Posted:
#1
I almost always play sit 'n gos due to the fact that my schedule usually doesn't allow me to spend large banks of time at one session. Today I had time so I played two larger tournies (by my standards), not big buy-ins. I played an Omaha PL tourny with 111 players (small number I known) and I played a Hold'em NL with 737 players. I was happy with my result in both, since this is not my usually game. I finished 5th in the Omaha Tourny and 17th in the Hold'em. Two things that really stuck out to me about these tourny's were:
1) Unless you finish in the top three, the payouts aren't that great for the time spent (5th out of 111 got me about 7x my buy-in and 17th out of 737 got me about 5x my buy-in)
2) I was amazed at how many people spend hours in these tourny's (the Hold'em tourny in particular) and then once it started getting down to the nitty gritty they were going all-in with garbage. I am not just talking short stacks either.
Anyways just curious about everyones opinion on those two points and what are most people type of play of choice (cash, sit 'n gos or larger tourny). BTW I used to play primary cash games but found the bad beats are lot more crippling.
0
. 
, i prefer cash games, then tournys, then sngs. Cash games i think excerpt more skill because one wrong move doesnt mean the end of your day because there are rebuys. Also, if you get bad cards in a tourny, i dont mean just not getting aces or kings, then you are pretty screwed because of the raising blinds, but this is not the case in a cash game, and also if you are just running that poorly, you can cash out. More specific to me is the fact that i dont posses the "reckless aggression" that i think is necesary for tournament play in the deeper levels. I am definitly a flop player and pushing all in preflop and seeing who wins is gambling, not poker. If you wanna flip a coin with someone then go ref for football or something. 
/
Hot Forum Topics
