Quote:
Originally Posted by SeeTheMirage
HU is the only spot in the whole SNG that isn't affected by different payout structures.
Doesn't matter if it's 60/40, 70/30, or a large field MTT. Once it's HU, both players are already guaranteed 2nd place money, the only way to bump your payout is to win. So you play to win no matter if that bumps your payout by 1% or 1000% over 2nd place.
HU strategy is based on stack size and opponent tendencies, the payouts don't play into your decision at that point like they would 3+ handed.
Aren't there several ways to win, some better than others? I realize that HU isn't affected by different payout structures and thank both of you for your answers. However, in thinking about HU play in general, does it not make sense to play a certain way against some opponents? I really think I'm missing out on a lot of value in such spots, but I could be wrong.
Example:
Let me introduce the villain who refuses to play HU. By this I mean he realizes he is at a disadvantage and does not want to play postflop with the exception of the strongest hands with which he is trapping. He thus reduces his play to push/fold regardless of the fact that both stack depths allow for other plays.
Let's take a situation where both players have 22bb and villain is open shoving 27% (not unreasonable). We can profitably call with 13% of all hands, including A8o (+0.08) - the hand itself really doesn't matter, it could be as high as +0.2 for all I care.
Let's also presume that villain is unaware of how wide you simply have to defend your blind in heads up if you want to not automatically lose and is defending way too tight.
By employing a tactic of folding to any villain shove and opening wide enough to abuse him, aren't we going to win at a much higher frequency than taking marginal spots?
I realize my current questions aren't related to the payout structure, it's just that the different payout structure with 70% to 1st got me thinking that there is a lot of money to be made (or rather, not to be lost recklessly) here.
And I know you can't rely on intuition when it comes to poker as it can often be misleading, but why can't I shake off the feeling that there is more incentive in a 70%/30% structure than in a 60%/40% structure to play your absolute best? Is this just misleading and a subjective thing and the "amount" of incentive is the same in both spots, it's just that I've finally noticed my sub-optimal plays in general?