Should I play more HU?

[Gurravasa]

I play 5-max at Svenska Spel at 30/60 and 50/100 SEK wich is equal to 5/10 and 7,5/15 in USD. At Svenska Spel the traffic at those stakes are often small and therefor I play a lot HU, 3-handed and 4-handed. I always felt more comforable playing few players, and to be honest I only average about 1BB/100 hands when I occasionaly play 6-max.

OK I checked my winrate for the different numbers of players and this is what I found out. WR in BB/100 hands.

5 players 2.45BB (11K hands)
4 players 3.2BB (7K hands)
3 players 3.9BB (4500 hands)
2 players 4.6BB (5K hands)

I know it's a small sample because PT didn't support Boss before, but can I read something into this?

[inferno]

that you run/play good

[Olrik]

sample size is waaaayyyyyyyyy to small for any conclusions (except running good).

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]
sample size is waaaayyyyyyyyy to small for any conclusions (except running good).

[/ QUOTE ]

Untrue...with a winrate of better than 3 bb/100 over 30k hands, it is quite likely that the OP is a winner in the game. Given a standard deviation of 20/100, he's something like 90 percent certain to be a winner. That is, of course not taking into account any a priori knowledge about winrates, but I think that even then, it is very likely that the OP is a winner in the game.

[vmacosta]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sample size is waaaayyyyyyyyy to small for any conclusions (except running good).

[/ QUOTE ]

Untrue...with a winrate of better than 3 bb/100 over 30k hands, it is quite likely that the OP is a winner in the game. Given a standard deviation of 20/100, he's something like 90 percent certain to be a winner. That is, of course not taking into account any a priori knowledge about winrates, but I think that even then, it is very likely that the OP is a winner in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]
maybe but that's not what the post is about. OP, obviously you shoud give it a shot, why are you even asking?

[Wolfram]

The question wasn't whether he's a winner in the game. The question is whether he should focus on HUHU since that's where he has the highest winrate. And imo you can't infer anything of the sort with this small of a sample size.

I do think however that HUHU is more profitable than 6-max (given the same rake) because it forces your opponents into more marginal situations and therefore the better player should have a bigger edge. The swings are huge though, but that could be an edge as well (good players go on tilt due to swings, while good players with great emotional control don't and therefore make more money).

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sample size is waaaayyyyyyyyy to small for any conclusions (except running good).

[/ QUOTE ]

Untrue...with a winrate of better than 3 bb/100 over 30k hands, it is quite likely that the OP is a winner in the game. Given a standard deviation of 20/100, he's something like 90 percent certain to be a winner. That is, of course not taking into account any a priori knowledge about winrates, but I think that even then, it is very likely that the OP is a winner in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]
maybe but that's not what the post is about. OP, obviously you shoud give it a shot, why are you even asking?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but it always irks me when people say you can't draw any conclusions from a sample size of X, you need Y. 30k hands is quite a lot of hands. 100k hands would only cut down the uncertainty in the winrate by a factor of 2.

[Gurravasa]

[ QUOTE ]
The question wasn't whether he's a winner in the game. The question is whether he should focus on HUHU since that's where he has the highest winrate. And imo you can't infer anything of the sort with this small of a sample size.

I do think however that HUHU is more profitable than 6-max (given the same rake) because it forces your opponents into more marginal situations and therefore the better player should have a bigger edge. The swings are huge though, but that could be an edge as well (good players go on tilt due to swings, while good players with great emotional control don't and therefore make more money).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I also was wondering since most of those HU-hands where played at unfilled 5-max tables. That means I wasn't playing HU-specialists. One of my strenghts as a poker player is that I never tilt and the theory that that quality is more profitable at HU-tables is very interesting.

My strategy when I play HUHU is to play pretty passive since most opponents are spewing heavily with draws. My tight-passive image also allows me to make profitable semibluffs. Is this strategy profitable because I play bad HU-players that think that have to be very agressive when playing HU or could it also work in tougher HU-games?

[Wolfram]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The question wasn't whether he's a winner in the game. The question is whether he should focus on HUHU since that's where he has the highest winrate. And imo you can't infer anything of the sort with this small of a sample size.

I do think however that HUHU is more profitable than 6-max (given the same rake) because it forces your opponents into more marginal situations and therefore the better player should have a bigger edge. The swings are huge though, but that could be an edge as well (good players go on tilt due to swings, while good players with great emotional control don't and therefore make more money).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I also was wondering since most of those HU-hands where played at unfilled 5-max tables. That means I wasn't playing HU-specialists. One of my strenghts as a poker player is that I never tilt and the theory that that quality is more profitable at HU-tables is very interesting.

My strategy when I play HUHU is to play pretty passive since most opponents are spewing heavily with draws. My tight-passive image also allows me to make profitable semibluffs. Is this strategy profitable because I play bad HU-players that think that have to be very agressive when playing HU or could it also work in tougher HU-games?

[/ QUOTE ]
I really don't know. I'm a winner at NL-huhu but not at lhe huhu, although my sample size is tiny (and I play 2/4 max so the rake rapes you).

I try to avoid overaggro players when I do play though. As soon as villain starts limping his button a lot I know I'm in a good game.

[Gurravasa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The question wasn't whether he's a winner in the game. The question is whether he should focus on HUHU since that's where he has the highest winrate. And imo you can't infer anything of the sort with this small of a sample size.

I do think however that HUHU is more profitable than 6-max (given the same rake) because it forces your opponents into more marginal situations and therefore the better player should have a bigger edge. The swings are huge though, but that could be an edge as well (good players go on tilt due to swings, while good players with great emotional control don't and therefore make more money).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I also was wondering since most of those HU-hands where played at unfilled 5-max tables. That means I wasn't playing HU-specialists. One of my strenghts as a poker player is that I never tilt and the theory that that quality is more profitable at HU-tables is very interesting.

My strategy when I play HUHU is to play pretty passive since most opponents are spewing heavily with draws. My tight-passive image also allows me to make profitable semibluffs. Is this strategy profitable because I play bad HU-players that think that have to be very agressive when playing HU or could it also work in tougher HU-games?

[/ QUOTE ]
I really don't know. I'm a winner at NL-huhu but not at lhe huhu, although my sample size is tiny (and I play 2/4 max so the rake rapes you).

I try to avoid overaggro players when I do play though. As soon as villain starts limping his button a lot I know I'm in a good game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I try to find overaggro games and play like a callingstation in them...