Isn't 60% a low win rate for HU?

Indiana · #1 10-19-2005, 01:39 PM

Over the long run I have a 60% win rate in the 20s and 50s heads up matches on stars. Recently as I have been clogging some leaks and reworking my game I am at over 70%. Is it possible that a true heads up master could retain such a rate over thousands of games? Keep in mind I'm playing on stars with deep stacks and I am better than avg at hand reading and getting into my opps head.

Thanks,

Indy

kyro · #2 10-19-2005, 01:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am better than avg at hand reading and getting into my opps head.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you are. In which case, you should be winning 95% of the time.

Indiana · #3 10-19-2005, 01:53 PM

This is a pretty serious post. Actually I have been over 70% while parlaying the heads up game with a SNG or MTT at the same time. I truly "believe" that I could crush my opponent better than 75% of the time if I put myself to it, I just don't have the data to back up this "belief."

Indy

Iamafish · #4 10-19-2005, 01:59 PM

Get the data, and THEN you'll know.

EDIT: Serously, if what you heard was 60% for a good player, then instead of asking just play and find out for yourself.

Also, at a 75% ROI, wouldnt you need to win like 95% of the time. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

MegaBet · #5 10-19-2005, 02:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I truly "believe" that I could crush my opponent better than 75% of the time if I put myself to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you better hope you don't play me, I'd put a huge dent into your ROI [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

PrayingMantis · #6 10-19-2005, 03:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I truly "believe" that I could crush my opponent better than 75% of the time if I put myself to it

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, let me see. You truly "believe"... let me process this data... well... hmmm.... OK. This is my conclusion and reply to you: I think that you indeed truly "believe" that you can crush your opponent better than 75% of the time if you put yourself to it. And I'm almost 100% positive about this (maybe only 92% though).

citanul · #7 10-19-2005, 02:55 PM

it depends on a lot of things i think, but i think that at the lower stakes games %s over 65% or so are probably quite doable.

more later, busy here, just wanted to chime in. and oh yeah, vote!

AtticusFinch · #8 10-19-2005, 11:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
it depends on a lot of things i think, but i think that at the lower stakes games %s over 65% or so are probably quite doable.

more later, busy here, just wanted to chime in. and oh yeah, vote!

[/ QUOTE ]

Given how much short-term luck is involved in these, I'd have a hard time believing anything over 70% is sustainable, even at pretty low limits. But I don't have any numbers to back this up.

Exitonly · #9 10-20-2005, 03:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it depends on a lot of things i think, but i think that at the lower stakes games %s over 65% or so are probably quite doable.

more later, busy here, just wanted to chime in. and oh yeah, vote!

[/ QUOTE ]

Given how much short-term luck is involved in these, I'd have a hard time believing anything over 70% is sustainable, even at pretty low limits. But I don't have any numbers to back this up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think short term luck is as much a partt of it as it seems, have you started playing those HU matches yet? the $5 ones are ridiculous and i wouldn't be surprised in the least to see a 75% win rate here. (not for me necesarily, but i'd think it was possible)

gisb0rne · #10 10-20-2005, 03:40 AM

If I raised you all-in every hand you wouldn't win 75% no matter what strategy you employed. Do opponents really play worse than going all-in with every hand at 10-15 blinds with 1500 chip stacks?