I've watched chadders0 hyper pack and he does a lot of shoving when he plays. Before watching his vids/pack I have been a fairly tight player. chadders0 shoves hands like 86s 12bb deep which I'd never shove even at 8bb deep.

Is this an optimal hyper husng strategy ?

It's clearly working for him.

Also how would these strategies work on lower stakes e.g. 1.50's and 3.50's where people call so wide (he does his vids at the 60$ level)

I think in general you need to be more loose agressive in this format compared to other formats, but relying on it can be detrimental. Heads up is all about how quickly you adjust to your oponent, recognize their weaknesses and exploiting them as soon as possible.

I personally don't know what to make of chadders0 Hyper Turbo Pack. Although some of the information in the pack can be useful I believe that his strategy is somewhat reckless. His strategy = huge swings as like you said, he likes to shove really loose. I would like someone more experienced to give his opinion on the pack and if it is worth studying.

In the mean time, here is a graph of one of chadders' students:

1k games, dat sample

I think you really want to focus on why a decision is made, not that the particular decision is actually made.

For example, if someone shoves T7o at 10bb, and they are a big winning player, you should not just shove T7o at 10bb, even if they play the same exact stakes as you do.

Why? Because you need to know why they are shoving T7o in this particular situation. They might shove T7o vs player A, then limp T7o against player B, then shove T7o against player C, then minraise T7o against player D. 3 different decisions against 4 different players, irrespective of their buyin level.

Learning even a few reasons on why good players make decisions will be infinitely better than trying to copy any stagnant strategy that exists (because non really exist that are proven big $$ strategies long term).

I like Bluffyou's post and I agree that in general being loose and aggressive compared to other formats makes sense. I also agree that relying on that can be detrimental. Strive to find the best strategy against each opponent, and in specific spots. You might be very passive on the turn, very aggressive on the river, very aggressive in the PF SB, very loose in the BB Preflop, very passive postflop in the BB, and even all that is pretty general (it's really about hand ranges, how to exploit some of their ranges that are built very poorly).

It's all about them swings

By the way, isn't chadders pack mainly about readless game play ?

RPK, I don't think what you say is really correct at all in terms of how variance and edges work in HUSNGs.

When Chadders decides to shove a hand, weak or strong, vs an open raise, he is saying that he thinks it is the best decision in the hand; the one with the highest expectation of profit (or lowest expectation of loss). It would be very unwise to choose the decision that you do not believe results in the most profit (or least losses).

If you disagree with the shoving of a specific hand in a specific situation, you would want to really talk about why calling or folding is better than shoving, not that "this loose shoving is high variance."

I think using an example of a single student with only 1k games is a bit misleading too.

jamming the suited connectors is shallow and readless the best strategy, which will turn you 1-2% roi i think in the long run

but at the end of the day when you get shallow you already have some reads on your opponent and based on his tendencys (usually fish) its often not "the most protifitable", which doesnt mean its not profitable

and if your opponent is a reg or half way thinking he will probably pick up on your wide jaming ranges and adjust accordingly his calling ranges, which will make you very quickly unprofitable

but if you 4 tables hyper turbos, dunno if you never tried, you cant (or i cant) keep track of every stat of the 4 different opponents, and you probably cant just keep calm and check out their stats for every hand you gonna play, this will skyrocket your average sng to at least 3,5 minutes i think, with the time up also goes the variance up

so i think chadders tries to achieve some middleground, by jaming suited connectors based on nash (which again is profitable, but often not THE MOST PROFITABLE play) and keep the games somewhat quick and get a high volume

You should really just try and adjust the best you can to your opponents tendencies and try to exploit him in the most optimal way possible instead of thinking so generally about whether a LAG style is profitable.

True, but in general the default strategy for HUSNG is very laggy- mr a lot of buttons, cb a lot of flops, barrel favorable runouts, etc.

EV is EV.

The more spots you pass up on the lower your winrate. And the lower your winrate the bigger the swings no?

wat

It is not that you are not capable to; that others are also not or that you will not be capable in the future.

If you're not shoving 86ss and 8bb you are hugely leaking.

If you use ICMizer if you estimate a 30% calling range we can basically shove 94% of hands at 10bb and it's more profitable than folding. This doesn't mean you need to shove of course, if min raising is just as effective.

The wider people call, the more equity you'll have when called.

Shoving 86ss at 12bb is not being a LAG.

Chadders has huge swings because he is playing a low edge game at the highest stakes against some of the best players in the world.

Nope. You can unexploitably jam many hands shallow because the wider they call the more equity we have and the tighter they call the more we win without showdown.

IMO shoving is overrated >10bb vs competent opponents. "Unexploitable jams" (from sklansky-chubukov chart) aren't actually unexploitable, they're just guaranteed to be better than folding. Shoving nash isn't unexploitable, your opponent can exploit you by calling nash. Remember that if both sides play nash push or fold, the small blind LOSES money on average at 8bb or greater. In real poker the SB is expected to make chips on average, so if at 10BB SB is pushing nash and BB is calling it then the SB is getting hugely exploited.

If you are shoving a lot of weak hands like K2o and 86s and not shoving any monsters, then an opponent can definitely exploit you by calling wider than nash. K2o will still be better shoving than folding at 10bb or less but it will lose more money vs a wide calling range than vs a tight calling range, and will almost certainly be losing more money than mr-folding or limp-folding unless your opponent is a maniac. Hands like 54s or 86s that rely on fold equity can actually become worse to shove than to fold if your opponent is calling wider than nash.

i would almost say that fish are prone to call all ins pretty wide, which will give you some headaches if you keep pushing low suited connectors

I would say there are more fish calling shoves with a tighter range then nash in BB then there are fish who call shoves wider then nash in BB.

This is correct the moment you compare your new acquired EV (when BB deviates from nash and you the SB still playing Nash) compared to the nash EV in the SB (when BB & SB plays Nash).

However, the moment 1 player deviates from Nash; it is a fact that each player can change their strategy to even acquire a higher EV. The BB can deviate towards Nash to get higher EV. The SB can move away from nash range to exploit BB range and will even get a higher EV then the already risen EV from my first paragrapgh situation.

So I think, you were mixing up both above paragraphs to some degree.

Not completely true. If peeps calls slightly wider then Nash, we initially shove a bit tighter then nash. If peeps calls sick wider then Nash, we start shoving wider then Nash. Imo, try out percentage based simulations to see it yourselve.

depends on the gameflow i would say

one example would be if chiplead switched to you last big pot and villian (usually angry russians) get frustrated by losing a big pot last hand the calling range next few hands is wider than nash, but thats just a general assumption from me

A big mistake I weed out from time to time in spots is over-adjusting. Meaning thinking it was a good gameflow move but actually I tricked myself in thinking it was gameflow while it was just facing variance. The difference seeing between gameflow & variance solely based upon frequencies is not that easy. At least not for me.

However, technically your words are correct facing correct population.

IMO, chadders0 pack contains a very solid fundamental strategy, very good information about how to think about hypers and how to start playing them optimal, but also I think this strategy is somehow oriented to 4-tabling players.

pure lol...most of them are calling waaayy to tight. And before this you said that pushing SCs are very profitable...now, it'll give you some headache?