I have noticed that I play a very solid tourney game. In fact, I usually win (in the money) at about 55-60% of the 10$ SNGs - though I realize these are not the greatest competition, I also enjoy some success at higher levels.

I have also had some success in cash games, but it has been very limited, and at times has put a severe strain on my bankroll to the point where I had to revert to tournament play in order to rebuild (possibly playing out of my bankroll.

What are some possible drains that are magnified in cash games?

Do you play shortstacked in cash games (25 into a 100NL game) or put a full buy in out?

Do you cash out at a certain profit level or keep your whole stack on the table?

What are some things I can do to improve my cash game play.

All advice appreciated - Thanks.

If you want to get better:

Build up a serious roll and pay for some lessons. General tips: Play more hands, pay keen attention to position, and look for a big score. Don't look to "accumulate chips." NL cash games are about the huge pots, and picking up the little pots nobody wants so that you will be ready for the big score. Limit cash games are about relentlessness and sticking to high-value hands in +EV situations.

Most importantly, post some hands here and get feedback. I don't know how you're winning SnG or blowing you roll. There are lots of ways to be wrong.

If you want to make money:

Play shortstacked, ultra tight, ultra aggressive. Never let betting get past the flop. Either be all-in or out by then. Prepare to be hated. Prepare to love variance.

NEVER put everything on the table.

Since you are a tourney player, and you are inherentally(sp.?) more likely to rolling the dice I would suggest buying in at smaller amounts than normal. Your decisions will be easier than if you buy in for the max. Thus you can get more practice while getting the hang of NLHE cash games.

Here is a difference: Lets say you are in a tournament and down to the final three players. UTG moves in and you have more chips than him and you have QQ. This is an easy decision, you won't consider folding this and it is an instacall.

Same hand in a 100 NL Cash game. You make it 8 more preflop. Then a late position player raises you 25 more. It is all read dependent from here on out, if you feel like you have the best hand then act accordingly. If not you are as the previous poster said under no obligation to 'build up your chips' so you fold and wait for a better spot.

The hand is more likely to play itself out in a NLHE tournament than a cash game(At least in preflop play) . You have stated that you have good succes in a tournament environment, so for that reason it makes all the more sense to play as a shortstack until you feel adequately prepared. However as Ace Deucy said, this is going to be high variance so be prepared for some days when it doesn't go your way.



Lower pairs are good gambles for decent sized raises because if you hit a set you will win a big pot. In tournament play the lower pairs aren't as valuable in many instances.

Depending on how sufficiently deep stacked everyone is, its almost never wrong to take a shot with any pair hoping to hit a set. If a guy raises with no money in front of him, its usually not even worth a call with 33. If he has $1000 and raises the $5 blind to $40, its an insta-call.

Mark

Exactly, implied odds are a huge factor in making good decisions.

That makes a lot of sense... same implied odds theory applies for suited connectors / Ax suited then, right?

Thanks for the input

Implied odds and post-flop play become much more important in most cash games. If you're going for a full buy-in, play more like you would in the early to middle stages of a tournament.

Table selection is also another important factor that you're probably not used to. Most good TAG players prefer a big percentage of people to the flop and big average pots. Lots of hands per hour is a further plus. Also, you should develop reads on players a bit better since you somewhat control how long you'll be around them and in what position. In a tournament, your seating is luck of the draw.

No disrespect intended.

I always get worried when I see someone has a solid tourney game, but is bad at cash games. Since (as I'm sure you're aware) absolutely anything can happen in a tournament, and 80% of the money goes to the top 3 places in MTT's, the required sample size for being able to come anywhere near "accurately assessing your tournament expectation" is a mindbogglingly large amount of tournaments.

Brett Jungblut plays as many as 35 MTT's in a day, and he's dropped from 4th to 9th on pocket fives in the last few months... and if you want to get good at tournaments, that's the competition you're up against.

