I wrote this quite a few months ago to improve my cash game after a terrible run over almost 25K hands at various stakes and game types. I know it's long as hell and I didn't intend to make it public so sorry if it's a bit dry. A lot of this stuff isn't applicable anymore... I almost never tilt these days even if I lose a dozen buyins and I certainly don't jump into cash games if it happens. I just enjoy life and take a break instead.I'd be both impressed if anyone gets through it and also very grateful for feedback._____________________________________________________________________________________________________ The problemDespite starting in cash and being successful while it was my main game (up to 25NL 6-max, before PTR), since switching to HUSNGs, my forays into cash have been brief and painful. Thousands of dollars have gone down the drain and while I ran badly, my play was far from stellar. I'd like to change that.Why does it matter?Since cash is not my favorite or most profitable game, why play it at all? Focusing on HUSNGs will certainly be more profitable in the short term, but all poker variants are interrelated and improving at one frequently leads to subtle improvements in others. For instance, PLO taught more NLHE players that it's OK to make bets that are neither bluffs nor value bets or that leading out with hands just barely too weak to call can be a good play. Since cEV = $EV in HUSNGs, the main difference in NLHE HU cash lies in the number of BBs and it shouldn't be as big of a jump as learning PLO.  Besides the learning benefits, there's also the matter of action. Sometimes it's hard to get a game and being competent in more poker formats lessens this issue, thus increasing hourly. Plus, cash games have more potential for game selection because one can leave at any time. This of course leads to the bumhunter phenomena and is in the end quite bad for the games. However, it's hard to ignore the allure of a giant fish sitting 5/10 or 10/20 HU with a full stack that you can almost touch. Although it's true that this would be a rare occurrence and the higher stakes offered by cash games are accessible to only a select few (with generaly sparse action).   There's another fundamental motivation: ego. Nobody can be good at all things but cash is not such a stretch for me and it's frustrating that it has been such a costly failure in the last year. Some of the time, I played it purely for fun/experimentation and in ways I knew were incorrect or at least nonstandard but even when I tried to play well, the pieces of the puzzle didn't come together.    I'm clearly not alone. Most MTT and SNG specialists seem to have a tough time at cash games. Skates (psimalive) is an interesting exception for reasons I'll mention later. I've looked up dozens of Sunday Million winners and poker icons in all manner of tournament formats. It's extremely rare to find them winning in cash games too. Likewise, I've played a number of cash game specialists in HUSNGs and noted poor play in many spots; as well as unimpressive results. Most poker players are fairly one-dimensional and cannot achieve the versatility of players like Phil Ivey. Is it a matter of time or simply that grinding a certain format warps one's perception of others?What were the reasons for failure?It's hard to pinpoint a specific reason, but it boils down to a lack of seriousness, unreasonable stakes, tilt and poor familiarity with the games.    When 6-max cash was my main game, I used to watch training videos and recorded all my hands with Holdem Manager. I even datamined during the night to refine my reads and game selection. However, after switching to HUSNGs, my cash game tries were lackluster and marked by impatience. I no longer used tracking software and had no reads on anybody. I jumped into tables in a nearly random fashion, with the only criteria being a lack of shortstacks. Having skipped all the stakes after 25NL 6-max, going blind in NL100-1000 games is not a recipe for success and it's likely that I missed some of the cash game skills needed for success at these higher levels.   Worst of all, cash game adventures tended to be motivated by late night tilt after a long and unsuccessful day in HUSNGs. Instead of accepting a $950 loss for the day as my rational mind suggested, I wanted to quickly win it all back. Action is slower in HUSNGs than cash (cash consists of more than HU) and the maximum HUSNG stakes on Bodog are $110+5 turbos. As such, cash was my only option. However, even cash game action is terrible at the wee hours of the night, like 3-4 AM.    Unphased by this, I played regs. Perhaps the worst decision was to play top HU cash players very deep at NL400 in the absurdly high rake environment on Bodog. This isn't merely due to the rake being high, but due to what it means for action. The regs that didn't feel like they had an edge quickly sat out and those that determined their edge was sufficient continued playing. In the end, a -$750 day often turned into a -$1500 day and added frustration soon made it a -$2000 day until I finally had the sense to stop.    