The Paradox of Poker, by Matthew Hilger

This week you have the translation of an article by Matthew Hilger on the difference between good regular game tournaments and cash games regularly good. What is the difference between each mode? Very few players are successful in both tournaments and cash games. Are usually players who are specialists. Maybe travel around the country for a circuit or play the World Poker Tour WSOP Circuit. Maybe play online Sit & Gos all the time. Maybe they're specialized in micro-stakes NLHE cash. Or maybe specialize in online MTT. In general, most players are specialists. Of course there are exceptions such as Doyle Brunson, Daniel Negreanu and Phil Ivey who manage to win at higher limits in both cash and tournaments. But for every one of them there are dozens of popular professional players in specific formats, such as Phil Hellmuth, Chris "Jesus? Ferguson and Mike Matusow. And of course there are many specialists in high levels of cash you've never heard of. What is this? A hand of Hold'em is played the same, either in tournaments or in cash.

A flush beats a straight. Of course there are certain things that differentiate the cash of the tournament (things like repurchases, limited stacks, stacks relationship-blind, blind rises, the bubble game, just to name a few). Granted this, small differences should not be too hard to notice for the players ready. If you are smart enough to succeed in certain variants of the game, should not be to learn the underlying differences between them? The differences are really something deeper, and it also has much to do with style. Let's look first at the cash. For the purpose of this article, I refer to the full-ring games for cash, to the extent that they are comparable to tournament play until the final table. The biggest mistake most players make when starting is to play too many hands. To the extent that they lose, they start learning to play fewer hands is a better strategy. Eventually most of the players learn that a tight-aggressive strategy carries greater profitability. Flops are generally better hands, giving them a great advantage.

Playing tight, also reduce the variance, which is helpful for the bankroll of the majority. Many players play beginners and intermediates with a limited bankroll, so that less variance is always better, given the same win rate. Look at the tournaments. There is a main aspect of the tournaments that completely changes the way the game is played: the structure of payments. The tournament structure makes virtually all the money go to the top three. Generally only 10% of players are rewarded and most of them only have a modest benefit. To be successful in tournaments should win or at least be near the top for maximum benefits. Imagine a WSOP preliminary event with 1,500 entries and a duration of 25 hours, or an event with 800 players online is more than 8 hours. In the live event you are going to divide 500 hands, and about the same in the online event, only 500 hands for victory, glory and the grand prize! How many would you expect premium hands get in the tournament? You should divide sometimes aces, kings and so sometimes everything.

You can expect to receive AK AQ six times and six others. Of course, it will be difficult to win all those hands. Imagine you're lucky you bend a fair share of the premium hands. Is that enough to beat a field of 1,500 or 800 players? The answer is: probably not. Loose players win tournaments, players expect to be tighter in prizes. You can argue that high variance is preferable but the win rate for labor is less. This is the reason that losing players or break-even cash can do well in tournaments occasionally. Loose players have more pronounced peaks. With "peak? I mean your performance over all hands required to complete a tournament. In a tournament you want to peak too high, even at the cost of having very low peaks. The lows do not really matter too much, to the extent that the only thing you lose is your buy-in. Tournament players are rewarded for high variance and punished by a low. Players who use a strategy are tight on cash versus less ups and downs. This is a profitable strategy, as it peaks can cost much money in cash.

But if you use the same strategy in tournaments, your picks will never be as high as those of a loose player. Herein lies the paradox of poker. You can play well on cash remains tight while a loose strategy is best in a tournament. This is why so many players have difficulty making a transition from cash to tournaments and vice versa. Once you have learned a style of poker have difficulty switching to another. Is there a lesson to learn here? Yes, if you're a cash game with a strategy typically tight you want to start playing tournaments realize you probably need a little more loose again to succeed. Conversely, if you're a tournament player who wants to start the cash peaks beware as they can cost you much more than in a tournament. Source: The Hendon Mob

...