Therefore, the easiest way to improve at poker AND hold yourself accountable to results is to play cash games. The "holding yourself accountable" part comes from an initial investment of $80, for pokertracker and pokerace HUD. It is 100% necessary if you want to play online poker well... ever. They even give free trials for your first 1000 hands or 30 days, whichever ends first.



All the possible drains that are magnified in cash games are the mistakes that you make without knowing you make them. Mistakes come from ignorance, therefore you must seek to learn everything. Mathematical knowledge is pretty easy because it's empirical... but reads and tells are not easy to explain because they tend to express themselves through the part of the brain that you DON'T want making financial decisions.

It is eternally fascinating to me which people get good by which method.

It is also inevitable that if you play poker for any extended period of time, you'll eventually come to a table where everybody *thinks* they play tightly and aggressively.



This question implies that you don't know you need at least 15 max buyins, or 1500 big blinds, to consider yourself properly bankrolled for NL.

Ed Miller's Shortstack Strategy has been discussed ad nauseam on this forum. I believe it works, and it can work... but it somewhat impedes the development of cash game play PRECISELY because it's how you'd play NL on a short bankroll.

I think it's important to the development of post-flop skills (and more fun) to buy in with 100 big blinds, and don't reload unless the table is exceptionally good.



Stop-win limits and stop-loss limits don't matter if the time span is infinite. Quit when your abilities are deteriorating, or if you cease to be having fun.



The easiest question of all:

Play thousands upon thousands of cash game hands.

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with almost everbody as I often do, regarding the question of short stack play. My theory in a neolithic nutshell: Short stack is ok. Ultra super short stack is bad. How bad? Real bad. You should avoid playing with 10-15 BB's or less like its the plague. Dan Harrington categorizes a level of 5BB's or less as the "dead zone. Who volunteers to be in the dead zone? Apparently alot of players do it willingly, but I've never heard a top pro recomend it. (In "Ace on the River" Barry Greenstein said he plays shortstacked but I'm positive he didn't mean dead zoned.)

I would suggest buying in for half the maximum at a NL game. That way you can feel out the flow, without overextending your bankroll, improve your implied odds, reduce variance etc., but you also have room for some intermediate play. Whoever said that cash games are about the real big pots had a good point. If you chop alot of pots then you'll aquire some free rolling chips, however stealing the blinds and survival aren't nearly as important as figuring out a way to play a big pot with the best hand.

As far as cashing out with a certain profit level, I would stick with the old adage of "when you're winning, keep playing until you feel fatigued and then quit." Once you become a dominant presence in a cash game, you can use your image to bully certain players, while inducing others to make reckless plays agianst you. Plus, oftentimes your focus will naturally increase, so you'll be capable of making more accurate reads as the game winds on.

Even further still, if you are dominanting a table then other strong players who are winning will often play the ABC's of poker agianst you. If you raise their blind, they will fold if they have a marginal hand and make a huge reraise when they are holding a premium hand. This way you don't have to risk your stack agianst other players who have double or tripled up, because they're actions are telling you exactly what they have every time! If they have the best hand, they reveal their strength early and blatantly, giving you a chance to get your neck out of the noose cheaply. If there is a question in their mind as to who has the best hand then they just fold.

It's almost like a treaty between yourself, the superpower, and your foe, the less developed country. Economically speaking, you get the better half of the deal because you can bet and raise and essentially tax them for allowing you trespassing rights on their land. Every so often when you push too far they'll slap you back with minor consequences. New players see you bullying the blinds and prepare to make a play agianst you. Essentially they are misreading your image, because you're not tilting recklessly, you're taxing a less developed country you've imperialized. (By the way I don't agree with imperialization in global politics, just in poker)

These types of "treaties" are always either unspoken or unethical, so you should look for the unspoken variety when you're playing really well. It doesn't always happen, but I think you'll be surpised how often this type of respect can build over the course of a long session.

