Cash game VS SnG

[allyasia]

well, i think it's a disadvantage as well
cost more harm then good.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

jeezuz ban


[/ QUOTE ]
Excuse me? Are you suggesting that I should be banned for giving advice you don't like?

There is an irrational dislike for anything to do with short stacks in these forums. You don't have to think it is beautiful poker to recognize that it can be profitable to play with a short stack, that buying in for 40-50 BB is a good way to learn, and that when you have a deep stack, the effective stack depth is often short so you need to know how to play with a short stack.

[ QUOTE ]

dont listen. You buy in for full stack and learn the game properly.

[/ QUOTE ]
Jumping into the deep end first does not mean you learn the most. You may lose, and not know why you are losing. You may develop many bad habits with a deep stack even if you start out winning, which the OP apparently did not. You may lose your budget for learning NL before you make much progress.

As has been pointed out many times before, buying in relatively short (for 40 BB) can be an excellent way to learn to play NL. Many limit and tournament players will start out as marginal winners when they would start out as losers when buying in for 100 BB. The hand evaluations are more similar to the hand evaluations in limit and tournament play, letting you concentrate on other differences such as reading strength, betting lines, and bet sizing. You get to go to showdown more frequently and less expensively.

NL is not all about stacking players. It's a part of the game, but most hands do not involve someone getting all-in, and most hands don't even get close.

Here are comments by current and past SSNL forum moderators in a past thread.

Isura: "Buying in for 40bb is not really a "bad" strategy. It will cost a good player some EV, but it is fine to play with a smaller stack while you are learning the game. ... A lot of the advice in this thread is way off. People suck at poker not because they buy in short. They just suck."

The Grunch: "As a limit expert who switched to NL, I can say that in retrospect I've realized that this [A limit expert who moves over to NL will probably start out as a winner if he buys in short.] is probably true. I did not start out buying in short, but I probably should have. ... Honestly, I can't see how anyone who thinks about this can argue that buying in short is a valueless learning experience."

[Gonso]

And if we're going to compare cash to tourney poker, it's worth pointing out that (to a lot of players) cash games are waaaay more fun. You have more freedom to move chips around with marginal edges which I think is vastly more engaging than tourney play. Even in endgame tourney settings where things really open up, you're often mindlessly shoving hands because the blinds and your stack size dictate you do so.

I have all the respect in the world for skilled and knowledgable tourney players. Donkament jokes aside, it really is a whole different skill set. But with cash you can stay involved... playing 6-max will keep you constantly engaged in the game. And if the tables get short it can get really good.

[GeeBeeQED]

To play a cash game well you have to play after the flop very well. You cant sit in a cash game and figure AK is always the best after the flop when you hit the K. In a tourny you often properly push this kind of hand hard. In a cash game, I'm salivating to play such a player. In cash your looking for hands that are better than 1 pair to get all your chips in. Even then you have to use restraint, judgment and good hand reading skills. If you play short stack (50bb or less) and are trying to learn cash game play you have no chance, no chance. Don't buy in at all. It's true that a fully opperational Death Star like Pzhon can get in there and play any style effectively. You probably cannot. Short stacked players get no respect and that's exactly what they deserve most of the time. It's a little quiet followed by a big moves and the shorter the stack gets the more epileptic thier play becomes. Short stack forces you to play almost like your in a tournament. Buy in for 100bb or nothing. Cash games require more patience and 2x the skill in my view than tourny play.

I know my advice on 100bb buy in goes against the grain. Let me give you my reasoning. One of the things your trying to improve when you move from tourny to cash is your level of patience. You need better hands in a cash game on average to show a nice profit at the end of the session. When you have lots of chips in front of you, you can afford to let a few more hands go and wait for better spots where you've got a more certain lead. You don't have to push every micro edge (which a beginner can't deturmine very well) to the limits. It's about learning a new skill, to play at a different speed, moving to a game that is more post flop oriented. Take your time, settle in and deturmine that your not moving all in with top pair at every opportunity. Give these players some rope to hang themselves with.

I like Gonso's 6 player table advice if you can't really control yourself and slow down. Playing 6 player table will be more agressive and more tourny like. It might be a good transitional step. But, becoming a great 6 player table master isn't going to do you any good when you sit down in a Casino with your first $300 buy in for a 1-3 game. Those will almost all be 9-10 player games. Use the 6 table game as a transition if you must.

All that being said you should understand that the typical player at this penny level is terrible. Just awful. They play too many hands and call way too much. Your primary strategy at most tables will probably look something like this.

Make a hand.
Bet it for value
Bet it for value
Bet it for value
get sucked out on
fold,fold,fold,fold,fold,fold,call,fold,fold,fold, call
make a hand, bet for value, bet for value, bet for value, rake in a nice pot.
fold, fold, fold, fold.
Lather, rinse repeat.

You know what the biggest mistake these players make, it's calling too much with second rate holding. Let them make that mistake, take bites out of them. Don't be a pig and move in every time you think your best, you give the donks the best part of variance when you do this. Just be content to grind them down made hand by made hand.

