yeah i been doing it a bit too lately and we have been doing pretty good... imo it is a great way to improve your game because ye get to discuss the tough spots with your partner and analyse your game and try to think of optimal lines. another thing is that its not really cool to make tilty plays cos your gonna be letting your partner down and hes not gonna be happy you do stupid things, so it helps you be more self aware and not get caught up in a few bad beats. you can each just encourage each other and make sure that your both not tilting
Should be pretty high, maybe close to double a 2 man game?
Keep in mind you're putting in a lot more time and you receive a higher prize for your investment, so ROI alone is not going to be a good comparison to 2 mans. But I'd look for around 2x your 2 man ROI, maybe higher?
How come pokerstars answered like this if it is profitible, what have they missed (I asked them if they allow players to collaborte in 4man husng's)?
In Heads-Up knockout tournaments, there is no way for players to gain any
equity advantage by playing as a team. To understand why this is so, we need
to look at the two significant attributes of these tournaments: Heads-up
play and Knockout structure tournaments.
Heads-up play.
This is aspect is quite easy to comprehend. When playing Heads-up you have
only one opponent involved in all your hands. There are no opportunities for
hole card sharing, squeeze play, pot building, whipsawing, stack balancing
or any of the other tactics which colluders can employ at a multi-handed table.
Knockout Structure.
The knockout structure of our heads up tournaments is that same you would
find in any Grand Slam Tennis event or NCAA basketball tournament. Unlike a
round robin, or other tournament formats, every match is equally valuable to
both players competing. This attribute eliminates any potential conflict of
interest or incentive for a cooperative strategy. To illustrate this,
included below is an equity breakdown of the possible team strategies that
can be employed in a typical $5 buy in - 4 man Heads Up Sit & Go tournament
(ignoring rake).
1. Two players (A and B) playing as a team enter and are drawn in the same
opening match.
In this case, the team is guaranteed to have 1, and only 1, player in the
final. Having 1 player in the final is worth $10 (1 in 2 chance of winning
$20).
This strategy is equivalent to the team just entering a single $10 HU match.
Total team entry cost: $10
Total team equity: $10
2. Two players (A and B) playing as a team enter and are drawn in separate
opening matches.
The team has 4 possible outcomes from the first round:
A wins B wins
A wins B loses
A loses B wins
A loses B loses
The team has a 1 in 4 chance of having both players progressing, at which
point they are guaranteed the first place prize money of $20.
Equity: 25% x $20 = $5
The team has a 2 in 4 chance of having just one player progressing to the
final. Having 1 player in the final is worth $10 (1 in 2 chance of winning $20).
Equity: 50% x $10= $5
The team has a 1 in 4 chance of having no players make the final. Having no
players make the final is worth $0.
Equity: 25% x $0 = $0
Total team entry cost: $10
Total team equity: $10 ($5 + $5 + $0)
3. Three players (A, B and C) playing as a team enter. Obviously, two of
them will be drawn in the same starting match (A and B), giving them a
guaranteed seat in the final. The third (C) will be in a starting match with
another opponent.
The team has 2 possible outcomes from the first round:
C wins
C loses
The team has a 1 in 2 chance of having both seats in the final, at which
point they are guaranteed the first place prize money of $20.
Equity: 50% x $20 = $10
The team has a 1 in 2 chance of having just one seat in the final. Having 1
player in the final is worth $10 (1 in 2 chance of winning $20).
Equity: 50% x $10 = $5
Total team entry cost: $15
Total team equity: $15
This equality of ‘total entry cost’ and ‘total equity’ extends to any
strategy, of any number of players in any sized Heads-Up Tournament with a
knockout structure. A team could enter 127 players in a 128 player
tournament and their equity would be exactly equal to their entry cost, no
matter how they were drawn.
I hope this explains our reasoning for not prohibiting the practice of
playing heads-up knock out tournaments in teams.
They defo work for me as i said... brag coming... me and siervos hav just went on a 15(so far, still not lost) game winning streak at $115 and are +18 for day... so far... BOOOM
Would doing this process with a friend not fall under a sketchy area like collusion? Just playing then chopping once you get there? I see how it could go either way but it still seems a little bit shady.
I personally prefer the 2 mans. Time for the 4 man takes longer and while the profit is higher, u must beat all the other players to get there.
The only argument is "the team can watch the first round player play his match, while the first round player can't watch the team play a real game since they go all in first hand."
In theory, that's a great argument. It's the only theoretical argument that I am aware of that is legitimate.