Finally, a little Eastern philosophy might help your cash game play. You've got exponentially more to lose in a cash game than a tournament so the pain of losing is greater. However, a Buddist might say: Zen is great. Winning is also great and hence winning is zen. However, losing is winning's teacher, therefore losing is also zen. There is no duality in either winning or losing unless you give up. When you give up, there is duality, because now you will lose when you were meant to win and win less when you were meant to win more. In poker as in life, giving up means not playing your best. Don't let a bad beat eat away at your soul. Try to learn from it, then move on and keep your mind in the moment.

I respectfully disagree. You could one table, and pay attention to the table. You know, play poker. You can track in an spreadsheet.

I have poker office and I never use it. I'm not saying its not a great program, I really do think its a nice program.

what ever happened to having to use your brain to outwit your opponent? Thats the reason I play poker. I enjoy myself when I play, and I focus on my opponents, and their tendencies. I have folded KK before, and I KNOW i was correct. I know everybody is gonna be like 'you hate money' or w/e but when somebody is playing smash style, and ONLY raising all-in with KK and AA, you tend to lay down KK when that same situation occurs.

Poker is about making the right decisions, and knowing if somebody is passive or aggressive, loose or tight, certainly helps, but you can do that by just paying attention to the table, and will make you a better poker player in the long run. If all you care about is money, then go ahead and use all the programs in the world, 8 table if you can handle it, and never learn an ounce of poker.

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned.

Oh, yeah the rest of the posts were right. I believe Implied odds are the single most important thing in cash NLHE. I truly believe you can be a passive player for the most part that understands implied odds to the fullest, and you will do better than an aggressive player who doesn't really grasp the concept.

Oh, and don't bet out more when you have AA/KK/QQ/JJ/TT. Don't over play them. Don't be afraid of losing with them. It's ok to fold em post flop.
AdAh on a JsTs9s flop should probably be folded to any resistance on the flop, due to reverse-implied odds.

Make sure people can't figure out what you have pre-flop by the way you bet, thats VERY important. That's how I make 90% of my money.

Good luck man, I'm sure you'll figure it out.

You cut out both sides of variance.

Make sure you are properly bankrolled at the limit so you don't feel like you are overextending your BR if you are playing with a full buy-in.

Improve your implied-odds even more by buying in full.

Don't over value TPTK, and you'll go far.

Honestly, Eastwood has some decent points, and I like the rest of his post. And maybe for somebody struggling at cash games it might be good advice. If you are bankrolled for $.50-1, play some $.10/.20 short handed so you can see more flops, and not have to worry about losing as much.

Honestly, Eastwood has some decent points, and I like the rest of his post. And maybe for somebody struggling at cash games it might be good advice. If you are bankrolled for $.50-1, play some $.10/.20 short handed so you can see more flops, and not have to worry about losing as much.[/quote]

Thanks Spence. Actually the short stack justifications I listed were the worst part of the post. I don't like playing on an ultra super short stack but some do so I guess, in a way, I was just trying to rationalize their mistake. Oh yeah and by the way if you like that one then you should read ESP gone awry and tell me what you think.

If for no other reason than tracking your own play, pokertracker pays for itself.

You COULD make spreadsheets to track play, hours played, net win/loss, et cetera. Or, if you're good at C++, you could write a program to do it for you. It'd take you forever to do that.

Or you could just plunk down 55 dollars on pokertracker. All the best online cash game players have it. They gotta be doing something right.

And you're right, you should use your brain when you play poker. Imagine how much better you can play when you use all your brainpower in conjunction with effort-free perfect reads.

I'll say that this...I've got PT, and I've found it somewhat useful for tracking purposes. I am sympathetic to Spence's desire to not treat it like a crutch though. I don't actually use it while playing at the moment. All the info was overwhelming me and degrading my reading effort somewhat. Also, it doesn't work with Bodog. That said, I do really like being able to quickly go back and analyze my play on other sites.