Heads Up SNGs hourly earning better than full?

[slickpoppa]

So a couple of nights ago I played a friend of mine in some heads up SNGs on Stars for the hell of it and beat him pretty badly. He is a semi-decent player, but was not a good heads up player. I feel like I had a very large edge over him. Anyway, this got me to thinking about the profitability of heads up SNGs as compared to full SNGs. It seems like it is possible to have a much larger edge in heads up matches and they also tend to finish a lot more quickly. Has anyone ever experimented with this? I imagine that the edge you could get at the 20-50 level could be pretty significant becuase many low level players are very bad heads up players.

[theredpill5]

I DONT WANT YOUR LIFE

[lorinda]

Try four tabling and get back to us.

Lori

[Allinlife]

[ QUOTE ]
Try four tabling and get back to us.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]
owned

[Travis]

[ QUOTE ]
I DONT WANT YOUR LIFE

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Try four tabling and get back to us.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]
owned

[/ QUOTE ]

Productive response jackass. I aksed a fairly simple and legitimate a question. If you think your cock is too big to post a real response then get the fvck out of here.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Try four tabling and get back to us.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]
owned

[/ QUOTE ]

Productive response jackass. I aksed a fairly simple and legitimate a question. If you think your cock is too big to post a real response then get the fvck out of here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I DON'T WANT YOUR LIFE!

Sorry, it's all I can think now looking at your avatar (like theredpills apparently).

FWIW, I think Lori is possibly serious. Or I don't get the joke. I'm not sure too many people know. Although, not too long ago Giga seemed to be on the path to try his hand at uber high buyin Stars HU tournies I believe (or maybe some other site, I forget).

Yugoslav

[slickpoppa]

i never really had an intention to multitable HU. i just figured it would be something to fvck around with get some HU practice. i'm mainly interested in it from a theoretical rather than moneymaking standpoint.

[lorinda]

You'll be surprised how small your edge is.

You won't win 70% of games, and you might not win 60%.

Lori

[Allinlife]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Try four tabling and get back to us.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]
owned

[/ QUOTE ]

Productive response jackass. I aksed a fairly simple and legitimate a question. If you think your cock is too big to post a real response then get the fvck out of here.

[/ QUOTE ]
chillex and think about why Lorinda's post is being quoted. Heads up is supposed to be nealry pure reads vs grinding it out, so you would have hard time multitabling HU matches leading to lower EV in comparison to multitabling normal SNG's.

[AA suited]

can't use the same SnG strat heads up?

stay tight early. push/fold when blinds are big?

[meow_meow]

[ QUOTE ]
can't use the same SnG strat heads up?

stay tight early. push/fold when blinds are big?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no, no, no and no.

If you play properly at the 20 and 50 level, the blinds should rarely get past the second level.
Unremitting aggression all the way (and knowing when you are beat) is the way to go.

[Bluff Daddy]

never played a HU sng, how long do they usually last?

[Peter Chabot]

[ QUOTE ]
I imagine that the edge you could get at the 20-50 level could be pretty significant becuase many low level players are very bad heads up players.

[/ QUOTE ]

the problem is that the above statement isn't really true. unless they play way too tight, there's not much they could do wrong that would allow you to win more than 60% of the time. if you win 60% of them, you'd have an ROI a little under 15% or so.

[dankhank]

heads up games on stars can be very profitable for the good player. but like people said you can't really multitable them easily, because you really have to study your opponent. someone could play $200-$1000 hu games as their main source of poker income and make a nice living, but it would be a different thing than mindlessly clicking limit ring games for a few hours. they would just have to play their A game a few times a day - say you play 12 200+100 matches and win 7 (58%, easily doable): that is 1k profit a day, playing for about four hours (1-2 at a time, avg 20 minutes per match).

but instead of barely thinking about almost every hand (as in most poker games) you have to be actually thinking about almost every hand. which is a hassle. it's pretty rare that i have the energy to play these instead of ring, sng, or mtt's.

they are however worth playing and getting experience at because a) there's a nice edge for the better player and b) it's good experience to play lots of hands headsup since headsup play is key in all types of holdem games. you also learn a lot about trapping opponents.

pokerstars has the best structure/selection at all levels of hu games.

[networkman]

[ QUOTE ]
say you play 12 200+100 matches and win 7 (58%, easily doable): that is 1k profit a day, playing for about four hours (1-2 at a time, avg 20 minutes per match).


[/ QUOTE ]
Huh?

