Two questions regarding $50nl hu tables on pokerstars

bfactor · #1 11-14-2007, 05:51 AM

Hi guys, first off I'd like to introduce myself. Some of you might recognize me, as I am a frequent poster in p5s Off Topic forum. I think this is my first post ever on 2+2. Anyway, I recently began a $5,000 in 100 days challenge, and so far I have mainly been playing the $.25/.50nlhe heads up tables on pokerstars, usually 1-tabling.

I am not very experienced at hu nl cash games, and I think I probably have some leaks, but first I have a couple questions:

1. What is a typical pokertracker standard deviation figure for heads up nl cash games. I'm sure some of you have logged hundreds of thousands of hands at heads up nl cash games on your pokertrackers. I would really appreciate it if you of you could tell me what a typical SD range would be for heads up nlhe cash games, as I am trying to optimize my bankroll management for hu nlhe cash games, and I need to know about typical SD values to do my math for br management.

2. Are the $.25/.50nlhe heads up cash games on pokerstars beatable in the long run, or is the rake simply too large relative to the stakes for even a very good player to overcome in the long run? I am a pretty good 6-max nlhe player, so if $50nl hu isn't really beatable in the long run, I could just play 6-max until I'm rolled to play $100nl hu tables. And while we're at it $100nl hu has to be beatable in the long run right? Just checking.

Okay, pretty lame first post, but if I posted this on p5s it would take me 7-8 months to get anything resembling a realistic response, lol. Thanks guys.

-bfactor

Sheetah · #2 11-14-2007, 07:54 AM

Welcome!

[ QUOTE ]
I am sure this is my first post ever on 2+2.

[/ QUOTE ]
FYP.
Hint: Posts: 1 [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
What is a typical pokertracker standard deviation figure for heads up nl cash games.

[/ QUOTE ]
Depends on how you play and/or who you are playing with. Different players report different numbers but the average gravitates towards 100BBs. Compare that to average 6max SD of ~38BBs and you'll get the idea.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Are the $.25/.50nlhe heads up cash games on pokerstars beatable in the long run, or is the rake simply too large relative to the stakes for even a very good player to overcome in the long run? I am a pretty good 6-max nlhe player, so if $50nl hu isn't really beatable in the long run, I could just play 6-max until I'm rolled to play $100nl hu tables. And while we're at it $100nl hu has to be beatable in the long run right? Just checking.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't play at stars but common occurrence in this forum is seeing SSNL HU cash players whining every now and then (myself included) about huge rake and keep playing and winning and moving up. Looks like it's beatable! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, pretty lame first post, but if I posted this on p5s it would take me 7-8 months to get anything resembling a realistic response, lol.

[/ QUOTE ]
I LOLed and it's true. Not that I'm some "2+2 till death" freak, but seldom did I see serious discussion on P5s.

hra146 · #3 11-14-2007, 08:38 AM

2+2 to till death!!!

j/k , regarding rake you will approximately pay 1$ in rake for every $ won. So the rake is huge but the players are bad. Youre gonna have some serious variance and imo its not worth the time if youre purely after the money.

bfactor · #4 11-14-2007, 02:52 PM

Ok, so you are saying that if I play really well, I will probably break even to the rake at the $50nl heads up tables, due to the rake being too high relative to the stakes? So, since I'm on a $5,000-in-100-days-challenge I should NOT be playing these tables, and should play 6-max until I am rolled to play the $100nl heads up tables which are beatable in the long run. Is this roughly correct?

terance · #5 11-14-2007, 06:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so you are saying that if I play really well, I will probably break even to the rake at the $50nl heads up tables, due to the rake being too high relative to the stakes? So, since I'm on a $5,000-in-100-days-challenge I should NOT be playing these tables, and should play 6-max until I am rolled to play the $100nl heads up tables which are beatable in the long run. Is this roughly correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

what he means is that if you win $100 you will probably have raked for ~$100

bfactor · #6 11-14-2007, 06:58 PM

Well that's not very good. In fact, that's f***ing terrible, lol. Is he right? Yikes. Is that for $50nl? $100nl? What?

More info would be much appreciated guys. I'm often playing 1,000+ hands of $50nl heads up cash game on pokerstars per day, so if this is really true, it would be best if I found out about it as soon as possible, before I waste any more time in an unbeatable game. So $50nl is indeed unbeatable then longrun? Any experts can confirm this? Is $100nl beatable longrun?

Majik · #7 11-14-2007, 07:10 PM

There are tons and tons of threads about HU rake and it seems like there has been a new wave of them the past like 48h. Go read up on them.. Fairly easy to find.

And who cares about the rake/win relation anyhow? If I make 10ptbb/100 playing I could care less if I rake 10ptbb/100.. I would still take that over making 5ptbb/100 and raking 1ptbb/100 obviously. Ofc these numbers are just taken out of my arse but you see the point

bfactor · #8 11-14-2007, 07:36 PM

Dude, people have been telling me that a good player should expect to lose $100 in rake for every $100 they make, so that's an expectation of $0. That's so bad. I definitely care about the difference between earning 5ptbb/100 and 0ptbb/100. Seems important/relevant to me.

TNixon · #9 11-14-2007, 07:42 PM

Uh, the rake comes out before your winnings (and your opponent's winnings), so if you win $100, you still won $100. You didn't win $100 and "lose" $100 in rake.

It's the difference between 5ptbb/100 and 5ptbb/100.

bfactor · #10 11-14-2007, 08:06 PM

Ah, sorry I missunderstood. For some reason I thought of it like, the way when people talk about MTTs, like I had $100 in winnings and paid $100 in buyins so my profit for the day was $0.00. Now I see what they meant.

I obviously would be EXTREMELY happy if 5ptbb/100 was considered anywhere near achievable in the long run for a good hu cash game player at $50nl hu on stars. This would be very good/awesome/acceptable. I would not be anywhere near being happy at all though if a good player should only be expecting a longterm winrate of 0ptbb/100 or lower in $50nl hu cash games due to the rake though, as then I wouldn't be making money, and so then it would be stupid/bad/terrible and I wouldn't want to do it.