Don't try to get fancy, don't try to bluff these donks, they can't read the value of thier own hands very well let alone figure out what your trying to represent with a bluff.

Granted there might be 1 or 2 good players at a table like this but they are probably too timid to move up where they need to be. You might make moves on the 1 or 2 best players at the table but be careful. There is a reason they don't have the bankrolls to play higher. They CALL WAY TOO MUCH. Us that against them. Make a hand..............

Micro stakes is only marginally better than playing free poker. At least some of the players in a micro stakes game will be trying to play well. However I warn all not to become too influenced by these kinds of players. These games are very frustrating and you spend alot of time just to win lunch money. Play as high as you can play and break even if your goal is to learn. You become what you surround yourself with.

Dave

[Win.by.TKo]

The last two posts leads me to more questions, some of which may move away from the OP's intent:

For a transitioning tourney player to NL cash games, is it worthless to start at 2NL?

OP states he plays at 10NL. I have played anywhere between 2NL-10NL. At each level there are at least 3 players multi-tablers at the table with me. Most tend start with the minimum buyin. For somebody still trying to learn the nuances of the NL cash game vs. tourneys, what adjustments should be made?

The last question may deserve it's own thread, but I'll ask it here. If my goal is to improve my live play, primarily for home cash & tournament games. How can I utilize internet poker to improve my skills for live play?

Thanks to all for your replies.

[stephx]

Alot of good information in this thread. I have transitioned over from SNGs to cash games (low stakes) and felt comfortable playing 6max like the tourneys I played. I also started out the 1st 2 weeks buying in half stacked in NL10 so I had twice the number of buyins and did not lose too much when I got stacked by better players or bad calls. After 2 weeks, I was then comfortable with full buyins.

[GeeBeeQED]

[ QUOTE ]
....
The last question may deserve it's own thread, but I'll ask it here. If my goal is to improve my live play, primarily for home cash & tournament games. How can I utilize internet poker to improve my skills for live play?

Thanks to all for your replies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I use online play as my experimenting ground for betting patterns and such. I tend to play certain games to beef up the online bankroll up and others to try to learn something new about player tendancies. My most serious poker is live because that is where my buyins are larger and where my edge is much better. Online you can see so many more hands per hour and test ideas out more thuroughly in a shorter period of time. Also, it's hard to get short handed live time in, there are only so many tourny's you can get into. Online, I can work on my headup game for hours if I like. And yes, I think this practice has made me much better live.

I can't get over how many people want to chop a live tourny. They are so afraid to change up thier play and dance in the minefield. I NEVER CHOP! To me, the idea of a negotiated settlement is like cowardly Neville Chamberlain Appeasement. (yes, he deserves his association with cowardace, all apeasers do) I don't get into a contest to see how many other players I can tie. You look in the sports world, do boxers, football teams, hockey teams or your fav basketball team ever negotiate a tie? NO WAY. Only poker players. Big tough stone faced poker players do it all the time. Bah! Real sportsmen enter a constest to win. What does it do to ones competitve spirit and competive confidence to avoid a win/lose decision? I think it hurts your game on many levels. I know I'm getting off track here. Suffice it to say, you can use online time to work on various aspects of your game and get comfortable in all of them.

Dave

PS, I hope someday to be faced with a chop offer over life changing money to really put my foundation to the test. ;-) To me it just seems silly when a negotitation maybe changes your payout $100 or so to chop. For the most part I think it's chickening out. It's saying "I don't think I can play well here". It's a big neon sign. The players that do this (I know I'm offending 80% of them) probably never will learn to be comfortable 4-3 handed or head up. It's like a giant relief to get in the money and that's as far as they dare go. What kittens.........

[JennPKRpro]

[ QUOTE ]
please be more specific on the limits you play.

Good book for cash games: Professional No limit Hold'em

[/ QUOTE ]

Professional No limit Hold'em is an excellent book. It's helped me immensely.

[Win.by.TKo]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I use online play as my experimenting ground for betting patterns and such. I tend to play certain games to beef up the online bankroll up and others to try to learn something new about player tendancies. My most serious poker is live because that is where my buyins are larger and where my edge is much better. Online you can see so many more hands per hour and test ideas out more thuroughly in a shorter period of time. Also, it's hard to get short handed live time in, there are only so many tourny's you can get into. Online, I can work on my headup game for hours if I like. And yes, I think this practice has made me much better live.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, Dave. That reminds me that I need to work more on short table play. I find difficulty in the adjustments from full tables to shorthanded play.

[ QUOTE ]
Professional No limit Hold'em is an excellent book. It's helped me immensely.

[/ QUOTE ]

This book, specifically the SPR and how to plan a hand, has helped me in both areas. It has allowed me to better maximize my hands, which was a part of my game that was in dire need of improvement.

[GeeBeeQED]

I liked this book also, I've only read it once. It's been less than a month, I'll come back to it soon. I like to hit each of the better ones 3 to 4 times. Usually I read a new one or two then go back and read a previous one. It does take more than once to get the best out of any lesson.

Dave