While I'm certain that if there was action in HUSNGs (especially at higher stakes), I would not have been lured by cash games, I was not in the physical or mental state to continue playing any form of poker. I'd have likely been breakeven-losing in HUSNGs too while in this mode of soft-tilt. As poker theory and skill progresses, the mental aspects of the game will become the distinguishing factor between winning and merely breakeven players. That's why I've since put a great deal of effort into this.How can the situation be reversed?First of all, I need to review cash game videos and books to make sure I'm not lacking in my understanding. The same goes for my play. Tracking software is a must for modern cash games. Poker's a long-term game and it's one of the few disciplines where you can do everything right and lose or vice versa (in the short-term). Thus, it's important to be able to have confidence in my skills and ability to beat the game. There's no better way to get confidence than by improving.    Secondly, I need to take things slow just as I did for every poker format where I've had success. Just because my roll is big enough to play higher stakes in cash doesn't mean it's a wise decision. I may be +EV at 50NL but -EV at 200NL. Like I grinded my way from the $5 level in HUSNGs, I can't take any shortcuts in cash. The goal is to advance through the stakes as soon as possible but also to be prepared for the games I play.   It's not even simply a matter of being able to beat the game. It's about being mentally tough and confident. When playing higher stakes cash games, I know I didn't earn my place that high up the poker ladder and this makes it harder to play well because it leads to self-doubt. Where there's psychological discomfort, tilt surfaces more readily since it's often an expression of insecurity and fear. That's why, I could lose 5+ games straight in HUSNGs without feeling much in the way of tilt but 2-3 buyins at similar or even smaller stakes in cash games often led to tilt.   Cash games are inherently more tilting due to the higher variance and ego involvement. The high amount of BBs gives an illusion of control that implicates ego more directly. No one would be faulted for stacking off with AQ in an HUSNG vs an aggressive player, but even when the dynamic makes the same decision correct 115BB deep HU, there's a greater feeling of ownage when they flip over AA. After 3betting AQ, there was theoretically the possibility to fold to a 4b. No matter how remote and illogical this option may be, it leads to the feeling of having made a mistake. And since even 400BB may go into a single hand, reversals of fortune are more brutal than in HUSNGs - where it's always limited to one buy-in. With my naturally aggressive style, miscalibrations due to tilt are especially costly. This means that the max stakes I can logically play are the stakes I was just moving to before switching to HUSNGs, 100NL 6-max (but I will make the same qualification for HU). Moreover, I must be especially cautious 200BB+ deep. It's where I had most of my cash game losses.   I also need to game select. Confidence is important but unbridled ego is not a positive attribute. Poker has rake and if two players are of the same skill, they'll both lose money. The cliche often goes that if you're the second best player in the world playing the best, you'll eventually go busto. It seems obvious but I know I've ignored this too often. I suppose this is something to take from bumhunters. :DThe first stepSuccess rarely comes in giant leaps. It's best for me to adapt to new games gradually. Deepstacked HUSNGs are a good bridge between HU cash and HUSNGs so beating these games is the first priority in broadening my horizons.What cash games should I be focusing on?I should try and leverage the skills I've developed from playing HUSNGs. As such, my main focus should be HU cash (with 6-max mainly for very juicy games). The games are similar enough that improvements will transfer in both directions. It's not practical to focus on 6-max or FR when HUSNGs are my main game. While many skills overlap, there are certain nuances that I won't pick-up on because I cannot keep up with the constant stream of 6-max training videos and books while simultaneously doing the same for HU cash and HUSNGs. Poker rewards players who find a niche and exploit it to the maximum by constantly elevating stakes, not jacks of all trades who are mediocre in a dozen different formats. Skates (psimalive) is a good example of this. He had excellent results in 6-max cash games by buying-in for <75BBs. SNG players know how to handle short and medium stacks much better than cash game regs. He competed in the niche that best suited his skills and suited his opponents the least. This is another strategy I'll consider (especially for sites that have shallow and CAP games) but I expect HU cash to be more lucrative for my skillset. The argument against this is that 6-max is an easier game to beat but this changes quickly with good game selection in HU cash. Besides, HU is the most complex and interesting poker format. It has the largest potential for an edge. 6-max and FR have been studied to death and edges have been dwindling at a faster rate than for HU (my impression). This is due to both a combination of game selection and the higher theoretical, as well as psychological complexity of HU play. One can auto-pilot cash games with a neatly defined set of starting hands and rules. It won't be optimal but it can be enough to beat some lower-stakes games. HU is far more adaptive and exploitative. It can't be broken down so nicely and lazy play is punished far more severely by good opponents. It's why I'm more confident in the future of HU and the value in becoming good at it.   