I just discovered them last night and I'm thinking of giving them a try for a while. Far fewer variables than playing full tables and it seems like a great way to get some really focused heads-up experience without a huge risk. Also, I was reading a chapter in one of John Vorhaus' books about HU play and he believes that HU matches minimize the luck factor and maximize the skill factor more than any other form of no limit play. And since it's $2.20 the competition can't be too sharky. Then there's the 10% rake compared to 20% at the $1.20 SnGs.

Thoughts?

Definately the best way to make money if your HU game is above average, just be prepared for long drawn out battles, even against a total fish it takes a lot of pateince to win HU without taking uneccesary risks. I have the book you mentioned, and after reading that chapter it made me want to play HU, where I thought it was all luck before now I know it really is the most involved and skillful form of NLHE. The only problem is it's very mentally draining, and you only double your money, lol, I usually prefer playing a 2-5 table tourney where I can slack off for a good portion and just watch how everyone plays, and make 10-15 times my buy in.

I definitely see how it takes patience but does the average HU match take longer than a full table SnG? The drawback, of course, is that multi-tabling is much more difficult when playing HU.

I've been thinking about the potential return from pure statistical standpoint. At a $1.20 STT you have a 33% chance of making a profit, but that profit can range from 50% (60 cents for 3rd place) to 275% ($3.30 for first). In a $2.20 HU match you have a 50% chance of doubling your money, but also a 50% chance of losing your buy in. All other things being equal, which is more potentially lucrative?

Arent these winner take all though? I know there are a lot of fish in these tourneys but winner take all will be a lot harder to actually make a profit unless of course you win one . Maybe not though just throwing my opinion in there.

That's what I'm asking, is a 50% shot at double or nothing better or worse than a 33% shot at a wider range of profit?

Let's look at it this way. Say you start with $10 and over 10 HU games your ITM is 50%.

At $2.20 HU that = (5x4)-(5x2.2) = $9 winnings, or a profit of 90%

What would your finishes have to look like at a 50% ITM% playing full-table SnGs to get that kind of return? Unfortunately I don't have enough math know-how to make this calculation...

That should read (5x1.8) for net loss of -$2.

First if you are going to be ITM50% Head's Up you are going to be a loser.

$10 you lose 50 % for -$5
$10 you win 50% for +$5
10% entry fee for ten games =-$1 you are out $1 per 10 games
Total roi of -10%

10 Man

$10 you lose 50% for -$5
$10 you ITM 50% and at worst 3rd for win of min $5 and max of $20
$10 20% fee is -$2 (I recommend playing a site where SnGs are 10% fee)

Total Roi min is -20% but could be as high as 180%.

If you find a site that has lower fee, there is no benefit to playing HU if you are ITM 50% in either case, you are either equal or better off playing larger handed

You're right, I messed up my original calculation. See my thread on this topic in the general forum ("Math Wizards Needed").