However, in reality, nobody I've ever done 4 mans with has studied the first round game (I've played with skates, nofear/cacaw, dibasio, hokie, primo, croix, ekko, phenom and more). Furthermore, even if you watch a player play from the rail, you gain very very little information. Otherwise, great players would just constantly rail games for information (they don't, though I can see it helping if you're trying to exploit a specific player long term). And finally, and this is the real kicker, it takes a lot of focus and energy to rail or review a game. If I have 10 games in me for a session, I can't just rail a few games attentively and then play 10 games, it doesn't work like that. It takes time and energy to really study a person. However many games you were going to play in a session, if you spend every other dead time between 4 man matches watching the opponent in game attentively, you can't play as many games as before.
I'll also tell a story about 4 mans, since people always like to say "oh yea, 4 mans are great, lower variance, huge edge, partners rock." It's not always like that. My first shot at the $230s, about 11 months into my husng career, I ran about 89% of total equity compared to expectation. Granted, I was not as strong of a player as I should have been in those games. However, that run bad set me back a bit, it hurt my confidence back in late 2007 and early 2008.
During my second $230 shot, I was a better player. Not as good as I should've been, again, but better relative to the opponents. I found that my biggest leak of volume was resolved when I played 4 mans with a partner, it made me feel accountable, especially if I planned on playing with them. At the very least, I tended to play longer sessions when I did 4 mans, since a stray game or two always seemed to be up, and I sometimes played another table or two when 4 manning.
All that in consideration, I ended up playing $230+ 4 mans with skates. It was also extremely favorable to my EV to play with him because he could play 4-6 tables at once if he needed to, with minimal loss of EV (imo, bc of the way he thinks and processes information compared to most of the rest of us). So it sounded great. However, I ended up winning a lot of games initially, yet he was running disgustingly bad. We were down at least 10, maybe 15 buyins for a bit. Then I stopped running well. He didn't improve much results wise. We were down at least 20 buyins, or $4400ish before long. We kind of stopped playing those for awhile, but I ended up playing a bunch of 2 man $230s on my own.
Well, I think my confidence back then went down yet again, due to the actual results of our 4 man experience. i also recall my EV (in a true EV analysis, not that HEM bs) being lower than 100%, though not nearly as low as that horrid 89% first sample. I ended up playing maybe 1k $230s, initially losing up to 6k. I ended up breaking even after rakeback (and selling action throughout, those are those nasty swings that make a "W" on my scope, I probably didn't have any risk on both those major downers) but it was not a great experience. It's probably the reason i call the $115 my "casual home" these days rather than $230, even though I'm easily rolled for $230 and then some. I just feel more comfortable playing $115, even if I don't play for a week or two. $230, however, takes more mental preperation. While I feel I've really grown mentally, I'm not naive enough to think there's a reason I don't brainlessly register at $230 rather than $115 when I load up a game. I have no problem playing or getting up for higher levels, but when it comes to just a "I am caught up with work, I need to play some games" mentality, I register $115, not higher.
So anyways, my point is that 4 mans aren't just some magic recipe for success. I don't believe they are unfair in any mathematical way, nor do I feel they are dishonest. If Stars would just put a "4 man teams are allowed if you go all in on the first hand to split the profit" disclaimer in the lobby, there would be zero way you could call them unfair in my mind.
There was a thread on 2p2 in the NVG (and copy in HuNL) forum and the logic from the "cheater" side was disgusting. Probably not by coincidence, the people arguing against the 4 man teams were all non husng players. Nobody except the OP in the HuNL thread seemed to argue against the teams.
Anyways, hopefully my small book helps answer your question a bit.
Good points. For what it's worth I'm not die hard against co-oping the 4mans, just wondered if anyone had the opinion that it could be a little on the wrong side. But you're right there's pretty much no huge edge for the team going into the battle. It actually seems like a sound strategy for reducing variance especially if you have a solid partner. BTW are you saying that if you wind up at the same(first) table as your partner u both just shove one can be ready to move on?
DealThem: Yes, if you are playing with a partner you HAVE to go all in first hand or play the match legitimately. Anything else is not allowed.
Jspazz: I don't have the specifics handy by memory. PM Tnixon on 2p2, it was his EV analysis and I think he could very quickly and easily tell you the details of that compared to HEM's EV.
There are a lot of people who have been doing this profitably longterm. Chopping them reduces the variance.
I make way more money playing them simply beacuse i focus more so that I dont let my partner down... simple as that for me really
yeah i been doing it a bit too lately and we have been doing pretty good... imo it is a great way to improve your game because ye get to discuss the tough spots with your partner and analyse your game and try to think of optimal lines. another thing is that its not really cool to make tilty plays cos your gonna be letting your partner down and hes not gonna be happy you do stupid things, so it helps you be more self aware and not get caught up in a few bad beats. you can each just encourage each other and make sure that your both not tilting
its breakeven or -EV
If you're a winning player and playing with another winning player, it is definitely profitable.
