4 man Headsup PSTARS Bankroll?

[marcaureli]

Pay on this game is 4 to one with a win. Being a better than decent heads up player(about 60%) i find the odds to make sense in trying to use this to build a bankroll. Thus by playing 4 games if you only win one you will break even, of course minus rake. And if you are even a 50% win percent player you will still double your investment. Is this a good way to build? or is the variance ultimately too high in this game, and what min buy-in would cut down the weak loose players which ultimately will raise your variance blowing my theory to shreds.

[bones]

[The Yugoslavian]

Why would you want to play the 4 man HU things?! They do have regular HU STTs you know.

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Yugoslav

[marcaureli]

because the way i figure it playing two single hu tourneys, yield a 200% profit but one 4 man yields a 400% profit...considering your buy-in as a loss when you enter. But again thats something i was wondering, whats better long run

[DMA]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]
QFT

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
because the way i figure it playing two single hu tourneys, yield a 200% profit but one 4 man yields a 400% profit...considering your buy-in as a loss when you enter. But again thats something i was wondering, whats better long run

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no monetary reason to play the 4 man HU STTs. But if you think they're fun or more entertaining or exciting then I guess that is a good reason.

Yugoslav

[jmillerdls]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
because the way i figure it playing two single hu tourneys, yield a 200% profit but one 4 man yields a 400% profit...considering your buy-in as a loss when you enter. But again thats something i was wondering, whats better long run

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no monetary reason to play the 4 man HU STTs. But if you think they're fun or more entertaining or exciting then I guess that is a good reason.

Yugoslav

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it just me, or is there actually a negative effect. When you go 3-3 in the single HU games, you just lose the rake...however in the 4-man tourneys, going 3-3 could mean not making a dime.

[grac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
because the way i figure it playing two single hu tourneys, yield a 200% profit but one 4 man yields a 400% profit...considering your buy-in as a loss when you enter. But again thats something i was wondering, whats better long run

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no monetary reason to play the 4 man HU STTs. But if you think they're fun or more entertaining or exciting then I guess that is a good reason.

Yugoslav

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't the rake the same in 4man hu sngs as 1 vs 1. This would be a monetary reason if you are playing any kind of a volume of these to overcome the swings of only getting paid when winning back to back.

[Jekyll]

That's true, but you will also win less often. Suppose you're 60% to win in any given HU match. You will be 36% to win any given 4-man HU. 60% of 2(buy-ins) is 1.2, and 36% of 4 is 1.44. So ROI is .2 and .44, respectively, not counting rake(just subtract .1 for 10% rake). And if you consider that you can play 2 separate HU matches back to back in the same time as a 4-man HU, you can call them .2 and .34 respectively.

So the 4-man HU is better, but it's because you are effectively paying half the rake to prize pool ratio you normally are. The difference is slightly exaggerated, b/c the rake is large chunk of your initial profit at 60%, but even larger win percentages still display an advantage at 4-man, when I ran the numbers.

There appears to be something else at work here, too, other than the rake. I think it has something to do with your equity when you start out in a 4-man. You start with 25% equity, with 25% of the chips in play. If you lose the first match, you lose that 25% equity. If you win, you won 25% more equity, so even if you lose, you had an average equity of 37% per match. This is as opposed to a 2-man HU, where every time you lose, you lost your 50% equity.

Comments? I know I rambled a bit, but I think that was valid.

[bobman0330]

4-man HU SNGs are more profitable because of reduced rake, but assuming you have the same win rate in the first round and the second round is obviously wrong.