I understand where you’re going with this, but there’s an important point: in poker, there’s no such idea that “the ideal is only cash games or only tournaments.” It’s more about where I can earn more consistently and where I handle the workload better.
When I play cash games, I think completely differently than in tournaments. In cash games, I’m always in the same conditions: stacks are usually around 100bb, there is no blind pressure, and every hand is just an independent EV decision. My job there is simple — find +EV situations and repeat them over and over. That’s why multi-tabling in cash games is completely normal for me: I can play several tables at once because the decisions are more structured and repetitive.
In tournaments, it’s more complicated. The stack sizes constantly change, there are short stacks, blind pressure, and ICM considerations. Sometimes I can make the correct decision in terms of chips, but it might be incorrect in terms of prize money. Because of that, I can’t just “mechanically grind” tournaments like I do in cash games — I need to adapt much more.
That’s why I don’t see multi-tabling as something strictly “tournament” or “cash game” related — it’s just a tool. In cash games, I use it more often because the structure allows me to maintain volume without losing too much decision quality. In tournaments, I usually reduce the number of tables because what matters more there is not the number of hands, but the accuracy of key decisions.
In short, for me the difference is this: in cash games I build a stable profit system through repeated +EV decisions, while in tournaments I constantly adapt to changing conditions.