I assume the buyin is 200+10...
Buyins - 12 x 210 = 2520
winnings - 7 x 400 = 2800
profit (b1tch /images/graemlins/tongue.gif) = 280

[Komodo]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar till:</font><hr />
Try four tabling and get back to us.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont get this argument.
Heads up is mostly playing and reading your opponent.Pretty far from ABC poker
Multitabling in heads-up is suicide
/Komodo

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
You'll be surprised how small your edge is.

You won't win 70% of games, and you might not win 60%.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]


A good player may win 55%, a GREAT player wins 60%. Course, at lower levels, 60 may not be real tuff.

Either way, 10 man SNG's may be the most profitable poker in existence with such small swings comparative to other poker games.

[meow_meow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I imagine that the edge you could get at the 20-50 level could be pretty significant becuase many low level players are very bad heads up players.

[/ QUOTE ]

the problem is that the above statement isn't really true. unless they play way too tight, there's not much they could do wrong that would allow you to win more than 60% of the time. if you win 60% of them, you'd have an ROI a little under 15% or so.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the 20 level, I think 75% is very doable, giving you a profit of $9 per.
No, you can't 4 table, but stars is so damn slow that 2-tabling isn't much of a problem. Conservatively, at 15 minutes per tourney, that's 8 per hour.

I think $72/Hr is a decent wage.
And for the variance freaks - waaaaaay lower than full table SNGs....

[DCJ311]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You'll be surprised how small your edge is.

You won't win 70% of games, and you might not win 60%.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]


A good player may win 55%, a GREAT player wins 60%. Course, at lower levels, 60 may not be real tuff.

Either way, 10 man SNG's may be the most profitable poker in existence with such small swings comparative to other poker games.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would be shocked if I couldn't attain a 60% win rate or better in $50 and under heads up matches. The players at those levels are incredibly bad, and it is not hard to find a lot of opportunities to get big chips in with over 2 to 1 edges.

Never the less, I prefer ring games and tournaments because I get a much better hourly ROI. In terms of swings though, HU matches are about as low variance as it gets.

[Peter Chabot]

[ QUOTE ]
I think $72/Hr is a decent wage

[/ QUOTE ]

$72/hr playing just TWO TABLES of $20 SnG's? with a typical 40hr workweek that's about $150,000/yr. you're not serious, right?

[ QUOTE ]
At the 20 level, I think 75% is very doable

[/ QUOTE ]

and this is the reason the 'ol 150k won't be realized by 2tabling 22's /images/graemlins/smile.gif. phil ivey couldn't win 75% of the time.

[ QUOTE ]
And for the variance freaks - waaaaaay lower than full table SNGs....

[/ QUOTE ]

i do agree with you, though, that this factor is EXTREME. variance is around 1 buyin, instead of 1.5-2 buyins in a 10man.

[Peter Chabot]

[ QUOTE ]
Either way, 10 man SNG's may be the most profitable poker in existence with such small swings comparative to other poker games.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm curious what you think about the 5man SnG? even smaller swings, more games per hour... do you prefer the 10man because they're easier to multitable, or because you find them more profitable?

[meow_meow]

[ QUOTE ]

and this is the reason the 'ol 150k won't be realized by 2tabling 22's /images/graemlins/smile.gif. phil ivey couldn't win 75% of the time.


[/ QUOTE ]

What kind of a sample size would be required to convince you otherwise? Not that I have one, but thinking about trying. And just to be pedantic, they are 21's.

further, playing the 4-player winner-takes-all matches is even more profitable - if you assume the (supposedly) unattainable winrate of 75% per match, the profit per match looks like $13.7

[AJo Go All In]

for what it's worth i have played large numbers of $1000 and $5000 HU on stars, with a win percentage of about 54% for both

[reubenf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You'll be surprised how small your edge is.

You won't win 70% of games, and you might not win 60%.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]


A good player may win 55%, a GREAT player wins 60%. Course, at lower levels, 60 may not be real tuff.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was convinced of this until recently. I've recently played about fifty $10 heads-up on stars. I'm not too good at NLHE, but I think I have decent heads-up skills.

In any case, in this small sample I've won an overwhelming percentage, but the important part is I usually win during level 1 of blinds without ever shoving a large number of chips into the middle. I don't believe the edge a great player would have here is affected much by the cards dealt, so I see no reason the edge can't be more than 70%.

I'm still willing to accept that a great player can't win &gt;60%, but I suspect it is not the case at the lower levels. It's understandably hard to believe that an average player could reduce the edge of a great player by shoving all the chips in every hand, but that may in fact be the case.

