why did i lose?

I played 16 turbo heads up and lost 10 won 6 .Starting chips 1000(max bet 500,5 hands)
i started each game with passive minimum bets.All my opponents start with 200 or 300.If they lost first bet,then they did 500 or 350 bet.Like progression.3 game i won without war,opponent busts.
Most of cases they did 1500-2000 chips.Example first bet 300 busts,next hand 350 with double down and they had already 1400 chips.And practically i have tiny chance the final hand or before it.Typically opponents had 1600 chips and i had 1000chips,and i had to do crazy double 17vs 2 or so on..
Although their basic was good,and final hand they played moderately accurately.But they did some mistakes.
opponents leading 1100 in final hand,me 1000 i have position and he makes max bet and i took simply low.
Whats wrong ? What about rake? 10% fee seems to me huge!How about variation?I have read books and tight player should have advantage over agressive player?But why i fail?Or is it gambling?

 

Luck

Firstly I'd say that in these 5 hand turbos luck is more of a factor than skill. So if we assume that they are basically coin tosses your record of 6:10 isn't that unusual or statistically significant. When I've played these games (and I don't choose to play them anymore because I don't like them) I've gone small for a bet or 2 then played as if it's the end game of a regular tourney playing for the lead which more often than not means betting big. Of course because you only get to act once in these games button position becomes very important. If you are early to act on the final hand you probably need to be more aggressive earlier on as a lead will be invaluable on the last hand. And in a crowd of big bettors a small bettor will probably get beaten by somebody. Just some thoughts.

Cheers

Reachy

 

Thx for replay.I just wanted to know is it wise thing to play heads ups.
Mayby we both lose in long term.I need to know it.Mayby some BJ PRO has done some research

But i agree that BJ torunament can be so profitable.For example i played today 250gur fund 1$ buy in with only 35 players.over 500% overlay!

 

mediocre advice

I am always ready to dispense mediocre advice - in the long run - a more conservative strategy should pay off - after all - in bj you lose 48% of the time and win 44% of the time - in very short term play - a progression - such as it sounds your opponents were playing - can work sometimes - as the odds of losing 3 hands in a row are only 11% - but - in long run - over aggression should lose out -

recommendation - try playing more than minimum bet - but still conservative - try betting a little over 1/2 your opponent's bet - maybe 2/3 - if you both lose - you gain - if you both win - you stay close enough to make a move later - don't be afraid to make a big move - but try to set up so you can do two moves - a moderate move to take the lead (why you want to stay close) - follwed by an all-in move - if the first one fails - you will hit one of the two moves 73% of the time -

 

Lets get this straight:

You won 6/16 right? That's 37.5% win ratio.

Now if you played on the 5 person tables at $10 a person you paid $176 including the 10% fee.

Winning 6 means you won $300 ($50/win)

Net profit = $124

That is a 70.45% return on your money for a single day!

Excuse me but I don't understand your complaint?

If we just used regular odds of 1 of 5 at a table then we could expect a 20% winning ratio but you had a 37.5%

 

heads up

fgk

I think privador was playing heads-up if I understand his 2nd post correctly. That means based on $10+1 entry he is $56 down!! 6 x $20 - $176 = -$56.

Cheers

Reachy

 

I decided,that i dont play sit and gos and heads up anymore
I ts gambling.But tournament is diffrent story.
I cant beat the game.And u pay a lot of rake

 

S&Gs worthwhile

You can make money at S&Gs even with the rake. It's harder at 1&1s but still do-able.

Cheers

Reachy

 

Why do you say that Reachy? This question came up in another thread. My contention is that - at least for Sit & Gos - the fewer players at the table, the easier it is.

You could say that the more players at a table, the more you approximate an accumulation format. Just one of them needs to get lucky in order to frustrate your skillful play. Though if, for example, two out of five get payed then that's only marginally worse than one out of two.

Assuming a ready supply of opponents, smaller tables also means more games per hour, which helps smooth out the variance. (i.e better to play 5 x $20 than 2 x $50 games in the same amount of time.)

 

Reachy,

look at my prior posting about the 5 person SNG. I've done that (made $) on Golden P in their quick hand section. My personal favorite is the 5-hand or 10-hand games. However they are definately NOT for the faint of heart. Each is TOTALLY different and has to be approached in a different manner.

