I know that grinding is tiring, but I've heard that every professional poker player's dream is to make a profit only in Cashgame. How do tournament cashgame strategies differ? For example, grinding is based on opening several tables and going through the process of several simultaneous tournaments. Is it the same logic for Cashgame?
Is there much difference? I'm starting to grind in tournaments, but I would like to profit from Cashgame too.
Yes, the strategy for “grinding“ is pretty similar to tournaments. You have to put in volume to realise your win rate. The main advantage of grinding cash games over tournaments ,especially when multi tabling as you are in tournaments, is that the variance is significantly lower compared to large field tournaments. This means you need less buy ins, can focus on higher stakes, take shots more often, and not worry about a bad beat ruining your whole tournament run.
puzzlefish
👆 the guy who's opinion you would trust on this!
Loyaler
There is a world of a difference. Also, not all cash games are the same. For example, some have mandatory straddles (2 big blinds on UTG is one form), some have "bomb pots" where every so often a hand comes where everybody has to see the flop for a certain number of big blinds, and there can be different numbers of maximum players at a table amongst other variants. Strategies will vary. You can be more conservative with your hand selection since the blind levels never change. You can (should) refill your stack to play with at least the maximum allowable buy-in. You can choose to play a short-stack as well.
The main difference is, that in tournaments your goal is to outlast other players, unless its a winner takes all format, or you are down to the final two. So there is a tactical element to tournaments, especially when you get near the money, or you are on the final table. In cash games on the other hand, a dollar won or lost is a dollar won or lost. So you are always playing in, what tournament players call chip EV with the caveat, that you need to take rake into account, if its a raked game.
In tournament stacks also tend to be shorter most of the time, which mean, you dont need as strong a hand to stack off, and less hands make it to the turn and river. Of course all tournaments are not the same here. Some might only give you 10-25BB to begin with, while others give you 200BB or more. Some have a structure, where blinds go up very fast, and for others its much more slow.
These days a lot of tournaments also have bounties, which again add another element of strategy, because now you not only trying to outlast other players but also to knock them out. So tournaments are not just tournaments, like cash games are not just cash games. For new players I do think, its best to pick a path and focus on one or two formats. But with more experience it should be possible to beat both cash games and tournaments, at least in the micros and perhaps also low stakes.
In tournament stacks also tend to be shorter most of the time, which mean, you dont need as strong a hand to stack off, and less hands make it to the turn and river. Of course all tournaments are not the same here. Some might only give you 10-25BB to begin with, while others give you 200BB or more. Some have a structure, where blinds go up very fast, and for others its much more slow.
These days a lot of tournaments also have bounties, which again add another element of strategy, because now you not only trying to outlast other players but also to knock them out. So tournaments are not just tournaments, like cash games are not just cash games. For new players I do think, its best to pick a path and focus on one or two formats. But with more experience it should be possible to beat both cash games and tournaments, at least in the micros and perhaps also low stakes.
Yeah, no, the logic of cash games is way more bureaucratic. Tournaments have that whole element of opening multiple tables, playing for hours on end, and the whole emotional process of hitting the bubble, scoring a big double-up, or making the final table. Cash games have none of that.danieldeangelo said:
In a cash game, you show up whenever you want and you leave whenever you want. There's no real "high," it's a cold game, and it can even be boring for those used to tournaments.
In cash games, our first job is to get a read on the regulars—especially since there aren't thousands of cash players like in tournaments—then figure out the best strategies, learn to play deep-stacked, and all that. It's a grind, for sure.
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.
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.