[reubenf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Try four tabling and get back to us.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont get this argument.
Heads up is mostly playing and reading your opponent.Pretty far from ABC poker
Multitabling in heads-up is suicide
/Komodo

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that was the point. I think the argument is that, even if HU &gt; full, certainly 4-tabling full &gt; 4-tabling HU.

[reubenf]

[ QUOTE ]
further, playing the 4-player winner-takes-all matches is even more profitable - if you assume the (supposedly) unattainable winrate of 75% per match, the profit per match looks like $13.7

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you can assume the same win % for the second match as for the first.

[Peter Chabot]

[ QUOTE ]
What kind of a sample size would be required to convince you otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]

if you can win 150 out of 200 in the 21s, i'll put a lifesize statue of you up on the beach this summer.

[ QUOTE ]
further, playing the 4-player winner-takes-all matches is even more profitable - if you assume the (supposedly) unattainable winrate of 75% per match, the profit per match looks like $13.7

[/ QUOTE ]

this is utterly ridiculous. the problem with your heads up idea is thinking that you could win 75% when an average dude could win 50%. but to win 75% when the average player wins 25% (in the 4man case)? utterly ridiculous...

[stupidsucker]

When people joke about it and dont give you serious responses it is because.

A) This has been asked before
B) Posters who ask questions like this stereotypicaly dont listen anyways
C) The idea in question is kinda funny to those that already know the answer


Dont take any offense by it.

This has been another episide of "goodposter/badposter" Tune in next week when a posting stranger suggests that 22 really is a better hand then AK and he can prove it. Here are some compelling looks into next week.

[ QUOTE ]
Give me a 500 HH sample with 22 and get back to me

[/ QUOTE ] -Lori

[ QUOTE ]
STFU, I saw Dalimani push with 44. How is calling with 22 much different.

[/ QUOTE ] -stranger

[ QUOTE ]
Moron

[/ QUOTE ]-Forumbot

[ QUOTE ]
I have a 74% roi

[/ QUOTE ] -stranger

[microbet]

I think Lorinda was serious. You may possibly have a better $/hr playing 1 HU match than playing 1 SNG, but it would be much much much harder to multi-table HU matches, so you couldn't get as high a $/hr.

[raptor517]

i really like this post. it breaks down for everyone why heads up play cant possibly be more profitable than a multitabler playing 10 person sngs. you actually have to THINK. in a sng, you can play 8 tables and nearly everything is automatic. very rarely will you find yourself in a situation where you have to spend more than 4 seconds deciding what to do.

constantly sitting there figuring out what the best play is can be draining. the beauty of sngs is that you can play all day and still feel fine because it requires very little thought process if you have been playing them long enough. in a heads up game, if you are not constantly trying to outplay your opponent, you wont be successful. holla

[meow_meow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What kind of a sample size would be required to convince you otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]

if you can win 150 out of 200 in the 21s, i'll put a lifesize statue of you up on the beach this summer.

[ QUOTE ]
further, playing the 4-player winner-takes-all matches is even more profitable - if you assume the (supposedly) unattainable winrate of 75% per match, the profit per match looks like $13.7

[/ QUOTE ]

this is utterly ridiculous. the problem with your heads up idea is thinking that you could win 75% when an average dude could win 50%. but to win 75% when the average player wins 25% (in the 4man case)? utterly ridiculous...

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you misunderstand me. My assumptions for the 4 way are that you can still win 75% the HU matches, not 75% of the touneys.
Anyway, I'll get back to you about the statue thing. It doesn't have to be bronze or anything, plaster will do. One request: if it is going to be a naked statue, can we add an inch or two where it counts? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[reubenf]

[ QUOTE ]
My assumptions for the 4 way are that you can still win 75% the HU matches, not 75% of the touneys.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you justify that you win the second match as often as the first?

[Peter Chabot]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you misunderstand me. My assumptions for the 4 way are that you can still win 75% the HU matches, not 75% of the touneys.

[/ QUOTE ]

i did misunderstand you. sorry.

your decision on statue 'dimensions'. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[meow_meow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My assumptions for the 4 way are that you can still win 75% the HU matches, not 75% of the touneys.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you justify that you win the second match as often as the first?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to sound like a jerk, but I don't think there is a whole lot of variation is the skill level of people who play these things. Add to that the fact that even if player A in the other match is slightly better than player B, B still beats A probably 40% of the time (i.e. the difference between A and B is effectively halved for match 2), and the assumption is not far wrong.