Do you have any idea of what ROI you can expect for 4 man HUSNG because I have a pretty small sample right.
Should be pretty high, maybe close to double a 2 man game?
Keep in mind you're putting in a lot more time and you receive a higher prize for your investment, so ROI alone is not going to be a good comparison to 2 mans. But I'd look for around 2x your 2 man ROI, maybe higher?
i did a spreadsheet to compare 2mans and 4mans with ROI, net/game.......
i am atm not at home, i can upload it in a couple of days...
How come pokerstars answered like this if it is profitible, what have they missed (I asked them if they allow players to collaborte in 4man husng's)?
In Heads-Up knockout tournaments, there is no way for players to gain any
equity advantage by playing as a team. To understand why this is so, we need
to look at the two significant attributes of these tournaments: Heads-up
play and Knockout structure tournaments.
Heads-up play.
This is aspect is quite easy to comprehend. When playing Heads-up you have
only one opponent involved in all your hands. There are no opportunities for
hole card sharing, squeeze play, pot building, whipsawing, stack balancing
or any of the other tactics which colluders can employ at a multi-handed table.
Knockout Structure.
The knockout structure of our heads up tournaments is that same you would
find in any Grand Slam Tennis event or NCAA basketball tournament. Unlike a
round robin, or other tournament formats, every match is equally valuable to
both players competing. This attribute eliminates any potential conflict of
interest or incentive for a cooperative strategy. To illustrate this,
included below is an equity breakdown of the possible team strategies that
can be employed in a typical $5 buy in - 4 man Heads Up Sit & Go tournament
(ignoring rake).
1. Two players (A and B) playing as a team enter and are drawn in the same
opening match.
In this case, the team is guaranteed to have 1, and only 1, player in the
final. Having 1 player in the final is worth $10 (1 in 2 chance of winning
$20).
This strategy is equivalent to the team just entering a single $10 HU match.
Total team entry cost: $10
Total team equity: $10
2. Two players (A and B) playing as a team enter and are drawn in separate
opening matches.
The team has 4 possible outcomes from the first round:
A wins B wins
A wins B loses
A loses B wins
A loses B loses
The team has a 1 in 4 chance of having both players progressing, at which
point they are guaranteed the first place prize money of $20.
Equity: 25% x $20 = $5
The team has a 2 in 4 chance of having just one player progressing to the
final. Having 1 player in the final is worth $10 (1 in 2 chance of winning $20).
Equity: 50% x $10= $5
The team has a 1 in 4 chance of having no players make the final. Having no
players make the final is worth $0.
Equity: 25% x $0 = $0
Total team entry cost: $10
Total team equity: $10 ($5 + $5 + $0)
3. Three players (A, B and C) playing as a team enter. Obviously, two of
them will be drawn in the same starting match (A and B), giving them a
guaranteed seat in the final. The third (C) will be in a starting match with
another opponent.
The team has 2 possible outcomes from the first round:
C wins
C loses
The team has a 1 in 2 chance of having both seats in the final, at which
point they are guaranteed the first place prize money of $20.
Equity: 50% x $20 = $10
The team has a 1 in 2 chance of having just one seat in the final. Having 1
player in the final is worth $10 (1 in 2 chance of winning $20).
Equity: 50% x $10 = $5
Total team entry cost: $15
Total team equity: $15
This equality of ‘total entry cost’ and ‘total equity’ extends to any
strategy, of any number of players in any sized Heads-Up Tournament with a
knockout structure. A team could enter 127 players in a 128 player
tournament and their equity would be exactly equal to their entry cost, no
matter how they were drawn.
I hope this explains our reasoning for not prohibiting the practice of
playing heads-up knock out tournaments in teams.
Yes they cannot gain equity by playing as a team, but they are in effect sharing their bankroll, so their variance decreases
They defo work for me as i said... brag coming... me and siervos hav just went on a 15(so far, still not lost) game winning streak at $115 and are +18 for day... so far... BOOOM
Would doing this process with a friend not fall under a sketchy area like collusion? Just playing then chopping once you get there? I see how it could go either way but it still seems a little bit shady.
I personally prefer the 2 mans. Time for the 4 man takes longer and while the profit is higher, u must beat all the other players to get there.
finished 17 in a row
any1 beat this before? such a sick day!
Eh, I don't see it as any different.
