Heads Up SNGs hourly earning better than full?

[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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. 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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. 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 >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 > full, certainly 4-tabling full > 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.