For example in the 5-hand match-up betting minimum on hands 1-4 will get you a loss over 80% of the time. WHY? Most people playing bet 200-500 (max) bets. Even winning your hand at minimum bets gets you too far behind.

I don't play one-one, so if that is what Privador was doing I am sorry for the misinterpretation. When playing on the quick hands it is much better to wait for a fuller table (ie., 4 or 5 players) because you are charged the same fee wether it is 2, 3, 4 Or 5. Hence it is better to win with a fuller table and only 2 other people.

 

Personal preference I guess

I don't personaly enjoy either 1&1s or 5 round games as much as 5+ player games with at least 15 rounds. But that's probably just me.

Colin

I don't suppose it's really possible to prove one way or another that 1&1s or 5 player games are easier but I will try and address some of the points you made. Maybe I'm missing the point and am happy to look on this situation in a different light.

Yes, I'd agree with you that it's easier to win but you need to win a heck of alot more to break even than you do for multiplayer games. Compare 2 games. Both are $10 entry with 10% vig. One game is 1&1 and the other is 5 player. For simplicity we will assume that its winner takes all and all entry fees minus vig are returned in prizes. For the 5 player game the break even win rate is 22%. For the 1&1 it's 55%. I we then assume that an "average" player would win in proportion to the number of players then in a 5 handed game you need to win 2 games more than average in 100 to B/E but in a 2 handed game you need to win 5 more. I suppose the question is is it more than 2.5 times harder to win a 5 handed game than a heads up game. I don't really know the definitive answer to that but my experience tells me not.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Sure if you're playing for TEC points or minimal stakes people are going to go crazy and put out max bets. If there is something at stake though play is more measured and I can't agree that it is like an accumulation game. In my experience anyway.

fgk

When I have played 5 handed games I have rarely adopted an exclusively min bet approach. Maybe on the first hand in the hope that the dealer gives me a lead but if not I'll increase my bets in a similar way to RKuczek - 50-75% correlated bets. I want to be in a position in the last 2 hands such that if I'm not in the lead I can take it with a big bet or two if needed.

Cheers

Reachy

 

My brain hurts

I see what you mean. I confess I'm a bit confused now. I think part of the trouble is that I need to consider two issues - expectation and variance - separately.

I've no evidence for this, but I have a feeling that there might be an underlying constant at work - If the vig is constant, then perhaps your expectation is also constant, for a given amount of 'action', whether that is a few costly large tables or several cheaper small tables. In other words, your hourly win rate would be broadly the same.

Another contributing factor that occurs to me is that, heads-up, you can expect to have position on the final hand 50% of the time, whereas in a field of five you will only have position against all four opponents 20% of the time.

I suppose a simulation would be the only way to get a definitive answer.

I was talking purely in theoretical terms, just thinking about the abstract effect of the number of players involved, without any regard to what strategy they may be following. The correlating effect of everybody playing agianst the same dealer hand is diluted with each additional player.

 

London,

First, any possibility you can post a link to that thread? I’d be interested to read it.

My personal take is this:

I prefer 5-7 players at a SNG and I won’t play mano-mano anymore. Why?

Mostly I play Bet21.com so in order to get a SNG it is 7 people so I’m used to that format.

On playubt.com i.e., freerolls/play money – the more players the more “chance/luck” is involved. Wildcat bettors abound when there isn’t any money on the line. Just an observation.

When there are lots of wildcat bettors I prefer to just sit around and either let them burn themselves out or jump so far ahead that I can’t keep up. I personally find this type of game extremely frustrating and prefer NOT to play what I call BJ lotto.

On Golden P in the quick hand section you can play 5 or 10 hands. There can be anywhere from 2 to 5 players. Here’s where the tricky part comes into play. There are certain players who know how to play and there are others who just “play”. I know for a fact that when I’m playing against most TBJ.com members I’m in it for a catfight – there aren’t many ploppies here, your humble poster here being the exception!

Lets assume that as members of TBJ.com we have a slight advantage over an unexperienced BJ player who happens to stumble across a BJ tourney table. Lets base our assumptions on a $10+1 table and look at two (2) scenario ok?

