[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
If a given player is a winning cash game player, lets say 2+ BI's per 1k hands on avg, does that automatically mean they should have a high winrate in tournaments (MTT's/SnGs included). If not, why?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. They are related, of course, but the stack depths are usually much lower in tournaments, other players are more afraid of losing everything, and prizes for second and lower places reward survival. Some ring game players also don't know how to play shorthanded, which is important in almost all tournaments. A cash game player needs to adapt to the tournament situation, and some players aren't flexible enough.

[ QUOTE ]
I often see many discussions about this person and that person being a tournament monster, but getting crushed in cash games and vice versa. Is there a reason for this? Comments from you guys would be greatly appreciated.

[/ QUOTE ]
While there are some differences between NL cash games and tournaments, this may not be behind most of those statements. Historically, when people said that, there were few NL ring games. People were talking about players who played well in NL tournaments, and poorly in limit ring games.

In limit, the bets are smaller, the hand evaluations are different, and you can't make up for playing badly on hand after hand with one good play. Many tournament players would get bored and try to outplay people with weak hands, but it's very hard to make up for poor preflop hand selection, and it's hard to steal a pot when people are usually getting great odds to call down.

More recently, there have been plenty of NL cash games, so some of the statements are about high profile tournament personalities losing in NL cash games. It could be that they don't know how to deal with the deeper stacks and decreased folding equity, but it could also be that one reputation or the other is wrong.