I and my friend are discussing the differences between cash game and tournament playing. It is obvious that strategies for the two types of games are totally different. I am doing much better in cash game while Eric is doing better in tournament playing, and we are wondering why.

Eric spend a lot of time considering what is the optimum playing strategy in poker; he is a good player, he spends a lot of effects into ideas like pot odds and expectations on different poker plays. He has a set of rules and ideas on how to play each hand, what cards to play and what cards not to play. We think that this attributes to why he has more success in tournament play. In tournament playing, because of the huge number of entry and ever rising blinds, players are eventually forced to play a hand. Very often the decision is all in or nothing. Therefore the choice of hand to play is critical in successful tournament playing.

I spend a lot of time on the human side of poker; my poker theory is based on game theory. Humans react differently according to different situations, some players like to raise and bluff a lot, others play a very tight game and almost never bluff. They will react differently on poker tables, and I try to identify and play according to their different behavior. Sometimes it takes a long time to establish this reading, especially in tournament play when players enter and exit tables very frequently, which is making my job difficult.

We think this is like a science subject pit against a humanity subject; there is no who has a better strategy. Probably the best poker players need to be master of both subjects, but it is important for any poker player to identify and understand where in this spectrum one is.