In HU play, how much more are you supposed to win on SB resp. lose on BB (by losing on BB I mean every fraction of your posted blind you can't hold on to) if you are an average (even money) player? Rake not included.

This is such a convoluted question I don't know what you're asking.

Are you asking how often you should fold the bb preflop? Or after the flop? Or what your winrate should be from the bb?

In the spirit of your nickname, I will leave you with a play on a Berra quote: Nobody plays HUHU anymore. It's too crowded.

I'm asking to know what you normally could expect from your BB play (for a the adverage player). How can it be difficult to understand? Or if we talk about a winning player, a player who win lets say 2 Big bets every 100 hands, how much of his winnings comes from SB/BB? In other words, how much of a disadvantage is it to play OOP, measured in figures?

For a b-e player I would imagine:

wr from sb = norm(wr from bb)

i.e. you would be winning about 4bb/100 from the sb, and losing -4bb/100 from bb.

Or, the difference between the two positions for however good you are is ~6-10bb/100

Really? You mean in big blind it would be normal to lose on average 0.04 big bets/hand (keeping 92% of the blind)?

From my own stats, the positional advantage is worth ~8ptbb/100, meaning that my winrate in the sb is that much higher than my winrate in the bb. I would guess that while this number will vary from player to player, it will never be very small. I would be surprised if you could find someone who had less than a 5ptbb/100 difference over 100,000 hands or more but that's really just idle speculation.

Some HULHE players even win from the bb. From what I've seen, this is actually more common in LHE than it is in NL.

I guess I was confused by the wording of your question.

The other guys in this thread are much smarter than me.

No worries. Anyway, thanks for the feedback. Live well.

The equity will be equal for both, provided the players play GTO.

I doubt it. GTO just means that you will (on average) lose the minimum. It doesn't guarantee a positive (or even zero) EV. If there is a structural asymmetry in the positions (e.g. who gets to play last), then there is no assurance that the GTO for any position is +EV. (Though it is the case that an overall GTO strategy will have EV(BB) = -EV(SB). It's just that the strategy for the SB play would be different from the strategy for the BB play.)

I counted at least fuor mistaeke hiere. Anyone can find five ?

I think some of it may simply be looseness in the language. The first two sentences are meant to be position-specific. For example, if I assume (which seems reasonable) that EV(SB)>EV(BB), then my second and third sentences should be interpreted as

GTO play from the BB just means that you will (on average) lose the minimum. It doesn't guarantee a positive (or even zero) EV in the big blind.

I left off those qualifiers because I don't know with certainty that the inequality does in fact run that way (though experience and reading the discussions of other players suggests it does).

I don't see other errors, but would be interested to have them pointed out.

not true, being in position has a value >0

Position makes no difference to equity when playing GTO.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. While the existence of a GTO solution is known for HUHU play, the details (to the best of my knowledge) are not. If so, I don't think anybody can know the exact GTO EV of the two positions in HUHU play.

However, this post may help with thinking about the meaning of GTO and the likely status of the two positions.