Tournaments Versus Cash Games

Should you play both, or specialize?

Should you play both tournaments and cash games, or specialize? Which format offers a greater chance of monetary success? Does each format require a specific style of play? This column will address these and similar issues.

First, let's define "tournament play." I am referring to playing in a decent-size multitable event, not a sit-and-go, where you are trying to win a small amount of money in a one-table event, or a $20 or $40 buy-in event that is more recreational than anything else. We are talking about playing for high enough stakes that you can earn a living - or are trying to.

We are all individuals. Before I address these issues for you, I will discuss how I have handled these issues myself during my career as a professional poker player.

Playing only tournament poker requires a lot of money, because you experience dry streaks no matter how well you play. Cash games are the way you put food on your table, and tournaments are taking a shot at something big on occasion. I and many other professional players like to play both, using cash games for our basic income and tournament events for a shot at the Ponderosa. Even though I have played in nine World Series of Poker $10,000 buy-in events (in most of them, selling a piece of my action), the vast majority of my tournament experience comes from playing in events with a buy-in ranging from $200 to $1,500. Even though I have done quite well in them, it comes at the price of putting in hours that I could be spending in cash games (which are generally much better when there is a big tournament going on), so I pick my spots.

I think it is essential for anyone who aspires to be a good tournament player to be a good cash-game player, at least good at the techniques of cash-game play. True, I have known a number of players who were fine at tournament play, but much less successful in cash games. Every one of these people fit into the same mold; they all had a discipline problem. In cash games, they played too many hands and enjoyed the action too much. In fact, a number of them had a discipline problem at gambling in general. Perhaps the best example of this is the late Stu Ungar, who is reputed to have blown a million dollars playing golf in the first few weeks after he won the World Series of Poker in 1980. The bookies were really unhappy when that happened.

Many people like to point out that in tournament play, you have to be more aggressive, because the blinds are much higher in proportion to your stack. This is true a good bit of the time, but certainly no rule. When you are a tournament poker player, if you are making a sufficient amount of money, such that you do not need to drive a 10-year-old auto and rent a cheap room somewhere, you will be playing in tournaments in which the blinds-to-stack ratio is more like a money game when the event starts. Don't forget that the big tournaments often begin with a structure of a starting stack of 200 times the big blind.

The main reason I am writing about this subject is that I have people come to me saying they want to learn tournament no-limit hold'em, but they are not interested in cash-game play. I have to explain to these people that it is essential to learn how to play a big stack even if they want to specialize in tournament poker. In my opinion, cash-game play is actually a subset of tournament play, except perhaps for dealing with extreme steaming.

Are there differences between playing a big stack in a cash game and playing a big stack in a tournament? Yes, but mainly in psychology, not in playing technique. So let's talk about the psychology of each situation.

A cash game enables you to keep going into your pocket to get more ammunition. A tournament player who loses one or more big pots is going to get just as hot under the collar as a cash-game player who loses one or more big pots. The difference is that the tournament player is sulking on the rail and the cash-game player is making a strenuous effort to get even. Viva la difference! The major part of a poker player's income comes from people who get stuck and steam off big bundles of money. Most pros prefer a poker environment in which steaming is both allowed and punished.

The psychology of tournament play varies greatly with the type of event. If there is a small buy-in and no title at stake worth mentioning, the play is quite spirited, and you cannot bully people around just because they will be out if they lose one big hand. That is why the better tournament players relish the big events, such as WSOP and WPT tournaments. Your opponents are under tremendous psychological pressure in those environments. Look at what happens when a local player gets lucky and wins a satellite tournament to play in the World Series. All of his friends are going to ask him how he did, and the last thing he wants to say is, "I busted out early." Many of these people would give almost anything in order to go back home and start naming big-name players they outlasted or beat in a pot. They play as if the prize money is insignificant but they have a huge last-longer bet against someone. Such a local player can be easily run over by bullies who aim to do exactly the opposite of what he aims to do. As the saying goes, "To live, you have to be willing to die."

There are certain situations that arise in tournament play that have no counterpart in cash-game play. A good example is the endgame strategy employed when everyone is in the money, and not going broke is rewarded with a larger payoff. This often means not taking undue risks when one or more players are on short money and will soon have to take a stand with all of their chips. Here, there are two different considerations that pull one in opposite directions. It seems prudent to stay out of the fray until the short stack either wins a pot or goes broke. On the other hand, it is reasonable to exert pressure on opponents when the situation makes them eager to stay out of your way and simply concede the small pots. I favor this second course of action when I have a decent stack size, but when short-stacked myself (but not the shortest stack), I have to be more conservative and try to just stay alive.