How Many Big Bets Would You Suggest for a Heads-up LIMIT Match?

[BarronVangorToth]

Mods, sorry if this is the wrong forum, move it if necessary, blah blah blah.

I'm going to be in a heads-up limit match for X dollars next month. I've played very few heads-up limit matches so I was wondering what people would find to be the optimal number.

What do people suggest as the # of BB each person should start with?

It's a winner-take-all freeze-out so the money involved isn't important, just that we each start with X big bets.

So... what works best for a limit heads-up match for X and why?

50? 75? 100? some other number?

Thanks!

[toss]

When microlimits held a HU competition they used 50 BBs I believe. Some matches were over fairly quick and some matches took 6-7 hours+!!!! We all felt that 50 was a good amount to play with, but a few want 100 and a few wanted 25.

[Guruman]

You'll want more bets if you think your edge isnt that great.

small edge = more bets needed to assure a win - fewer opportunities to exploit mistakes mean you'll need to ride the variance train a little longer

large edge = fewer bets needed because villain's mistakes will be more frequent and more exploitable. Starting with huge stacks would only cause the match to take longer, and allow villain to develop strategies against you before running out of chips.

consider your edge, then suggest a starting stack size. Don't be afraid to say something like 60 or 80 bets either.

Also, go sit in at a .02, 04 hu table with a specific amount and see how much room you feel like you have to outplay a guy.

[MrWookie]

This is the right spot. If you play any more that 50 BB, you're going to be up for a pretty epic battle, as Toss said. However, I find that 25 BB matches often turn into lucksack fests where someone can go on a 10 hand hot strecth and end the match.

[MrWookie]

Actually, I disagree. I think that if you have a bigger edge, you want bigger stacks. If you're a big favorite, you want to minimize the luck factor and have the time to exploit your edge. If you're a dog, say, worse than 33% to win, you'd ideally want 1 BB stacks. That way, you go all in preflop, and you're no worse than 33% to win the match, whereas you might have been worse off in a long match.

[TomBrooks]

40

[Guruman]

I understand the thought process, though I don't know how that would mesh with the concept that variance decreases as our edge increases.

with a larger edge we have lower variance, therefore we can win with shorter stacks consistently. with a smaller edge, we have larger variance and we'll need larger stacks to win with the same consistency. With no edge, we're at the mercy of the cards and the stack size is irrelevant.

This seems to suggest that there's a threshold somewhere if you have a given edge of x% you'll need y number of bets available to you in order to win consistently.

I don't think that this necessarily contradicts what you wrote though.

[BarronVangorToth]

Thanks for the advice, fellas.

Sounds like we'll set it up with 50 BB apiece.

And, yes, I was planning on getting a few rounds of heads-up practice if I get the chance beforehand.

Thanks to all who took the time to reply.