Winrates at HU vs. 6-max NLCASH

[MasterLJ]

I'm actually not sure how common 10+ PTBB/100 HU is. HU takes much much longer to iron out the variance, I would expect that it takes probably near 250k+ hands to get your winrate to within +/- 2.5 PTBB/100 of your theoretical... possibly even more hands. I recall off hand that 100k hands at 6max is generally within +/- 5 PTBB/100 of your "true" rate, and withint +/- 0.5 PTBB/100 after 1 million hands.

People prefer 6max because the downswings and variance are considerably less which has tremendous value especially if you play for a living.

[TNixon]

[ QUOTE ]
If we are going that high then it definitely isn't possible to keep up in HU SNGs due to limitations of actually finding games.

I was thinking more along the lines of $50-$200 games.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's where I was thinking too. If you're playing 5/10 cash, there aren't equivalent SNGs that are going to fill in any sort of reasonable amount of time, and I think shipurstack is probably right about them likely being tougher.

[TNixon]

[ QUOTE ]
A full buyin per hour is not possible on PS only on FTP with over 13% ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would it be any different on pokerstars?

When I first compared structures, it did look like full tilt has a faster turbo structure, but after digging into it a bit deeper, Full Tilt has so many extra levels that I think it's actually slightly slower overall than stars.

And I can't think of any other reason it would be easier to get enough games in on FT. Especially since stars has a deeper player base, don't they? Or is it actually harder to get opponents on stars? Or are they less fishy, leading to longer average games?

[SwingVelvet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is this really true? How many SNGs can you play in an hour? Also, are the levels really equivalent (ie 220HU SNG more or less = 200NL)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have it from somebody who I consider a very reliable source (cwar) that single-tabling turbos can very easily lead to a buy-in an hour. <u>With a winrate of 10 big blinds/100 hands, which is commonly stated as a decent HUCASH winrate,</u> figuring about 200 hands per hour, you'd be making somewhere around $20 an hour per table. So, you'd have to be 5-tabling 100NL to come close to the winrate of single-tabling $110s, if you can play an average of around 7 games per hour with a 60% winrate.

[ QUOTE ]
I think a big reason why many people did (and still do) play 6max over HU is that it requires a lot less attention/concentration

[/ QUOTE ]

This is certainly a factor for a lot of people. I don't really think it's realistic to expect that a lot of people are playing 6-12 tables at a time, though. I'd be much more inclined to think they want to be able to watch TV or whatever while they're playing without too much of a loss of play concentration.

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

[/ QUOTE ]


TNIXON, I think you are still confused. it is BIG BETS per hour. That's twice the winrate you are thinking!!!!

[TNixon]

Ok, you're right, I am confused.

I've heard people say different things at different times in different situations about what bb really means. In fact, I've specifically heard this 10bb/100 rate in spots where the poster was very clear to point out that he meant big blinds, and not big bets.

[TNixon]

You know, I wouldn't be confused at all if people would use the stinking right abbreviations, and stop mixing them.

10bb/100 is very different from 10ptbb/100.

I was just about to say that whoever decided "big bets" was a good way to measure winrates was a moron, because the abbreviations are confusing.

Then I realized that people wanted to measure winrates long before holdem was the game of choice for most of the world, and that "antes per 100 hands" doesn't really make sense, since the value of the ante is generally much smaller than the value of the big bet, and that it's not a fixed relationship, like the value of a big bet is in limit holdem.

:/

It would still be nice if people didn't mix the two abbreviations.

[Scansion]

[ QUOTE ]
You know, I wouldn't be confused at all if people would use the stinking right abbreviations, and stop mixing them.

10bb/100 is very different from 10ptbb/100.

I was just about to say that whoever decided "big bets" was a good way to measure winrates was a moron, because the abbreviations are confusing.

Then I realized that people wanted to measure winrates long before holdem was the game of choice for most of the world, and that "antes per 100 hands" doesn't really make sense, since the value of the ante is generally much smaller than the value of the big bet, and that it's not a fixed relationship, like the value of a big bet is in limit holdem.

:/

It would still be nice if people didn't mix the two abbreviatioerns.

[/ QUOTE ]

Over the summer I played 1/2pl HU on UB and although I didn't record more than about 700 hands worth of my stats (in which I ran 60bb/100) I am very confident that I can make over 20bb/100. I probably ran at about 25bb/100 or so over 30-35k hands. (note I'm talking bb/100, not big blinds/100) This is 90% 1-tabling, I practiced very good game selection, and I have excellent tilt control. I only played two games if I had two bad opponents.

[imfatandugly]

I think if you want to make more than $100/hr. or want to become a better heads up player faster your better off playing heads up cash games.

[cwar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A full buyin per hour is not possible on PS only on FTP with over 13% ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would it be any different on pokerstars?

When I first compared structures, it did look like full tilt has a faster turbo structure, but after digging into it a bit deeper, Full Tilt has so many extra levels that I think it's actually slightly slower overall than stars.

And I can't think of any other reason it would be easier to get enough games in on FT. Especially since stars has a deeper player base, don't they? Or is it actually harder to get opponents on stars? Or are they less fishy, leading to longer average games?

[/ QUOTE ]
In my experience PS averages around 5 matches per hour at the 55 turbos and higher (lower plays faster) while FT ppl tend to play between 7-8 per hour depending on style.

[TNixon]

[ QUOTE ]
In my experience PS averages around 5 matches per hour at the 55 turbos and higher (lower plays faster) while FT ppl tend to play between 7-8 per hour depending on style.

[/ QUOTE ]
*Why* are they faster on FT though?

Any guesses?

Just different playstyles between the average player on the two sites? People on FT play faster and more agressively?