Heads Up Matches

[JABoyd]

I play $20 heads up matches online. Something I encounter a lot are people running their mouths and eventually saying 'If you're so good why are you at the $20 tables and not the $100 tables?' I think of it as minimizing variance. I feel the skill level is horrible in the $5s and $10s, weak in the $20s, and it increases in the $30s, $50s, and $100s. Therefore I play 3 $20 matches at a time (with a winning percentage of over 65%) instead of 1 or 2 $100 matches at a time. Am I right in this theory??

[dualaces123]

I'd find as many of those people saying "If you're so good..." and play against them.

I think you are generally correct and the only question you need to ask is whether you are making more or less by playing 20(weak) rather than 10(horrible).

[futuredoc85]

players are pretty awful at the $100s too if u game select at all but the ppl saying this to you suck anyway, so turn ur chat off

[JABoyd]

[ QUOTE ]
players are pretty awful at the $100s too if u game select at all but the ppl saying this to you suck anyway, so turn ur chat off

[/ QUOTE ]

futuredoc85...thanks for your input but that wasn't the question. Do you actually read the posts?

[ QUOTE ]
I'd find as many of those people saying "If you're so good..." and play against them.

I think you are generally correct and the only question you need to ask is whether you are making more or less by playing 20(weak) rather than 10(horrible).

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitly think that I make WAY more playing $20s because of variance. Just wanted to see what others thought.

[sputum]

[ QUOTE ]
I definitly think that I make WAY more playing $20s because of variance. Just wanted to see what others thought.

[/ QUOTE ]
Variance does not affect your winrate unless you tilt, are on a short bankroll etc.
65% ignoring rake (cos I'm tired) you make $6 a match.
Say you win 55% of the $100 matches you make $10 a match.
So it depends on a lot of stuff only you can estimate accurately (MT ratio, true winrate etc)
Arithmetic disclaimer coz I'm tired as well obv but you could be right or wrong, nobody can really tell except you.

[JABoyd]

Your math is off...

100 matches with 65% win rate = 65 wins 55 losses
5% rake

__________________________________________________ _

$20 game is a $21 buy in
win $19 and lose $21

65 wins x $19 = $1235
55 losses x $21 = $1155
-----------------------
$80 profit / 100 matches
-----------------------
= $0.80 per match

__________________________________________________ ____

$100 game is a $105 buy in
win $95 and lose $105

65 wins x $95 = $6175
55 losses x $105 = $5775
------------------------
$400 profit / 100 matches
------------------------
= $4 per match

_________________________________________________

Now I play 3 games at a time which would come to $2.40 per "match" ("match" here is defined as 3 games at the same time) with a win rate of over 65% according to my records.

So now back to the variance...play 2 "matches" and win $4.80 or play one $100 match and win $4???

[futuredoc85]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
players are pretty awful at the $100s too if u game select at all but the ppl saying this to you suck anyway, so turn ur chat off

[/ QUOTE ]

futuredoc85...thanks for your input but that wasn't the question. Do you actually read the posts?

[ QUOTE ]
I'd find as many of those people saying "If you're so good..." and play against them.

I think you are generally correct and the only question you need to ask is whether you are making more or less by playing 20(weak) rather than 10(horrible).

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitly think that I make WAY more playing $20s because of variance. Just wanted to see what others thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

i mean reducing variance is completely up to you but is definitely not an unreasonable concern. Once your bankroll on and off-line is padded some you can just figure out what gives you the higher hourly and do that.

[piggity]

[ QUOTE ]
Your math is off...

100 matches with 65% win rate = 65 wins 55 losses


[/ QUOTE ]

lol

[sputum]

[ QUOTE ]
Your math is off...

100 matches with 65% win rate = 65 wins 55 losses
5% rake

__________________________________________________ _

$20 game is a $21 buy in
win $19 and lose $21

65 wins x $19 = $1235
55 losses x $21 = $1155
-----------------------
$80 profit / 100 matches
-----------------------
= $0.80 per match

__________________________________________________ ____

$100 game is a $105 buy in
win $95 and lose $105

65 wins x $95 = $6175
55 losses x $105 = $5775
------------------------
$400 profit / 100 matches
------------------------
= $4 per match

_________________________________________________

Now I play 3 games at a time which would come to $2.40 per "match" ("match" here is defined as 3 games at the same time) with a win rate of over 65% according to my records.

So now back to the variance...play 2 "matches" and win $4.80 or play one $100 match and win $4???

[/ QUOTE ]
1 I ignored rake coz i was tired - for all your 'did you read the post' [censored] you should practice what you preach.
2 you is wronger than i is
3 lol variance, i do not think it means what you think it means
4 me is done

[jay_shark]

[ QUOTE ]
I play $20 heads up matches online. Something I encounter a lot are people running their mouths and eventually saying 'If you're so good why are you at the $20 tables and not the $100 tables?' I think of it as minimizing variance. I feel the skill level is horrible in the $5s and $10s, weak in the $20s, and it increases in the $30s, $50s, and $100s. Therefore I play 3 $20 matches at a time (with a winning percentage of over 65%) instead of 1 or 2 $100 matches at a time. Am I right in this theory??

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're winning 65% of your matches in the 20's then your just a big fish playing in a small pond . I'm also willing to make a proposition bet that you cannot sustain a 65% win-rate while playing 3 tables at a time . I think you're bullshitting or that you haven't played enough games .