I am trying to figure out how much more I would make playing 4 person HUSG. Could you explain the math behind it. And your English is quite well.

Greetings,

I enjoyed your analysis of how much profit can be obtained playing 4-man sit and go's.  My personal experience seems pretty consistent with your conclusion.  I've generally found 4 man sit and go's to have the worst players online at the low limits.  This seems especially true at the non-turbos 5.25's and 10.50's.  I've Sharkscoped hundreds of players in the 4-man's (I've played quite a few of these) and on average the ROI's of the competitors are absolutely terrible.  I'm only speaking about my experience on Pokerstars.

However, I was recently reading a thread on 2+2 where some compelling counterarguments were made.  I tried to find the thread just now but came up empty.  Anyway, some of the arguments against 4-man S&G's were the following: 1) Time spent waiting for 4-man games to fill.  2) Down time while waiting for the other match to finish (if you win your first match).  3) Increased variance. 

Basically, I think these are highly profitable and they also minimize rake.  However, there is an opportunity cost of wasted time waiting for games to fill or finish.  If you are capable of multi-tabling several tables at once, you might minimize down time.  However, I think for the average player there is some uncertainty about whether it's more lucrative to play 4-man's or just enter normal games.

Thank you,

Jeffrey

Greetings,

I just re-read your original post and think you might be missing a critical piece of information that could distort your results.  I think your formula assumes the players in the second the round will have the same average ability.  This is a dubious assumption as the better players, on average, will make it to the second round.  So, you need to modify the equation to reflect the increased skill level of your average opponent in the second round.  Just a thought.

Thank you,

Jeffrey

With his numbers I think he is taking into account your second round opponent should be a better opponent on average than your initial opponent.  If you play 100 of these and have  a win rate of 60% first round of each and a win rate of 55% second round (avg. roi of 57.5% taking into account the likelyhood of the 2nd round being tougher) you would get the same numbers he posted above.  You would win around 33 out of 100 games.  Sounds achievable to me.  Haven't played any 4 mans so I'm not sure.  Maybe someone can do a larger sample of these.

Greetings,

I'm sorry about that.  I just re-read the original post (for the 2nd time) and noticed his formula contains an adjustment for the 2nd round (e.g. higher stakes).

Thanks for pointing my error out,

Jeffrey

Here are the calculation for a 23$ (22$ + 1$) turbo SNG 4-man on Stars:

10% ROI on normal turbo SNG 23$ => 57.5% ITM => +2.3$ / SNG

57.5^2 (88-23) + (1-57.5^2) (-23) = +6.095$

6.095 / 1.575 = +3.87$

3.87 / 2.3 = 1.6825 => +68.25%

what about 16/32 man, do you think they are as profitable as well?

Hi all,

I think if a pro joined the conversation, he would say that all that count is your hourly rate.

So the ROI is irrelevant.

if your ROI in 4mans is >2x in 2 man your hourly should be better as well imho

1) Time spent waiting for 4-man games to fill.

By exemple on FTP there's not much time spent waiting for the 4man to fill in the 22$ 4-man and lower, but then there's the 40/44/80/88/160/180 and I think you can forget the 80-180 ones, because of the wait. And perhaps the 40-44$ too.

I don't how the Pokerstars 4-man fill if someone could tell me.

But on FTP a winning player at the 22$ would be force to move to the higher 2-man HUSNG because of the wait time of higher 4-man.

(hope you'll understand my english :s)

Also variance is bigger in HUSNGs because of the irregular payout format (+3, -1 instead of +1, -1 in 2mans), but the big ROI usually compensates for it.

On Stars there is only one 4man lobby registering for each stake level and speed (i.e. one for turbo, one for regular). Thus, no new 4mans spring up until the last one has 4 people sitting. This makes the games run swifter

The 4 man sngs also last longer on average, havent you forgotten that in your equation ?If a turbo HU takes 10 minutes on average you play 6 pr. hour = 12 $/hourIn the 4 man format, 40 % takes 10 minutes, and 60 % takes 20 minutes = 16 minutes on average which mean you can play 3.75/hour on average (if they fill as fast as the regular hu, which they dont).Then your hourly in the 4 man is 3.75 * 3.87 = 14.50 $/hour On top of that you rake 6 $ in the regular, and 3.75 $ in the 4 man, if you get 25 % back the numbers are 13.5 $/hour in the regular and 14.44 in the 4 man.Then your gain in $/hour playing 4 man is a little under 7 % and not the 73 % that was mentioned, and that is under the assumption that they fill equally quick, which they dont.   

