Hey Zalver,Your question is rather large and hard to answer specifically.In short, there is plenty of edge to be had here.  It's also true that many players struggle in this area the most and find it the toughest to really get comfortable and understand where there is edge and how to exploit opponents.Many of today's best heads up sng players particularly excel and gain a lot of edge from the end game.  So little is known to many of the "next tier" winning players at the mid and high stakes games that they actually feel that some of the best players in the world are actually fish, when in reality the best players are clearly exploiting these players in the end game.So suffice to say, developing a very strong mid to end game (10-30bbs I usually say, basically super turbo stack sizes) can be difficult, but definitely worthwhile.It would take me hours to write everything I can think of on end game strategy and proofread and articulate it correctly.Thankfully, we have coaches on the site that specialize in these games and cover them in depth.  If you're looking at a standard membership, Mersenneary has a very good end game video available to that membership.  Cog Dissonance also has his super turbo series, the first four videos are available to standard members.  Additionally, you can find a lot of very relevant and high level end game strategy peppered throughout Skates Videos, many of which are available to standard members.  Fydor and I also have end game dedicated videos, which are a bit older but still very applicable, especially to players that are not at all comfortable with their edges in this area.The premium membership really takes it to an entirely new level.  Aside from more Skates videos containing great advanced end game concepts, Mersenneary has been making very well received and high level end game videos in the premium membership for some time now.  Cog's most recent super turvo video takes place at the $100-200 levels and is available to premium members.And not to detract from other videos, you can find some very strong end game concepts in any of our instructor's videos, but they won't be as focused as the videos I mentioned above, particularly videos taking place at the super turbo structure on full tilt, which is entirely mid/end game oriented.

Hi Zalver,I can definitely recommend Mersenneary's end game video suggested by RyPac13.Have you heard of Nash Equilibrium? You might want to read up on that and how it relates to endgame HUSNG's. I found it useful in helping me with my endgame. 222

If your opponent plays strictly by the Nash charts, then you cannot do better but than to use the Nash charts yourself.As for your second question, being "unexploitable" means that someone cannot use your tendencies to gain an advantage...an "unexploitable" strategy is perfect strategy against someone who plays perfectly against a perfect strategy.But if your opponent does not play "perfectly" then you can make adjustments to take advantage of that fact.For example, let's say your opponent pushes every hand. Obviously, you should be calling waaaay wider than the Nash charts suggest, which means that the Nash charts are not optimal in this situation. The Nash charts are only optimal against a player who uses the Nash charts. If they make deviations from those charts, you can exploit them (if you know how they are deviating) by varying your actions from the charts.

This very question has been raised many times in many forums, and there is a particularly good post on it over at 2+2 by spamz on this - http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/185/heads-up-sng/finishing-opponent-he...But i will try to repeat a few of the salient points here for you...1) It important that if you are going to jam 96s at 15BB, that you also jam with your monsters, QQ+ etc. Many make the mistake of deviating from the chart with the very top of their range (minraising QQ+ for example), but its important to understand that if you want to play the HU NE chart, you need to be pushing ALL hands that are indicated as a push above the effective stack size... (Actually the original chart goes much higher than 20BB to)2) Forget opinion, or intuition on this matter. It is a game theoretic equilibrium solution, computed using an algorithm known as 'fictitious play', which may give some conotation of producing fictitious results, but not so. All it really means is that oponent's STRATEGIES are 'face up' (their opponent knows them). And you are not the 1st to question certain aspects of it...3) The extra equity in the hand being suited (as in 96s compared to 96o) does make a big difference (remember we may be talking about .1BB equity differences between included and discluded hands in a range), and its important to remember that the chart is NOT a 'Hand v Range' chart but a 'Range v Range' chart. Remember all hands that have EV > 0, even if that EV is 0.01BB are included in whatever range you are considering - (technically they have EV > -0.5BB as the equity of jamming is compared to the equity of folding which is always -0.5BB) The effective stack to use is BEFORE and blinds are posted....4) Also consider what including suited hand combos but not offsuit combos does to the range as a whole. The typical example is consider a pushing range containing only AA. (obviously very exploitable) now if we add ONE more hand, lets say 87 we get 2 ranges if we consider the suited and offsuit variety, so {AA, 87s} and {AA, 87}. In the first range, we have 10 hands, 6 of which are AA, in the 2nd we have 22 hands 6 of which are AA, so in the first range much more of it is weighted toward the 'nuts' end of a polarized range either way...Hope this helps...

Now my question is that even he limps this time, could I move all-in with 69s? Its corresponding stack size is 20+BB but surprisingly, 69o's is just 5.2BB. It can't differ that much in my opinion.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This still blows my mind.However the reason I think is that it has to do with how many combinations of 69s and 69o there are.69s    4 combinations         69o    12 combinationsSo, you will get 69o 3 times as much as 69s so you should be less inclined to shove it?????John Nash should be able to explain it better.(is he still around?) 222    

Why would John Nash be able to explain it? (And yes he is still around)What Nash did was prove that for ANY game (scenario) with 2 or more players/participants there IS an equilibrium in strategies. He makes no claims about any particular strategy in any particular game/field (How could he??)If you really want a definitive answer, ask Chen and/or Ankenman...But you are correct, partly, because the extra equity in suitedness does plays a part (and a bigger one, the more I think/learn about this, than the number of combos) -> Remeber we are sometimes talking about extermely small differences in equity between hands that are included in a range and those that are not... Compared to this 2-2.5% can be alot!

Keep in mind that with 15bb, we are not so excited about playing push/fold here. Depending on the opponent, most of the time we would want to minraise on the button and check and see a flop OOP.Generally, we don't want to start pushing until 10-12bb, as there is still SOME room to play with higher blinds than that.And against some tighter opponents, you can even minraise shallower than 10bb, expecting a fold most of the time, but if he has a strong hand he will shove.In addition to Mersenneary's endgame video, watch Rypac's endgame video to get a slightly different perspective:http://www.husng.com/content/rypac13-video-09-introduction-end-game

Something I'm discovering in the endgame...and I could be wrong about this due to lack of experience...is that you really need to adjust quickly and watch your opponent's patterns very closely.If they have been very passive, and the 25/50 level hits and suddenly on the first hand they are minraising, be ready for the possibility that this one minraise may signal a complete shift in their strategy as the blinds get higher. Another hand or two of aggression is very likely to indicate they have made the switch.You adustments to their game can/must occur more quickly than is intuitive.

That is a very good point qattack, and something that is mentioned a few times in "Mathematics of Poker", albeit in slightly different scenarios - that players often need 'more evidence' for a certain assumption, and would often do better to just assume they are correct and play to exploit that assumption right away rather than wait for the further eveidence they are right.It often does not fit our intuitive understanding of probability, that only a few samples of some behaviour can lead to a much higher probability that such behaviour is the 'standard' for that player than we usually think. As an example (and I wont duplicate the calculations here), lets say 10% of players have a very large VPIP (say > 66%, and we would label such players 'maniacs'), hence when you see a new player there is a 10% chance they fall into this category. Now they raise 5/6 hands off the bat. The probability (that they are maniacs) now jumps to around 70%, given this new info - much more than most ppl would think. (Note this example is not from HU play, so not using HU stats)