The only argument is "the team can watch the first round player play his match, while the first round player can't watch the team play a real game since they go all in first hand."
In theory, that's a great argument. It's the only theoretical argument that I am aware of that is legitimate.
However, in reality, nobody I've ever done 4 mans with has studied the first round game (I've played with skates, nofear/cacaw, dibasio, hokie, primo, croix, ekko, phenom and more). Furthermore, even if you watch a player play from the rail, you gain very very little information. Otherwise, great players would just constantly rail games for information (they don't, though I can see it helping if you're trying to exploit a specific player long term). And finally, and this is the real kicker, it takes a lot of focus and energy to rail or review a game. If I have 10 games in me for a session, I can't just rail a few games attentively and then play 10 games, it doesn't work like that. It takes time and energy to really study a person. However many games you were going to play in a session, if you spend every other dead time between 4 man matches watching the opponent in game attentively, you can't play as many games as before.
I'll also tell a story about 4 mans, since people always like to say "oh yea, 4 mans are great, lower variance, huge edge, partners rock." It's not always like that. My first shot at the $230s, about 11 months into my husng career, I ran about 89% of total equity compared to expectation. Granted, I was not as strong of a player as I should have been in those games. However, that run bad set me back a bit, it hurt my confidence back in late 2007 and early 2008.
During my second $230 shot, I was a better player. Not as good as I should've been, again, but better relative to the opponents. I found that my biggest leak of volume was resolved when I played 4 mans with a partner, it made me feel accountable, especially if I planned on playing with them. At the very least, I tended to play longer sessions when I did 4 mans, since a stray game or two always seemed to be up, and I sometimes played another table or two when 4 manning.
All that in consideration, I ended up playing $230+ 4 mans with skates. It was also extremely favorable to my EV to play with him because he could play 4-6 tables at once if he needed to, with minimal loss of EV (imo, bc of the way he thinks and processes information compared to most of the rest of us). So it sounded great. However, I ended up winning a lot of games initially, yet he was running disgustingly bad. We were down at least 10, maybe 15 buyins for a bit. Then I stopped running well. He didn't improve much results wise. We were down at least 20 buyins, or $4400ish before long. We kind of stopped playing those for awhile, but I ended up playing a bunch of 2 man $230s on my own.
Well, I think my confidence back then went down yet again, due to the actual results of our 4 man experience. i also recall my EV (in a true EV analysis, not that HEM bs) being lower than 100%, though not nearly as low as that horrid 89% first sample. I ended up playing maybe 1k $230s, initially losing up to 6k. I ended up breaking even after rakeback (and selling action throughout, those are those nasty swings that make a "W" on my scope, I probably didn't have any risk on both those major downers) but it was not a great experience. It's probably the reason i call the $115 my "casual home" these days rather than $230, even though I'm easily rolled for $230 and then some. I just feel more comfortable playing $115, even if I don't play for a week or two. $230, however, takes more mental preperation. While I feel I've really grown mentally, I'm not naive enough to think there's a reason I don't brainlessly register at $230 rather than $115 when I load up a game. I have no problem playing or getting up for higher levels, but when it comes to just a "I am caught up with work, I need to play some games" mentality, I register $115, not higher.
So anyways, my point is that 4 mans aren't just some magic recipe for success. I don't believe they are unfair in any mathematical way, nor do I feel they are dishonest. If Stars would just put a "4 man teams are allowed if you go all in on the first hand to split the profit" disclaimer in the lobby, there would be zero way you could call them unfair in my mind.
There was a thread on 2p2 in the NVG (and copy in HuNL) forum and the logic from the "cheater" side was disgusting. Probably not by coincidence, the people arguing against the 4 man teams were all non husng players. Nobody except the OP in the HuNL thread seemed to argue against the teams.
Anyways, hopefully my small book helps answer your question a bit.
Good points. For what it's worth I'm not die hard against co-oping the 4mans, just wondered if anyone had the opinion that it could be a little on the wrong side. But you're right there's pretty much no huge edge for the team going into the battle. It actually seems like a sound strategy for reducing variance especially if you have a solid partner. BTW are you saying that if you wind up at the same(first) table as your partner u both just shove one can be ready to move on?
@ryan: How do you do this "true EV analysis" and how does it differ from HEM's all-in crap?
DealThem: Yes, if you are playing with a partner you HAVE to go all in first hand or play the match legitimately. Anything else is not allowed.
Jspazz: I don't have the specifics handy by memory. PM Tnixon on 2p2, it was his EV analysis and I think he could very quickly and easily tell you the details of that compared to HEM's EV.