what drives players towards tournaments?

stoneskn

I started getting into poker with 5 card draw, but that didn't last long. years later I picked up Hold'em, but I find cash games more relaxing and more profitable, with fewer swings (which drive me nuts!) What's the lure towards tournament play? Why are people chasing these? I'm looking for personal answers. What drives YOU towards tournaments, or towards cash games?

ssteeg

Personally, I suck at cash games - I find tournements, mostly SNG's to provide some profit. I do believe that I am not that good of a cash table player, as I either play too tight, or play too loose. As well, I also find that winning a tourny or even placing high in a tourny is worth all of that struggle as it leaves you feeling satisfied.

WaterLooser

I think that hands down the lure of the tournament is the high payout for the low investment. But you have to be good (or really lucky) to get to the big $$.

zero

I play cash games when I don't want to commit to a big tourney, and I must say I just don't find that they are that exciting. I love doubling up in a tourney, or playing in the late stages when it really counts. In comparison, I just find that cash games are kinda boring. Also, the chance of a big payout is slightly attractive.

pkrfce9

For most of the 'kids' on this forum, the answer is "their mommies". Think about it.

For me, I think it is the fixed investment with the lure of a big gain. To a certain extent, the maniacs have to behave themselves as they can't buy more chips. (If they don't, it works itself out pretty quick. Nothing better than busting a maniac.) Also, the nature of the game changes as the tournament progresses so an experienced player should have a definite advantage. I don't have much time for the really big tourneys but I can usually get in 1 or 2 SNGs in a session. I find these much more challenging than sitting in a cash game for a couple of hours. As an added advantage, there is a clear point where it is over. With cash games, you can play forever.

rgspence

zero wrote:

I play cash games when I don't want to commit to a big tourney, and I must say I just don't find that they are that exciting. I love doubling up in a tourney, or playing in the late stages  when it really counts. In comparison, I just find that cash games are kinda boring. Also, the chance of a big payout is slightly attractive.

I agree, i play cash games (casino) when I want a relaxed state of play. I am trying to learn to become a "profitable" poker player, so at the cash game I can put more effort into the players and the plays.

As for tourney play, I love the fact that the majority of people are tense, which allows me to play the "Happy loudmouth" that wants to talk about everything (which helps pull some players off their game).

And for those of you who have played at Bolton Poker Tourney's to see my signature move...."I call your ALL-IN" jump up out of my seat, throw my cards to the table face up (which are usually crap), and say, "Crap, hey Terry, how long did it take this time?" In which he usually replies "About 28 min, dummy"

I think tourney play for me is more about the social aspect of meeting other poker players and having fun, I enjoy both.

The cash game for me is more becoming a serious hobby, that gives me something to study and concentrate on other than life stuff that can get you down and out. 

DJP

What drives players towards tournaments?

Cars, buses......  



OK, my real answer is it limits the risk to the entry
fee only. Or as a way to win a higher priced sat entry.

Quasi

I like playing in a game where people can't just pull out their wallet and buy more chips. I definatley prefer tournaments to cash games wether we're talking live play or online. I like the fact that everybody starts off with the exact same amount of chips at the sametime, the competition is great.

Ercules

Small Buy-In. Big Payoff. Simple as that.

rgspence

Ercules wrote:

Small Buy-In. Big Payoff. Simple as that.

That is true. Absolutely. I am just going to ramble out loud here, and say what I am thinking after reading this thread.

If you were to do the math.......

Say you play 10 tournaments at $100 buyin (lets just say it a freeze out) each tourney has approx. 45 (players to be safe for an average).
That is $1000 you wager against 450 people to win approx. (if 1st place pays 35%) $15,750 (if you win all ten).

Lets say you are an average player with a solid game, and you win 2 events out of the ten. You have just won $3,150. Not a bad pay off. But most tourney's take about let's say 4.5 hours x 10 that would equal about lets say you average about 3 hours in a tourney because you are a half descent player, you have won 2 events (9 hrs) plus 8 other events (x 3hrs) that is 33 hours. which makes you about $95 p/hr. Not bad. But what are the chances you will finish first place two out of ten tourneys?

So you are an average player with a solid game. I am just less than average player with a semi-semi-semi-solid game (maybe even less as I am still fresh meat). Four weeks in a row I have been able to triple or quadruple my money within 3.5 hours (then I get stupid and undisciplined and almost bust out, but that is another story for another day). Say you just triple, no not even, lets just say you double your money (that same $1000) in 3.5 hours at a 10/20 or a 20/40 table, because you are a solid player with discipline, and you walk away at that point. You have just made approx. $570 p/hr.

So, I do understand, you see a tourney flyer and think "Wow, for $100 I can win $3000." Because I do it too. I love tourney's.

But how many times do you need to spend that $100 to win the $3000 and how often.

It's kind of like learning pot odds and stuff like that, you just have to do the math. If you were to calculate the amount of time and money you have spent at tourney's, I think that you will find, like me, you are losing. Alot. Regardless of the couple of money finishes.

I do believe that you must keep track, I have started and it has taught me alot. I play tourney's, would like to finish in the money, but if I don't, Hey, I just met maybe 30 new players that could wind up being goods friends to socialize with upon occasions. I play the cash game to TRY to turn a profit. I must learn to walk away when I am up.

Just tinking out loud. What do you think??

AcidJoe

I prefer tourney's because

1. I find them far more exciting
2. I tend to do well (or best out very early as I can be very aggressive)
3. Find the players better
4. Know that I won't be sitting there 24 hours later still playing

But as Rob said you must keep track. I have started keeping track as of June 13 of all my on line play and I'm ahead in cash games (which I've been exclusively playing) even with 3 $50+ all ins which went down. Keeping track of everything actually opens your eyes to be large leaks in your game. For me playing from the blinds and being over aggressive with marginal holdings has hurt my bottom line.

beanie42

I would say "lack". Lack of a bankroll (even for lower limits) means its easier to afford tournaments (small fixed cost) when you don't have the money to adequately play a cash game. Lack of experience - it's doubtful you'll find a cash game (at least with the people I know) where everyone is new, so when you're starting out, you're at a big disadvantage (it costs more to learn to play cash than tourneys). Lack of exposure since everything promoted (all the TV shows, etc.) are tournaments. It would be really interesting (and might give it a boost) if they would televise a high-stakes cash game! Lack of "excitement" since you're not forced into any dumb confrontations with bad cards due to rising blinds and short stacks (you get to choose to be dumb ). Lack of finality - you can simply play forever when playing cash (you'll never bust into a side-game ).