players can be a winning player, ive seen horrendous players with 5 figure sharkscopes on here, being bad and being a long term cash winner is not possible though unless you run golden every day.

BorinLoner

I think most people would say Phil Hellmuth doesn't think about the game in a particularly great way. Besides that, he plays a million tournaments. Of course he'd win some of them.

For what it's worth, I don't think Hellmuth is a bad player. He's not a brilliant, ingenious player either. He just takes advantages of common mistakes.

The idea that cash and tournaments are as different as football and rugby is a bit over the top. As Lambert says, the differences just come down to stack size, ICM and fold equity because of that. However, good players ought to adapt their game to when they have lower fold equity or a smaller stack. These things are entirely possible in cash games as well. It's just a matter of understanding how often particular opponents are likely to fold or call, etc...


It really is all just a case of adapting to your situation. ICM is the only true difference in the way it affects calling/shoving ranges. ICM isn't that difficult a concept, though, in spite of its reputation.

THEROCK573

In Response to Re: Question of the day - 28th Nov:

I think most people would say Phil Hellmuth doesn't think about the game in a particularly great way. Besides that, he plays a million tournaments. Of course he'd win some of them. For what it's worth, I don't think Hellmuth is a bad player. He's not a brilliant, ingenious player either. He just takes advantages of common mistakes. The idea that cash and tournaments are as different as football and rugby is a bit over the top. As Lambert says, the differences just come down to stack size, ICM and fold equity because of that. However, good players ought to adapt their game to when they have lower fold equity or a smaller stack. These things are entirely possible in cash games as well. It's just a matter of understanding how often particular opponents are likely to fold or call, etc... It really is all just a case of adapting to your situation. ICM is the only true difference in the way it affects calling/shoving ranges. ICM isn't that difficult a concept, though, in spite of its reputation.
Posted by BorinLoner

obv the football and rugby comment isnt quite true, i see the point hes trying to make though, i would say a better comparison would be rugby league and rugby union, same concept with slightly different rules and not certain to be good at both formats. 

unknown_username

Tournament players normally get one life (unless they are in a rebuy)
Therefore success is all about survival
Cash players can reload therefore their game is all about percentages
Success is about making the right decision more often than the wrong decision and knowing when to leave.

Unless an MTT player has a natural instinct for the game they have less chance of success at cash as their natural game is to survive with minimum risk.
Cash players instinct is to attack to obtain maximum return on their hands.

thats my opinion FWIW

DoubleAAA

In Response to Re: Question of the day - 28th Nov:

Tournament players normally get one life (unless they are in a rebuy) Therefore success is all about survival
Posted by DUNMIDOSH

I have to disagree, tournament is not about survival, it's about accumilating as many chips as possible in order to win the tournament.  Survival is things like DYM's.

I do feel however that it would be easier for a successful cash game player to become a successful mtt player than the other way around.

THEROCK573

In Response to Re: Question of the day - 28th Nov:

In Response to Re: Question of the day - 28th Nov : I have to disagree, tournament is not about survival, it's about accumilating as many chips as possible in order to win the tournament.  Survival is things like DYM's. I do feel however that it would be easier for a successful cash game player to become a successful mtt player than the other way around.
Posted by DoubleAAA

+1 playing for surivaval in mtts is for min cashing pus$ys