"Tourney Donks"

I've heard a lot about tourney donks, how cash players are generally better, and how players think "yum yum" when WSOP winners come to their cash table, and I was wondering what the main reasons are. I shall start a list of reasons why tourney players are fish when they come to cash games from what I've worked out. Add to the list, and disagree with any points that are made.

- The stacks are normally shallower in tournaments, making for less postflop play, therefore the cash game pro will have a better understanding of how to control the pot size when the stacks are 250BB deep.
- Losing your chips means you're out of the tournament, so putting a player to a decision for his chips adds more pressure in a tournament than it does in a cash game.
- Due to the fact that the stacks are shallower in tournaments, there are less implied odds or tricky plays, therefore the hand range is smaller in a tournament than it is in a cash game.

Continue...

I am a donk at cash games, even more so because I play turbos which get shallower stacked even faster than normals, leaving even less scope for postflop play. I suck at cash games when I play them (although I am trying to improve).

I think the points you made are the main ones, particularly that about shallower stacks.

That said, I don't think it's fair to say that "cash players are generally better". It's a different set of skills to play cash vs tourneys. There are plenty of cash game players who suck at tourneys when they come to play them.

because they got used to mindless shortstack play

Originally Posted by Renton

because they got used to mindless shortstack play

Made me a better cash player by thinking opposite. Patience is a virtue in any game. I really am not so keen on that whole push this push that.. I think I have done better picking spots in tournys.

i consider myself decent than the average field at my level but i can say hand on heart i suck at cash.

SNGs rarely need to focus after the flop.

Turn and river play is very important in cash.

totally different set of skills

Also, I think some of this has to do with what sorts of players you match-up well against. Destroying bad to mediocre players for maxium value to build a chip stack can make up for not matching up as well against stronger players.

Some people say that if you play well in cash games, you are usually good tournament player too while vice versa, tournament players suck at cash games. I find cash games more profitable and easier for me now than tournies. I don't know - just like I have more talent for cash games. I feel it is easier to be aggressive in cash than in tourny. However, I feel that multi table tournies are more similar to ring games than SNG's and that is why I do a little better at them. So much about me.

I used to love to play in online tournaments, but I just can't take them anymore. Way too many from the "No Fold'em Hold'em" and "Any Two Will Do" school of thought. You don't see that at most cash games because its a good way to lose a lot of money really quickly.

I don't think playing well in cash means you are good at tournies. In fact most cash players I meet suck at tournies. They treat their tourny stack like it's deep (when it almost never is) and that is a huge mistake.

As for tourny players are fish. Well how do you describe a fish? A tight/aggressive sng player will do ok in cash playing solid values and will do much better when he properly understands implied odds.

I think playing sngs gives you good preflop skills and teaches you how to be patient and aggressive. Sure you'll have some to learn when you transfer to ring, but its a good start.

Originally Posted by gingerwizard

I don't think playing well in cash means you are good at tournies. In fact most cash players I meet suck at tournies. They treat their tourny stack like it's deep (when it almost never is) and that is a huge mistake.

I disagree there. I don't think it's an overall cash thing to treat your stack like it's a deep one in a tourney, I think it's more a case of stupid players who do that.

I play low NL tables and I feel that aggression pays off more in cash games than in SNG's and that is why I do better in cash games for now. Maybe at higher stakes that is different.

Originally Posted by Dave Davis

I play low NL tables and I feel that aggression pays off more in cash games than in SNG's and that is why I do better in cash games for now. Maybe at higher stakes that is different.

I would agree with this. I have found aggression pays off more and is more effective in cash games as opposed to tournaments.

Originally Posted by Senator7

Originally Posted by Dave Davis

I play low NL tables and I feel that aggression pays off more in cash games than in SNG's and that is why I do better in cash games for now. Maybe at higher stakes that is different.

I would agree with this. I have found aggression pays off more and is more effective in cash games as opposed to tournaments.

This is actually quite interesting. I find myself not caring so much for going broke (I mean losing all I have on one table) in cash games than in tournaments because I can always rebuy. I am not careless either. Other people seems different. It is just interesting.

Well, I'm one of the tourney donks. I seem to consistently make a little money in tournies, but a stink in cash games. Stink, stink, stink.

I've had to drop limits a lot in cash games, and it's geting to the point where I'm thinking of sticking with .10/.25 or .5/.10 even though I play $10 buy-in SNG's, $20 MTT, etc. with success. The one thing that I like about cash games is that the more I play them, they really help me in tournies sniff out bluffs, make bluffs, and play better after the flop. So I've decided to drop limits and just use cash games as "teaching sessions" to help me post flop in tournies. But I'd love to get good at cash games, because I don't always have an hr or four to play a SNG or MTT

The problem with people good at tournies is that in cash games, its all about bet size and odds are totally different. There are many cases in tourneis where it makes sense to fold the best hand pre-flop, while in cash games you always play these hands.

Cash games also have a bigger roller coaster. If I lose half or three fourths my stack in a tourney, I don't really mind because I haven't lost my buy-in and I've seen myself come back from being short stacked to win tourneys many times. But when you lose a hand in cash games, the money is simply gone.

