NL Heads up SNG

Hi all, Thought this is as good a time as any to join. Iv been playing small stakes for around 2 years online and am enjoying every minute (almost every min :P ). NL cash and limit can get pretty dry after a while, particularly after a downswing. SNG's iv found to be a crap shoot....you may think im on a downer.

Quite the opposite actually, about 2 months ago i stumbled on heads up SNG's , 11 and 22 dollar ones specifically. In 48 hours, i s**t you not, i made $587. I used a doubling up method (martingale you could say) when losing a game. Pure folly right ?, what happens when losing 5 times in a row ? going to bet my whole roll :shock: ?.

Well no ..after playing an 11 and losing, a 22 loss and then a 55 loss, i merely went back to the 11's and the 80 odd percent winrate i was riding.
My strategy was not what you might think. Logic would say aggressive right ?, well luckily players at these small stakes heads up are rather cluless and passive, all i did was to play reasonable tight (relatively speaking in HU you understand) and after a while when i hit trips or two pair (either being almost a dead cert HU) i would go allin - many times i would be called and win - happy days.

Not such a happy ending though, my initial strategy was working fine, because I WOULDNT play a 77 or above, well tilt reared its head, i made the assumption that 77 players would be the same as 11/22 (wrong). I lost it all - however, this is an area of poker which few have really exploited to its max. Granted, playing against the odd aggressive player is hard, and there is varience, I still believe that any competant player can make some coin in HU SNG's. Give em a go if ya havent :wink:

(sorry for double post, frickin slow comp playing up )

So you figured out that Martingale's strategy sucks, huh?

Welcome to the second grade.

For those who don't know, M's strategy is meant for roulette, or blackjack, or any game where you have a roughly 50/50 chance of doubling up. Here it is:

Bet a dollar. If win, bet another. If win, bet another.
If lose, bet TWO dollars. If lose, bet four. If lose bet eight. If lose bet twice as much as last bet. Get it?

The quirks of the strategy are as follows: At any given point in the bets, if you win, you gain (net) the initial bet. Take one dollar as the intial bet. You win, you net $1. If you lost your first 3 bets ($1, $2, and $4) and you're at the fourth, $8, and win that, you gain (net) the intial bet of $1. (+$8 - (1+2+4=7) = $1). See? So you just keep going until you win ONE time!! You're assured unlimited victory... or so it seems. that is what makes the strategy so f'in hilarious.

If you lose the last bet, you are screwed beyond repair (you lose it all, or most). The last bet can be defined by one of two things: a) a max bet for roulettle / blackjack (in this case, the highest stakes HU holdem table). or b) the amount of your remaining cash.

At a "fair" game (50/50): for example, roulette if you bet on "black" or "red" and there were no green spaces to screw you over... your +EV (REGARDLESS of strategy) = $0. Say minbet on roulette is a dollar, max is eight.

Math works out that you'll "go busto" (lose the fourth round, when you hit the max bet of $8) 6.25% of the time. You'll win a dollar 93.75% of time. EV = (.9375 * a dollar - .0625 (busto = 8 + 4 + 2 + 1 =$15) = 0.

So what did we learn? Martigale's does absolutely nothing to help you win, at all, it just makes you beleive you are winning. A few things to keep in mind:
1. in reality, the roulette wheel has green spaces, and blackjack (sans counting) favors the house (even employing basic strategy), and martingale's does nothing, so you will lose (NOT break even).

This is why martingale's is so funny: you win so many small pots, you think you're ahead. In fact, the more "rounds" you play, the more this is true. more rounds = less chance of busto. but more rounds = much bigger busto. Martingale's is like chasing a flush, or a gutshot straight, but you're ahead and the casino's chasing. You'll win a good %. In fact, sometimes an astounding %. But when the casino hits that one "improbable" occurence... lmfao.

BTW even funnier is applying m's to poker... not only does it do nothing to increase profitability, but your odds of winning actually DECREASE as you play higher buy-in HU matches. I've got a similar strategy for you:
1. withdraw poker money
2. head to bathroom
3. lift lid
4. deposit

... or just stick with the 11's ;-)

Well.....actually this strategy has helped me in other ways, I find that after losing a few 11's (perhaps not playing my best) moving up to a 22 or 55 will make me concentrate a hell of a lot more.
I dont care for the 'down the toilet' comment, il try to explain further why martingale is not ridiculous up to a certain level. Your debunking of this strategy is absolutely correct for a 50/50 (or just under in roulette) game. I was, and still do, win at a pretty decent rate (I dont have the 'stats', but approx 75 percent of time when trying ). This is over a good number, not just the 48 hrs .
My 'swings' at 11 have never really been that bad, I very rarely lose more than 3 in a row, thus moving up a level to 22 say is not a 50/50 shot.
There are no bigger HU games above 77 btw, my mistake was to stick at the 77's where their are tougher opponents. After losing a 77 i should have had the discipline to go back to the 'easy' 11's.

If you're winning / cashing, its because you can play poker, not due to martingale's losing strategy. I'm not knocking your poker play, just martingale. It's patently shit. It only works if you can play forever. (bill gates playing dollar tables with no max bet).

fair one bigslik.....