Joined: Jan '10
Location: Argentina
Age: 42 (M)
Posts: 38
I'm quite not sure about which way one should go and at what stakes. I can see that if you are a pro millionaire you may preffer high stakes because they will pay more than a tournament even the most expensives of the world. But let's take that aside...
Let's say I have $160, which give me 40 buy-ins for the micro-stakes cash tables. And I have the alternative to enter a $1 tournament. Let's say also, I am able to play both, I mean, I have the skills.
Now, in a term of a month, what do you think could happend in either way? Luck is similar in both places.
Joined: Mar '08
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 44 (M)
Posts: 6714
Posted by IslandJack: Pretty easy answer:
In Cash, you could lose the whole thing in 1 day.
In Tournaments, you could actually play for a whole month if you stick to 1 tournament a day before you lose it all.
LMFAO, just whats been going on with me tonight, thinking, might switch my game to tourns. Sit my ass down at the cash tables and down $200 hate it. Im qutting poker and all that LOL, rigged, why do donks always hit....awww..Grrr and Pffft Will finish the night with DoNs cause I cant play poker tonight, no more set on set 3 times takes the pisss. Or go the pub....<< yep makes sense. Unplug connections so I cant be arsed plugging in to play when im singing.
Joined: Jan '10
Location: Argentina
Age: 42 (M)
Posts: 38
Good point, could lose all quickly. But that's assuming one is a terrible player, so yes one would lose the entire bankroll anyway but later with tourneys. Here I'm talking that you are a good player in the stakes of the cash game or buy-ins of tournament. Trying to figure out which one pays better. For example I take a part of Harrington's vol I on tourneys and says competent players estimate tourney entries an investment of 3 or 4 times the buy-in. So, in 3 hours play, should yield 300%. (on avergage over the long run). How about cash games if you are competent in the stakes you are playing?
Maing it more easy: I pay a $5 buy-in of a freezout tourney of 1,000 players. = 5,000 usd in prizes, with the common payout structure. (around 10% paid field). Is it possible that, after playing, reading, playing, losing, winning some, suddenly I get a bit of luck and I end up in first positions, would this boost my bankroll in a way cash games wouldn't in the period of time that took to get that result? Say a month.
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Australia
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 6483
Posted by B1gfoot:
Posted by IslandJack: Pretty easy answer:
In Cash, you could lose the whole thing in 1 day.
In Tournaments, you could actually play for a whole month if you stick to 1 tournament a day before you lose it all.
LMFAO, just whats been going on with me tonight, thinking, might switch my game to tourns. Sit my ass down at the cash tables and down $200 hate it. Im qutting poker and all that LOL, rigged, why do donks always hit....awww..Grrr and Pffft Will finish the night with DoNs cause I cant play poker tonight, no more set on set 3 times takes the pisss. Or go the pub....<< yep makes sense. Unplug connections so I cant be arsed plugging in to play when im singing.
LOL yes at this point the pub is a terrific option..
Personally I probably prefer a good MTT.. But definitely a more consitent "hourly" can be made at cash.. And generally speaking - more money in general - also - you'll work off bonus's faster..
However - certainly get better value for your money in a tourney.. I keep telling myself I'm gonna play more tournies, cause I'm the sort to get drunk and drop my roll at nl400 or something similar far to often..I nice drunken MTT would be a LOT less costly..
Also - if I have $160 - then I'm playing $5 MTT's not $1 and if cash - then nl10 at lowest.. (below this the game is a joke, it's bad enough at nl10). There's absolutely no need to maintain strict BRM at these micro stakes - 8 to 10 buyins is fine up till around nl100 - seriously - the variance isn't that high when your opponents are this bad.. Trust me if you're going bust on a 10 buyin rule at these stakes then bankroll management isn't your problem.
Joined: Sep '10
Location: United States
Age: 52 (M)
Posts: 62
Totaly agree with the playing $5 MTT instead of the $1 MTT, especially if you got $160 to play with, and have solid play. With 35 $5 buy ins used in 30 day.....That could bring in many decent size cashes to build that $160.
Joined: Oct '09
Location: Lithuania
Age: 43 (M)
Posts: 2805
in cash game u can double or loose it in 1-3 days so in tuornament u must play much longer time if i ll play i ll just play cash games and try 2-36 tuornaments with buy in higher then 10 $ becouse if u play 1-5 buy ins u not playing u just see the donks and strange all ins who eat your chips very fast good luck u and we hope soon u write your decision and also howit works good luck all
Joined: Mar '10
Location: Romania
Age: 38 (M)
Posts: 33
At the 5$ tourneys there's a good chance you'll go broke soon. If you have the skills cash games are the best option. But how shokaku said, if you dont really are a fan of cash games sngs are the best bet.
Joined: Nov '09
Location: Philippines
Age: 51 (M)
Posts: 1011
Posted by MartinR: I'm quite not sure about which way one should go and at what stakes. I can see that if you are a pro millionaire you may preffer high stakes because they will pay more than a tournament even the most expensives of the world. But let's take that aside...
Let's say I have $160, which give me 40 buy-ins for the micro-stakes cash tables. And I have the alternative to enter a $1 tournament. Let's say also, I am able to play both, I mean, I have the skills.
Now, in a term of a month, what do you think could happend in either way? Luck is similar in both places.
if you are as good as what you think are; you'll gonna be just fine, to whatever you decide... its a matter of will...
Joined: Jan '10
Location: Argentina
Age: 42 (M)
Posts: 38
Thank you all for opinions. Liked jessthehuman post, he is right, those who of us who have played and studied (or just played) poker for a while don't need the standard 40 buy-ins in low stakes. I still doubt but I will play both cash NL5 and $2 - $3 MTT.
Joined: Feb '08
Location: Ukraine
Age: 34 (M)
Posts: 108
It`s true that players in micros are bad, but they still have luck, they can do stupid move and hit it, so at least you`ll need 20 buy-ins. And for mtt you have to have more buy-ins because variance is higher. Why don`t you combine cash or sng with mtt? I think it`s better to play mtt from time to time and use cash or sng as steady source of income.
You (poster #1) said you have the skills to play both cash and Mtts but I'm pretty sure there is only one you feel more comfortable at. So it has to be the one you feel very ease to play your poker game...
I'm also pretty good in cash games, I made great profits there but I get nervous most of the time while playing there... and that's why I prefer to stick to Mtts only... Sitngos and ring games only when I'm VERY bored.
