Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
why shouldn't the buyin for tournment be level to the buyin of cash ? why shouldn't the buyin for tournment be level to the buyin of cash ?

10-28-2011 , 08:33 AM
for example i'm rolled for 10nl on one site y is the tourment buying lower then my cash game limet
why shouldn't the buyin for tournment be level to the buyin of cash ? Quote
10-28-2011 , 08:44 AM
Variance
why shouldn't the buyin for tournment be level to the buyin of cash ? Quote
10-28-2011 , 09:32 AM
^ What he said.

When there's less of a skill edge involved, and when big scores come relatively infrequently, you have to have a larger sample size to make up for the fact that you're going to be losing more often.
why shouldn't the buyin for tournment be level to the buyin of cash ? Quote
10-28-2011 , 10:21 AM
For tournaments, there is no limit to how low the buy-in can go--there are freerolls, after all. I used to play on PokerStars (thanks DOJ) and I could play a $1.20 STT, or even a 10¢ 360-player SNG.

Buy-ins like this would make no sense in cash games, where players commonly play 100 or more big blinds deep. For example, the lowest cash game level on PokerStars was 1¢/2¢ blinds. It would make no sense to have a 10¢ buy-in at that level.
why shouldn't the buyin for tournment be level to the buyin of cash ? Quote
10-28-2011 , 10:33 AM
OH TY FOR THE ANWERS SORRY I MEANT y is the br buying for tourmentsi.e 5% or lower of full bankrol for tourments.

is simple word y isn't the buying for tourments the same as one bi at a cash game


but u have giveing my good anwers any wayty
why shouldn't the buyin for tournment be level to the buyin of cash ? Quote
10-28-2011 , 09:25 PM
The reason is variance . You lose a stack in a cash game to a bad player , you stay and win it back , no big deal . You lose the stack deep in a tourney and it is game over , you can't get that one back .

In a cash game , you can outplay one or two people and make money . In a tourney , you must outplay all of them or there is no money .

Variance
why shouldn't the buyin for tournment be level to the buyin of cash ? Quote
10-28-2011 , 09:29 PM
You are more likely to lose a tournament buyin then you are a cash buyin.

Most cash players want at least 20 buyins. For tournaments at least 100.
why shouldn't the buyin for tournment be level to the buyin of cash ? Quote
10-29-2011 , 01:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maso777
You are more likely to lose a tournament buyin then you are a cash buyin.

Most cash players want at least 20 buyins. For tournaments at least 100.
Exactly right. And the bigger the tournament field, the bigger the variance. A lot of players will play STTs with 25-50 buy-ins. There are players who specialize in MTTs of 1,000 players or more who won't play with less than 300 buy-ins.
why shouldn't the buyin for tournment be level to the buyin of cash ? Quote
10-29-2011 , 02:38 AM
When you play a tournament, when you don't cash, you lose your whole buy-in. If you're in the money, you usually double or triple up (or more). There's a big difference between losing 1 buy-in and gaining 2 buy-ins.
In a cash game lasting the same time, you're more likely to win or lose a fraction of a buy-in. If you play 100 hands, and nothing crazy happens, you might average out a win or loss of 5 big blinds. You almost never win or lose multiple buy-ins in a short space of time playing a cash game.
The variance others are talking about refers to the size of the swings in your bankroll. You can play cash and grind out a 5bb/100 winrate, or you can play tourneys where you might lose 20 tourneys in a row before having a big win that makes up for all the buy-ins you lost waiting for your lucky day.
why shouldn't the buyin for tournment be level to the buyin of cash ? Quote

      
m