Then there's the problem that in tournies, people are willing to go all-in with top pair after the flop if that pot is big enough. You really have to re-calibrate when moving back to cash.

I guess my problem with cash games is that there is more pressure on each hand, and you can lose much more money in an hour. In tournies I have a high fold %, which allows me to casually fold a lot. I start the tourney with seeing the flop at 40% because of heavy implied odds when the blinds are tiny, then by the final table I've been down to as far as 11%. But folding and being a rock doesn't help much in cash games, as other players figure out you out at simply raise you pre-flop on on the flop, and fold to any sign of strength from you. You have to play completely differently.

I just totally screw up betting size -- not extracting enough value from things like straights, flushes, sets (either overbetting causing a fold, or underbetting and feeling sheepish about the pot I raked, when the other guy had say AQ with 2p). In tournies it's cheap to see a lot of hands, as for my $20 buy in or $10 buy in for a 180 player MTT, I can play for 2-3 hours on average, seeing at least 120 hands usually, if not 200+if I go deep.

Anyone have a good book or guide to read for cash games? I feel very natural with tourney play, but lost with cash games. I seem to win a LOT of small-mid sized pots, with a very high showdown percentage, but then I lose the two big pots of the day and end up down.

At tournaments I always wanna win. Anything less, I am disapointed. In cash games, just winning some money is fun and it doesn't hurt so more if I lose.[/code]

Originally Posted by mixchange

Cash games also have a bigger roller coaster. If I lose half or three fourths my stack in a tourney, I don't really mind because I haven't lost my buy-in and I've seen myself come back from being short stacked to win tourneys many times. But when you lose a hand in cash games, the money is simply gone.

Then there's the problem that in tournies, people are willing to go all-in with top pair after the flop if that pot is big enough. You really have to re-calibrate when moving back to cash.

I guess my problem with cash games is that there is more pressure on each hand, and you can lose much more money in an hour. In tournies I have a high fold %, which allows me to casually fold a lot. I start the tourney with seeing the flop at 40% because of heavy implied odds when the blinds are tiny, then by the final table I've been down to as far as 11%. But folding and being a rock doesn't help much in cash games, as other players figure out you out at simply raise you pre-flop on on the flop, and fold to any sign of strength from you. You have to play completely differently.

Anyone have a good book or guide to read for cash games? I feel very natural with tourney play, but lost with cash games. I seem to win a LOT of small-mid sized pots, with a very high showdown percentage, but then I lose the two big pots of the day and end up down.

This, I think, hits the nail on the head. In cash games, many people are scared money because you can lose much more than just your tourney buy in. There's a huge psychological difference between the two.

As far as books go for cash games:

1. Little Green Book by Gordon (mainly tourney stuff, but some cash game wisdom as well)
2. No Limit Hold'em: Theory and Practice by Sklansky
3. Harrington On Hold'em Vol. 1 (The first volume of this tournament series is easily applicable to cash games.)
4. No Limit Texas Hold'em: A Complete Course by Largay

Dan Harrington is currently working on a NL cash game book due out in Fall 2007. Should be a great read...

Hope this helps.

Well, good to hear that I at least might know why I suck

I've heard the Sklansky book reccomended so many times maybe I should just read it... but isn't that a tourney book?

I don't read tourney books. They are usually written by pro's and each 'tourney niche' is different. I've found mine which works great for me at Poker Stars in 27-180 player games, but the tourney books usually deal with different situations. Reading tourney advice always throws me off my tourney game, so I've sworn them off.

Cash stuff, I need to read. Mainly I need to work on pot odds, and when to consider implied odds. That's my biggest problem. I think I overvalue implied odds all the time, especially on flush's.

-----
An earlier posted said in that in tournies he always wants to win. That's always a good goal, but its unrealistic. Be ecstatic with a top 3-top5 finish in MTT tournies, almost as if you got first. There's a lot of luck involved in getting that far, and often the best player doesn't win. I'm not advocating not playing for 1st (you should!) but be happy with those high place cashes.

but isn't that a tourney book?

no

Let me see if I can think of an analogy. Say you're good at tennis - does this mean you're also good at lacrosse? Sure, your vision will be good, you'll understand the importance of fundmanetals like fitness and discipline, you'll be comfortable with the tools, but there are several different skillsets that you'll have to pick up that are related - running, throwing, aiming etc - but function in very different ways.

Thanks! I didn't realize it wasnt a tourney book, musta looked up the wrong book by Sklansky.

Based on advice here, I'm getting the above Sklansky book, Phil gordon's green book, and then I'll pick up the Harringtons after those....

I just heard a lot of times that it is easier for good cash game players to adapt to tournies that vice versa.

Originally Posted by biondino

Let me see if I can think of an analogy. Say you're good at tennis - does this mean you're also good at lacrosse? Sure, your vision will be good, you'll understand the importance of fundmanetals like fitness and discipline, you'll be comfortable with the tools, but there are several different skillsets that you'll have to pick up that are related - running, throwing, aiming etc - but function in very different ways.

I think this is a great analogy. Both tourney and cash game players have the fundamental skills of understanding hand strength, position, reading players, calculating pot odds vs hand odds, etc. but there are a lot of other skills that come with experience and learning.