Scenario one:
Two players – London vs. unknown. Give London a 15-20% advantage. Odds normally say you win 50% in this case London wins 65-70% of the time. For 10 games London goes 7-3. Costs are 110.00 and winnings are 140.00 for a net profit of 30.00

Scenario two:
Four players – London vs. 3 unknowns. Give London a 15-20% advantage. Odds normally say you would win 25%. In this case London wins 40% of the time. For 10 games London goes 4-6. Costs are 110.0 and winnings are 160.00 for a net profit of 50.00.

So even though you may win less at the larger table your profit is more!

Just my random thoughts on the subject.

 

My brain hurts as well!

Colin

Do you keep records of your TBJ play? If so why not analyse those and see what comes out. I did keep records but became lazy and stopped. I do intend to restart them up again today so maybe they'll throw some light on the question when I've built up some more data. A simulator would be nice though.

Cheers

Reachy

 

There isn't really that much in it, but here is the thread I was thinking of -
https://www.blackjacktournaments.com/threads/2585

One quick aside - my understanding of a 15-20% edge would be 15-20% above the average player, not above 50%. So that would mean winning 57.5-60% of the time, heads-up

This is where my non-mathematician's brain starts to hurt again. There seem to be three inter-related variables -

1. Expectation (i,e % profitability)
2. Variance (i.e. How much risk there is of a costly bad run, just due to normal fluctuations)
3. Hourly win rate

In your example, it would be possible to play scenario 1 slightly less than twice in the time taken to play scenario 2, so you could earn slighly less than $60 in the same time as $50, and with more games being played your actual results should be closer to your expected results.

When it comes to defining how often a player will win, is it reasonable to add a constant edge on to the average player's chance, or is that edge actually a function of the number of players? This is where I think I may be muddling up the distinction between expectation and variance. Is there a mathematician in the house!?

 

not a mathematician...

...but it was my best subject at school many, many years ago (Clue: Used to dress like Don Johnson in 6th Form )

My understand of variance is that it is the short term fluctuation of your win:lose rate. Expectation/profitability is a function of your win:lose rate which can be measured over a variety of time frames. I would suggest that your long term expectation would remain constant or at least would show minimal variance. I would also suggest that your edge over the average varies from the type of game you play. So, yes, I think you would have different edges for 1&1, 5+ handed, MTT, etc.

Cheers

Reachy

 

I've been similaly lax in my record keeping. However, I do have the 'My Stats' record of my heads-up play at GameAccount. Most of the players are quite poor, but also the rules aren't all that helpful (e.g., no DD for less, only 10 rounds, min bet is 1/10 of initial BR).

I've won 620 out of 1096 tables, so that's 56.6%, or an edge of about 13%. (assuming I've got my definitions right?)

 

Now MY brain is starting to hurt also!

Hourly Rate?

Kriky London, I'm happy to just know how much I'm ahead at the end of the day! But seriously I hadn't figured out an hourly component at all. My reasoning is that I'm still trying to figure out if it is worthwhile to participate in an online tourney - for example the 100 freerolls at Golden P aren't worth my time compared to playing in the quick hand $25 5 person games! (assuming I get some ploppies and not some of the tougher players). The other thing to consider in the hourly factor is the qualifing freerolls - with over 400 people they usually take 90 to 120 minutes, assuming you get past the first 2-3 rounds. (My personal best record was eliminated in 60 seconds - all in hand one sitting in position 1 - Dealer had BJ)

This is an EXCELLENT point. Is is a constant edge or a function of the number of players? I don't know. My guess on this would be a combination of both. A minimal edge that would have relationship on the number of players compounded by the type of players playing. i.e., ploppies vs. advantage players.

CERTAINLY not ME!

 

Blimey!!

That's a lot of games!!!! If you were to transpose that record onto the $10+.10 game you would be $1330.40 up! Not bad going considering you are only 1.6% over the B/E point.

Interestingly if you'd played 1096 5 player games and won 23.6% of the time (i.e. 1.6% greater than B/E) then your profit would have been $1880.40, more than $500 higher. To match the 1&1 profit you would only have had to win 248 out of the 1096 which works out at a 22.6% win rate.

Cheers

Reachy

 

Reachy,

Remember when Joep stated a 17% win in BJ tourney's? Using a 17% winning ratio I believe he went on to state that he was PROFITABLE with that winning percentage.

Now if one were to have a winning percentage doing SNG's that would be atrocious and extremely unprofitable - in fact I WANT to play SNG at a table where a person only has a 17% win ratio