Heads Up Matches

[JABoyd]

Those points all make a lot of sense! But think about this: If you have a 10k bankroll would you play 10 1k events or 1 10k event?

[RustyBrooks]

Neither.

But which one is better is dependent on what your goal/criteria is. If it's a situation like above where in order to consider the session a success you MUST make $95, then playing one $105 is better. In your example playing 10 1k events minimizes short term variance and there is certainly value in that.

If you're a solid player and have the bankroll to play the $100s, and play the $20s instead, you are probably not making as much in $/hour as you could, assuming you can win the $100s at the same rate (which is not necessarily true, and a mistake many players make. Lots of players make more per hour at lower stakes than at higher stakes, because they beat the games for more $/hour)

[JABoyd]

EXACTLY!!!

As stakes increas your $/hour decreases (for limit games which you could technically consider a SNG):

STAKES.....AVG $/hour
------.....----------
2-4........8
3-6........11
4-8........13
5-10.......15
6-12.......17
8-16.......22
10-20......25
15-30......34
20-40......45
30-60......60
40-80......70
50-100.....75
60-120.....90
75-150.....105
100-200....130

*Found in Professional Poker by Mark Blade

I think I am greatly taking into account the level of competition. I am a very solid player, like I said, averaging over 65% win rate. I think the compition is harder in the $100s and 'dead money' in the $20s. Thats one of the main reasons I think a win rate would be higher in $20s than $100s. Which you could put to the tournament argument as well: 10k buy in = better players, 1k buy in = weaker players. Thoughts???

[RustyBrooks]

In your calculations to justify whether to play $20 or $100, you assumed the same win rate for $100s and $20s (65%). So, so did I.

All I've pointed out in this thread is that if your win rates are the same, your hourly rate is larger, and that if your bankroll can sustain it, you should tend towards larger buyins.

I play lower than my bankroll indicates all the time, if the game looks good. Ironically this means that my win rate at lower levels is higher than my "main game" both because the players at lower levels are worse, AND I only play smaller games when conditions are perfect.

Regarding the 65/55 snafu I think I saw a video of Phil Hellmuth doing the same thing in a WSOP broadcast. He was buying insurance from ivey like his usual retarded self and he put the odds for him winning at "65:45, don't you think so". Sure, if there's a 110% chance one of you will win this pot.

[JABoyd]

That was just a bad typo on my part. I was in a rage responding the the ignorance of the previous posts. The only numbers that matter are the 65% (which were calculated correctly). The others (35%) are obvious. And as long as you have a win rate of >52.5% with a 5% rake you make a profit. I agree with you 110% though rusty. I guess the only way I would know for sure is to play $100 for a period of time and compare my winning %.

[JABoyd]

Rusty, let me as you this: Is it correct to assume that the win rate would be equal?? I think it would be lower. Which in the short term would still show more of a profit but long term would not.

[RustyBrooks]

No, I don't think the win rate will be equal. I've never thought that.

But that's the number you used in your calculation - all I did was point out the factual errors in your calculation, not the logical problems with assuming that your win rate will be the same.

But then again I really don't know what your win rate at either level is, or what you standard deviation is (both are measurable quantities, though, so maybe you should check it out - standard deviation has immense control over how much of a bankroll you need)

[texxaslimitking]

If you're going to make a SIMILAR amount of money playing $100 matches versus $20 matches I think it is extremely important to take into consideration how many games you have to play at a time with the $20 matches...you should not underestimate how much more mental stamina and focus it takes to play multiple heads-up matches at once in comparison to playing only one match at a time. If you are not as well-rested or focused one day I wouldn't be surprised if your $20 matches lost you more than your single-game matches at the $100 level. I am surprised not many people consider mental stamina/focus a serious issue.

Chris

[JABoyd]

Good point Chris!!

Now assume you are NOT well rested or very focused. Would you play 1 $100 game OR 2 (3) $20 games?

I think I would rather play the $20s. Once again to cut down on variance.

Thoughts??

[RustyBrooks]

Rest, and focus.