They may have filled more quickly when the thread was started.But the $/hour thing is the important thing here.Most reputable people that have done the math have found that it often makes sense to play 4 mans solo over 2 mans if you are rolled for it.  There's usually an increase in roll required for playing 4 mans solo as opposed to the same stake in 2 mans, but it's generally quite a bit less than playing the next level higher in 2 mans.Basically, for people coming up the stakes and following a bankroll plan, it might make sense to play 2 mans at a level, then 4 mans solo, then move up to 2 mans at the next level and do the 4 mans solo at that level prior to moving up yet again.  You can think of it as a stepping stone in that regard.

Sounds like a good plan Rypac.  Could you give me a plan assuming a $300 bankroll and starting at $6.25 TURBOs on FTP.Also some thing to keep in mind is the delay between games might be good to increase your focus and you can watch the other table. And you can always play a mix of 2man and 4man.

It seems to me, that the time waiting for the other match to conclude isnt neccessarily 'dead time'... If used well it could increase your chances of winning the FT ??I mean, just rail that table and try to begin the FT with some reads on your opponent?But this would be impossible to quantify, just wondering why no-one mentions this before... (except prev post) Also, isnt $/hr really only important once you are using husngs as (atleast some of) your income? I mean to ppl playing even $20 games, is $/hr really that important? For low stakes players (like myself) Id have thought it is about trying to increase ROI by improving game, to be able to move up to levels where $/hr really does mean something... (because it is > 3.87 ;-) )

Hey Ry, I'm sure you'll know this very well: What's the point of teaming up for the 4 mans? Just reducing variance, inducing action at the higher levels? And how is it usually done, just 50-50 whenever one of the guys wins it, regardless of how it happens, or some different arrangement?Another question: On the variance calculator tool, if I plug in the win/loose amounts for 4mans and a win % it should work just as well as for 2 mans right? Just asking in case there's something I'm missing about how it's programmed.

johnny, I have to find the post that was talking about expectation and bankroll in these as well as 2 mans to give you an accurate plan.  I'll try to take a look tomorrow.AJG, hourly is more important when the money is more important to you, sure.  But if you're not maximizing your hourly you sometimes take longer to get to where you need to be.  Obviously for a non winner or marginal winner or new player, the only focus should be improving their game.  Decisions like poker site, structure and bankroll management can be made in a few hours, at most.  After that just play, play, play.  So I do agree, but if you're calculating 4 man vs 2 man positives and negatives, you might as well factor in the most relevant point: hourly rate.  It doesn't help you much to play the same game if it's only giving you 75% of the hourly the other version would.  It's not like one will develop your skills quicker than the other.Nico, people like to team up to reduce variance.  They also like to team up to gain more action (especially higher stakes).  Generally, the weaker players end up being more comfortable playing 4 mans than 2 mans and rely on a partner (or rely on 4 mans, not playing any 2 mans), whereas the top pros will just sit in 4 mans to get more action while they sit in 2 mans.  I haven't heard of anything other than 50-50.  For the variance calculator tool, it should work out, just make sure you put the correct win and loss amounts in as well as a reasonable win %.  I'm not sure of those #s off hand, particularly the win %, but for the rest of it if it's a $5 + .25 buyin you'd just win $19.75 I believe and lose $5.25.

Still looking forward to it.

Is this it?http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/58/heads-up-nl/answering-4-man-vs-2-man-question-144437/

What should your roll be fore 4 man.  I am thinking in terms of (rake/fee + buyin*2) * x (number of buyins) x 30 would be right. (I am a bankroll nit who can't plan on replacing his much shrunken roll) Also anyone got the average time for a regular speed on ftp?

Yes that's one of the better threads on the topic that I've seen.For 2 man match length, I recently posted ITRIED and Mersenneary's wait times for games they had a sample for (FTP turbos and regular speeds).  It's somewhere in this forum from the last month or so.