books about HU play NL

vodoo · #1 06-30-2007, 04:22 PM

Are there any books out there about HU play?

Can u give examples or just say which ones are goood (if there are any).

It should be for NL Holdem.

ChicagoRy · #2 06-30-2007, 05:44 PM

Not really any.

Harrington on Hold Em Volume 2 has a 40-60 page section on it. It is the best out there for a book but you will learn a lot more in this forum pretty quickly. The best thing to do is to just play a lot of low level games and ask questions in here.

dboy23 · #3 06-30-2007, 09:14 PM

no there are not. perhaps one day there will be, but who knows.

vodoo · #4 07-01-2007, 02:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Not really any.

Harrington on Hold Em Volume 2 has a 40-60 page section on it. It is the best out there for a book but you will learn a lot more in this forum pretty quickly. The best thing to do is to just play a lot of low level games and ask questions in here.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmm ok i think im gonna buy the harringtons.

Im playing the 5+0.25$ HU SnGs on everest, they are so easy to beat.
I dont think i will learn much there because the other players there are so bad.
My current br there is 360$.
I thought i should move up to the 10+0.50$ with 500$ br.
This is really conservative but i like it this way.
Do u think this is ok?
Or should i move up now?

ChicagoRy · #5 07-01-2007, 09:14 AM

If you like to move up with 50 buyins and that's what you feel comfortable with, do it. People have moved up with less, people have moved up with more, you're slightly conservative compared to most winning players probably, but not so much so that you're missing out on value (probably).

TNixon · #6 07-02-2007, 03:17 PM

If you wait for more than 10 buyins to step up to a level that you're a winner at, you're passing up a *LOT* of value. So much value it would probably surprise the crap out of you, and maybe even fill you with disgust that you were playing so conservatively with your bankroll, unless it's not easily replaced.

The tricky part is having any idea if you're a winner right off the bat at a level higher than you're currently playing.

Unfortunately, I think the answer is usually no. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

PrimordialAA · #7 07-02-2007, 03:40 PM

Ummm, I could not disagree with that statement more, ~10 buy ins is not NEAR enough. I am a winning player, and I know plenty of other winning players who have gone through worse variance or swings than 10 buy ins, it can definently happen, if you are serious about your game, I would say ~35-50 until your playing 30/50 games, you dont want to be too conservative at the low limit games because if your a winner at one you will probably be a winner at most... they are really generically fishy. However when moving past that the 33 or 55 turbos, I would recommend 50, but if you want to be conservative no more than 75. TNixon... I would generally make sure the advice your giving is accepted by more than just you, bankroll "requirements" is a topic that has been discussed more than a few times, and ~10 buy ins is way off

vodoo · #8 07-02-2007, 04:28 PM

the point is that im grinding out these SnGs so im playing 4 at a time.

So 10 buy-ins woild probably be a bit less...

TNixon · #9 07-02-2007, 04:34 PM

It's very easy to show using a simulator (and I have actually posted simulator runs here before) that 10 buyins is more than sufficient for a 58%+ winner at any level, provided you are willing to step down just as agressively as you step up, and can make any necessary adjustments to play the different levels.

And speaking quite frankly, the amount of value that you lose by playing as conservatively as 50 is absolutely *staggering*. As in completely mind-blowing. Which is really what I was responding to.

I'm not saying you should play with 10 buyins at the $100 level or higher. Statistically speaking, you *can*, with a very low risk of ruin over even a large number of games, as long as you're willing to step up and down appropriately. Disagree with that at your own risk, since it's very easy to prove.

Of course, statistics don't take psychology into account, and there are some very definite psychological factors, but to be quite frank, it is my opinion that the "common knowledge" that 50+ buyins is the requirement for HUSNGs, the lowest variance form of them all, is hogwash.

And that, of course, is my opinion, and much easier to disagree with, but think about this quite seriously for a moment. Jesus himself (Chris Ferguson) has posted bankroll recommendations for STTs and MTTs at 20 buyins and 50 buyins respectively, coupling those recommendations with aggressive step-up/step-down requirements, as in NEVER buy in to a STT for more than 5% of your bankroll, or a MTT for more than 2% of your bankroll.

Which of those two forms do you suppose is lower variance than HUSNGs?

And although he is Chris Ferguson and we obviously are not, since he's posting those recommendations for a wide audience, I believe he intends them for the average to above average player, not just the pros.

To sum up: Long-term variance in HUSNGs is low enough that if you are a consistent, winning player, your buyin level should be based more on your comfort level than anything else, because that is the thing that is most likely to affect your play. If you're comfortable playing with 10 buyins, I can statistically prove that your risk of ruin is very near zero as long as you're willing to step down when your bankroll requires it. If you need 50 buyins to be comfortable, then by all means, wait for 50.

But if you do, you should know that you're passing up a *lot* of potential value, not just a little.

ChicagoRy · #10 07-02-2007, 04:35 PM

10 is too little to take any sort of "shot" with IMO unless you have a vast amount of funds you care nothing about to devote to HUSNG, in which case you should just deposit more and play higher if you're good.

Anyways, I think you can start out with 30 at any level of HUSNG. As long as you can drop down if you start losing a significant amount of money, I think that is optimal for a good player.