Of course, poker doesn't end with NLHE. PLO is an increasingly popular game and many claim that it's currently softer. Moreover, some claim that it is more complex and thus, edges are likely to decrease at a slower rate even if they aren't higher right now. This is debatable. In addition, any new game will initially seem more complex as it hasn't been examined with the same rigor and there is less material on it. The combination of softer games, high complexity, less material and increasing popularity makes it promising. It's a good candidate for developing a niche but perhaps already too popular for that. The downside is extremely high variance (higher roll requirements for similar stakes), less opportunity for game selection due to a smaller playerbase and far fewer hands per hour.    While I'm interested in properly learning PLO, I still have so much to learn about NLHE that it isn't my highest priority. Moreover, I don't think it will become as popular as some hope since it's harder for someone to just jump in and play. I can imagine many even forgetting their cards when playing live. Another reason is that fish will be busted at an astronomical rate because mistakes that are relatively small in NLHE are huge in PLO. For instance, always stacking off with AA on any texture is not good in NLHE but AA will still be profitable overall. Doing the same in PLO is suicide. Many lessons from NLHE actually hurt PLO play and the cost is often higher, like getting it in with bottom two pair vs a set with redraws.When to move upMove up gradually, both in terms of the process and the competition faced. For instance, before moving up consistently to 200NL HU, beat 100NL HU for at least 20 buyins.    After I'm comfortable, I should take shots at 200NL HU vs the weakest competition and only on days when I'm up at least $200 at 100NL HU. If I lose more than two buy-ins, it's time to drop down because losing increases the probablity that I'm playing a reasonably good opponent. I'm also likely to play worse when losing and my opponent will likely play better and with more confidence when winning.   Moreover, try to play a lower variance style. Decrease the frequency of 3-bet bluffing and play slightly tighter at first. The latter is not only to lower variance but also because some hands that are profitable vs weak opponents may be unprofitable vs better opponents. With time, expand your game because aggression and trickiness is more important as the stakes increase since people pay more attention to unbalanced ranges and are less likely to make illogical calls.Is it worth it?Cash game winrates seem to have decreased faster than is true for HUSNGs or MTTs. The winrates for top players over large samples (500K+) hands in both NLHE and PLO tend to be capped at about 5-6bb/100. Given that a large part of these hands were played when the games were softer, this is already a bit inflated in today's environment. So, is it really worth the time investment to become a cash game monster for such a modest winrate? Outside of playing high stakes, it's certainly not too lucrative without excellent game selection. The main benefit would be another way to get action. This is also a good reason to learn how to play MTTs and 6-man SNGs.    In the end, I likely have enough room to improve in HUSNGs directly and as such, expanding my horizons and grinding cash games too should come only if I've plateaued. Until then, my cash game play should be limited to the juiciest games and when I'm in a good mental state. Since game selection is most effective in HU and it's also closest to my experience, this is a natural way to expand (but 6-max games with 2+ huge fish are also worth playing). If practicing such strict game selection for cash games, it's also reasonable to play as high as 1/2 since variance would be greatly reduced and my skills don't need to be at a level to beat those games on a regular basis. I simply won't play tables with just decent players. This will also allow me to improve gradually while still getting a better understanding of how the games play.Am I spreading myself too thin?Action at higher stakes is slow and it's a big reason to play multiple sites. However, the approach I'm suggesting involves simply adding more varied games when they're juicy. This means I'd have to be competent in a wide array of games but not necessarily good enough to beat them when facing tough competition. The problem with this approach is that it diversifies my skillset and can potentially stunt my improvement in HUSNGs if I lose focus. It's always important to maintain one bread and butter game in which I excel and I don't want to lose that. If Bodog had 200s or 300s with decent action, getting there would trump diversification since being able to beat NL100 etc. would offer far less additional income than simply elevating stakes. I'd have to beat NL200+ to make it worth my time and the difficulty in each additional level probably rises exponentially. It's like in school. Getting a C is easy but a B (NL100) is a lot more work and getting an A (NL200+) is far harder still than going from a C to a B. As long as my main game isn't at very high stakes, diversification is an attractive option.