Where does profit come from?

[iggymcfly]

Yeah, I didn't really mean to suggest that. I go after a lot of pots and there are a lot of individual opponents I can outplay in that manner. Just saying that the main way that money comes from the fish to the long-term winners is through equity in all-in pots.

[Hiiiiiiii]

Thanks for the serious replies. I'm going to invest in PT omaha and check out where I stand.

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I didn't really mean to suggest that. I go after a lot of pots and there are a lot of individual opponents I can outplay in that manner. Just saying that the main way that money comes from the fish to the long-term winners is through equity in all-in pots.

[/ QUOTE ]

not sure i really believe that, except maybe with the most extreme fish. with halfway competent players, i think all-in pots tend to play themselves, and most of the profit to be had comes from being better at bluffing/picking off bluffs and getting the most value out of your medium strength hands.

[alavet]

well, we know that the bes players has about 53% w$sd
so, that means that their most income cames from that 3% and bluffs
i just dont know how much their bluffs >> than 3% of SD$win edge but i think its about 7% at least

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
well, we know that the bes players has about 53% w$sd
so, that means that their most income cames from that 3% and bluffs
i just dont know how much their bluffs >> than 3% of SD$win edge but i think its about 7% at least

[/ QUOTE ]

this is way way wrong. the key is to win bigger pots when you win and lose smaller pots when you lose, it's not just about winning a higher % of shown down pots overall. my w$sd is less than 50% and i think people who get much higher than 50% are usually terrible nits. it means they're not bluffing enough and they're probably missing a lot of thin calls.

[iggymcfly]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I didn't really mean to suggest that. I go after a lot of pots and there are a lot of individual opponents I can outplay in that manner. Just saying that the main way that money comes from the fish to the long-term winners is through equity in all-in pots.

[/ QUOTE ]

not sure i really believe that, except maybe with the most extreme fish. with halfway competent players, i think all-in pots tend to play themselves, and most of the profit to be had comes from being better at bluffing/picking off bluffs and getting the most value out of your medium strength hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if there were "halfway competent players", 1/2 and below would probably be unbeatable because of the rake. Seriously though, it takes a lot of cute plays in small pots to equal one fish who puts in 2 buy-ins with bottom set vs. top set or who calls down with aces when they can't possibly be good or who 4-bets AKQT and gets all-in preflop against AA. (All actual hands from tonight.)

I wouldn't have been as sure about this prior to getting PokerEV, but I'm down overall without my all-in pots and with them, I have quite a healthy winrate. To be fair, things like PF hand selection are included in this too as you might end up with extra redraws when you're strong enough to get in just by playing a little tighter PF.

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I didn't really mean to suggest that. I go after a lot of pots and there are a lot of individual opponents I can outplay in that manner. Just saying that the main way that money comes from the fish to the long-term winners is through equity in all-in pots.

[/ QUOTE ]

not sure i really believe that, except maybe with the most extreme fish. with halfway competent players, i think all-in pots tend to play themselves, and most of the profit to be had comes from being better at bluffing/picking off bluffs and getting the most value out of your medium strength hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if there were "halfway competent players", 1/2 and below would probably be unbeatable because of the rake. Seriously though, it takes a lot of cute plays in small pots to equal one fish who puts in 2 buy-ins with bottom set vs. top set or who calls down with aces when they can't possibly be good or who 4-bets AKQT and gets all-in preflop against AA. (All actual hands from tonight.)

I wouldn't have been as sure about this prior to getting PokerEV, but I'm down overall without my all-in pots and with them, I have quite a healthy winrate. To be fair, things like PF hand selection are included in this too as you might end up with extra redraws when you're strong enough to get in just by playing a little tighter PF.

[/ QUOTE ]

The pokerEV phenomena you talk about is basically a mathematical certainty in Omaha, and has little to do with where your profit comes from. Every other player, even the loser, is going to be doing better in their shown down pots than in their non shown down pots. And every player is losing money on the latter. If you lose less, you win.

[alavet]

umm-humm nice argument
i was wrong
so we need to know average SD pot to use w$sd properly
after that we really know how much %of winning came from non-shown hands (if we also know total profit), dont we?

[iggymcfly]

Yeah, never mind. Don't know how I didn't think that through myself sooner. I wonder if there's a way to filter hands between hands that didn't go to showdown at all and hands that did regardless of whether you were involved in the showdown or not. That would probably be more informative.

[Aisthesis]

No, it isn't all luck. Also, I really do think with 50 BIs down, you have to be doing something wrong in a pretty major way. I'd look at the following:

1) Hand selection. If you play hands better than those of your opponents, you're already a step ahead. Of course, great hands in PLO can be total crap on the flop, but hand selection means that you have hands that hit more often and/or in a bigger way than those that others might have. That will eventually pay off.

2) Calling or pushing only with sufficient outs or when you're already ahead. Where the profit comes from is that opponents don't generally do that. An open-ender in PLO is absolutely nothing. If you call, you need 13 outs to win. With less, you're going to end up bleeding. Also, imo anyway, if you PUSH a draw, there needs to be some hand that your opponent is likely to have against which you are a sizeable favorite (examples: you have the nut flush draw to go with your strong straight draw, you have TP to go with a similar big draw. In both cases, if your opponent is on a draw similar to yours, he is in trouble--and you also don't want to be big underdog to a set).

3) Bluffs. Well, if you play tight on the whole, then bluffs can account for a good deal of profit, but my guess is that you're way overdoing it in that regard, so my suggestion would be to leave that out for a while.