pokerev, winning pots without showdown [theory]

[SilentNoise]

[ QUOTE ]
Someone get jfish or another MSNL HU player to plug his grpah into this, I imagine it could be pretty sick.

[/ QUOTE ]

yea it might look pretty, but i think its more interesting to see the graphs of other winning SSNL'ers instead. carrotsnake's graph is from MSNL i assume, where people go to showdown alot less, meaning you can successfully bluff more. this might be an explanation of why his green line is above his others.

i have yet to see a graph by any SSNL'er in this thread who wins in pots that dont go to showdown.

[ QUOTE ]
This graphing crap is in no way helpful in improving your game.

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont think anybody said it can improve your game? just like pokertracker...it doesn't improve your game. it finds leaks in your game. then it is up to you to improve by thinking and posting hands, to fix those leaks you have found.

Isn't it an undeniable fact that if you are losing in small pots that dont go to showdown, there is probably a problem in that part of your game? Obviously knowing this doesn't mean you have improved.

[Noam Chomsky]

[ QUOTE ]

Isn't it an undeniable fact that if you are losing in small pots that dont go to showdown, there is probably a problem in that part of your game?

[/ QUOTE ]

no

[SilentNoise]

maybe its not a problem. but its a fact that you are losing in them though. i dont see how that can ever be a good thing.

[Noam Chomsky]

[ QUOTE ]
maybe its not a problem. but its a fact that you are losing in them though. i dont see how that can ever be a good thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, I mean, intuitively it's not but when you really start thinking about the number of factors you need to consider to gain anything meaningful from the numbers you'll realize that it doesn't say all that much.

I play very tight from the blinds, hence, I'm losing like 5 pots that don't go to showdown every three orbits.

Double Eagle already posted about this and offered a reasonable filter to correct that data which makes a lot more sense than taking the data un-filtered. Your going to lose money in the blinds unless you're God over any reasonable sample and that seems to be what those numbers reflect as much as anything.

There are a ton of other factors too though having to do with style of play, table selection, opponents style of play and on and on.

Jman has had a ton of success. Watching his cr video though, he talks about how he tends to play more passive than lots of high stakes players, which presumably means inducing a lot of bets and making big calls a lot. This style, though obviously a successful one for him is one that will guarantee his 'green line' be well below the others.

Also, the laggier you play in general the more important small pots that don't show down will become. Nittier players rely on showing down the best hand a lot rather than slicing and dicing a bunch of smaller pots. There's so much more that needs to be looked at in conjunction with these graphs to make them meaningful.

[Jay Riall]

I don't neccessarily think that a LAG (by this I simply mean higher vpip and pfr) will have his green line above the other two lines all that often tbh. I played 27/22 for a short while, and the thing I noticed was how much more I was going to showdown. I would raise crappy cards and make an awful lot of marginal mid-pairs and TPNK type hands. These hands would be taken to showdown very very often simply because the bulk of hands would be played in position, making it pretty easy to get to showdown with these types of hands. Also because of a LAGs image, it makes it difficult to make succesful bluffs with a good frequency, thus making him go to showdown more often. Thoughts?

[SilentNoise]

good points naom / jay ... i dont really have any insightful comments to add since im pretty clueless on the subject.

i think intuitvely lags should be winning more small pots that dont go to showdown. yes its true that alot of the time you play in position and are able to get to showdown cheaply/free. but alot of the other times you and your opponent both flop nothing, meaning whoever plays better (the lag) will win these small pots. so i dont see why a good lag players wouldnt' have a green line above the others.

(it seems that all the pots where the lag AND the villain both flop nothing - and the lag wins with aggression...would farr outweight the times the lag flops a pair and decides to go to showdown with it)

[mvdgaag]

I have about 9K hands of mayor spew and tilt on 5NL that still made a profit on the small pots... Looking for some webspace to post it.



EDIT: found some space... This is my 5NL tilt when I need to cool down or just feel like screwing around. I haven't got much more than 9K hands of this, but it shows it's not too hard to make a profit on small pots without showdown while losing the big ones. Mainly bet/bet/bet with 35/25 stats.

Up to 6K is screwing around... last couple of hands are just tilt and spew.

[Randiek]

I dont really know how to interpret my results. Ive got about 7k hands on my current website, but i win 10+bb/100 without showdowns, according to the statistics from pokerev. However, im losing huge in showdowns. What does this mean? Is this winrate w/o showdown normal? Have i been running bad (equity adjusted is approx 14 buyins difference over 7k hands)? Or am I doing something wrong in general?

[Speedlimits]

[ QUOTE ]
how do you know, aisle? was this addressed in the software forum thread? obviously, if this stuff isn't taken into account, the program loses a lot of its luster.

some comments about the sick msnl graphs (carrot's, kotkis's, another bbv dude's, ahnuld's): i submit that a big part of the reason these guys can post graphs like these is the nature of the games in which they play. at ssnl and below, villains don't fold. in general, the way to make big bucks in these games is to town people. thus, i submit that having a graph with a green line above the other lines is much more difficult at small stakes than it is at msnl and above. not to take anything away from the abovementioned players, but i doubt their graphs would look similar if they played 100 nl.

most of the graphs posted in here support my argument. you'll notice that for a graph in which the green line approaches the other two lines, the poster has been running above equity (blue line > red line).

enough rambling i guess. i do think this stuff is interesting and has merit. fwiw, here's the info. i currently have saved (i run bad, obviously):





[/ QUOTE ]


tannenj can you explain this a bit more? If the red line and blue line are similar then that means you run average? Or if your green line is significantly lower than your red/blue does that mean you run bad?

Basically what I am asking is. How does the green line determine if you run good/bad in relation to the blue and red line.

[DaycareInferno]

the more hands that you play, the higher percentage of the time you should win without showdown. since the wider the range, the weaker your hand, the less often you will have marginal showdown value. the less often you have marginal showdown value, the more often you will turn your hand into a bluff. if you were to bluff as often with a tight range post flop as you would with a loose range, you would just be burning up showdown value.