Tournaments have beginnings and ends, where as cash has arbitrary sessions depending on way too many factors.

Every point I would make has been said already, so I'll carve this part out:

You're effectively saying, "I'm surprised that tournaments are so popular when you consider how large a staff and how much effort is needed to run, track and report on them." This reminds me of a paraphrase of the famous Yogi Berra line, that no one was going to a restaurant anymore because it was too crowded.

You need a large staffs to put a lot of effort into running, tracking and reporting on tournaments because they're so popular.

my thought is that while tournament results are generally tracked and/or taxed, cash game results are not...the majority of players who play cash games DO NOT want their finances/cash game results divulged and/or taxed....also, tournaments are much harder to beat...with the probability of having to outlast many players being much lower than the probability of having to win money off of 9 other players...also, the raising of the blind/ante creates situations that generally arise much less often in cash games, creating less exciting TV

The same way winning the lottery is celebrated. A random can take a few bucks a win a few million whereas cash game you have to grind to make good money. It's easy marketing.

do casual players really think cash games are more boring than tournaments?

For me I'd rather do pretty much anything besides sit and fold for 8 hours, get blinded down, be forced to gii w/ 88, and lose to A9 four places before the money.

With the pay structures so massively top loaded you have to beat 95% of the field or more to make any money. The casual guy can sit down in a cash game, make a hand or two, triple his buy in and meet his wife at the buffet in less than an hour. It just seems to me cash would be more appealing for the every day.

I'm not debating any of the points made here, I realize why tournaments are marketed and popular, I get it, fame and massive payouts. I just think tournaments are so painfully boring compared to cash it's hard to imagine people feeling the opposite.

What's more important - the World Cup final result, or the qualifiers and group stages?

Because outlasting thousands of people is more impressive to a lot of people than having an edge against five other players.
And it's very hard to set up a cash game format without any ICM situations that can show us who the best player is. Especially when there are so many formats, and because you'd have to play a ton of hands.

No chance Helmuth beats 200NL on Stars.

There is nothing glamorous about live cash. Every time I walk by a Vegas poker room I think, that lifestyle really is crap. It's so depressing. Sitting there for 40 hours a week. I could see the excitement of really trying to run it up like Another Kid, Another Dream. There is some romance about it. However, grinding the same cash game, day in and day out..no thank you. The biggest difference is the instant gratification. I also think the tournament news has become way too saturated. The tournaments that truly are glorified need to be bigger to not fall into the, just another tournament category. Backing has also taken away from tourney glory too though. Someone outside of poker says I can't believe that guy won 15 million! Meanwhile, we are like he probably won 3 million. This year's WSOP schedule brings an exciting new variable though. That Draft Kings tournament...If poker saw sponsorship similar to golf, which won't happen, but maybe we gain a little bit of glory and mainstream exposure.

So much FAIL in your first sentence, alone.

There is much more skill in tournaments.

In cash games, when you go busto, you just RELOAD..what skill is that?

The luck factor of each hand is the same in both cash games and tournaments. KK vs. AA don't care if it is in a cash game or a tournament.

Not to mention most cash game players tend to be angle shooting scumbags..you definitely don't see that as much in tournaments..

lol that's gotta be troll/ level or something right? lol to funny if you arent joking

If anyone ever wondered why donkament "pros" are always welcome in cash games they have their answer.

You seriously think there's more skill in tournaments...? Are you being serious or are you trolling? This has to be a level.

Why do you think that the entire poker community laughed at Daniel Negreanu, who is one of the best tournament players, when he said he could beat $5000NL?

Really?

OP

There's no difference between your idea of running a 3 day cash game as opposed to a tournament. In both cases whoever runs the best will win.

Yes there will be less variance in the cash game but the sample size will still be statistically insignificant

It would be a reasonably funny level, but I don't think it is.

a) he named himself after a player who had an incredible record in tournaments (albeit with a massive sample-size caveat) but was not necessarily stellar at cash games (according to the Danny Robison interview on the P-Cast a few years ago).

b) in a previous thread, he alludes that an 0-for-5 streak is an indicator that another poster was not good at tournaments.

Stu, I'll grant you that there are certain strategies that are unique to tournaments. So yeah, in a few specific aspects, you can make the argument that there is more skill in tournaments. But around 2+2, I don't think you'll get much agreement with your claim that tourney players are — as a whole — more skilled than cash-game players.

Pretty much.

Maybe someone who follows Cricket can clarify. Didn't Cricket used to run like 5+ day matches...but didn't gain crazy popularity 'til they did the 1-day matches?

Twenty20 cricket is cricket for people with adhd. Which seems to be the majority these days.

I think most of the really good cash games players would prefer to remain unknown. $>glory.

You can't really track cash game earnings.

Took 42 posts but NVG got there in the end. Nice work 'thatguywiththenuts'

pretty much

Is it fair to compare the skill level of a tournament pro vs a cash pro? I really don't know, but thinking maybe not. I have no idea who would be considered the best NLHE tournament player today, but safe to assume he is not considered a top cash player. However, I would assume Polk, Cates or whoever would be considered the best NLHE cash player would not even be close to being one of the greatest tournament players currently. Skill level seems too different to compare. Apparently most feel cash players are far more skillful, so maybe a stupid question/thought.

Good cash game players depend on other weaker players to maximize their profits.

Phil Hellmuth can brag about how many bracelets he's won and he's still always going to get action because he gets paid out by the structure of the tournament. People will still enter a big tournament, because even if the best player is 5 times better than everyone else, he's still going to be an underdog to win.

Great cash game players however really can't spend a lot of time broadcasting how good they are to everyone, because they will almost always eventually end up winning all of the money from weaker players if the game goes long enough.

If you asked the 10 best cash players on earth if they'd like to become as famous as the top 10 tournament pros, I'm guessing that most of them would decline.

Three big reasons all posted right in a row at the very beginning of the thread.

today we celebrate,tomorrow forget champ's name completely.

I am amazed that you could concentrate long enough to write that sentence. Still it seems like your adhd got in the way since you didn't quote me correctly.