PokerEV - Mid and large sized pots questions

[ActionStan]

Small sample size warning:
I've only been poker tracking for a short time so I only have about 10K hands to look at. End of warning.

Running poorly warning:
I've been running poorly in big pots lately. I'm ok with that and my question has nothing to do with griping about taking some beats. End of warning.

I've started using PokerEV to look some of my poker tracker stats. Is anyone else using the tool? Generally, what sorts of things are you looking at? I have mostly been looking at how I play in different sized pots. Two questions for those who have been looking at this kind of thing:

1. My only equity adjusted losing range is in the mid-sized pots. I think this is because I'm a bit of a station and I engage with short stacks a little too readily after I've entered a pot. I think there's also some carry over from small pot bluffs, but I think that is minor. In any case, I've identified some behaviors that I can work on. I'm not sure if it's reasonable to be winning in all 3 ranges, though. Anyone have a sense for this?

2. It appears that I am also a bit of a station in big pots. My green line is almost exactly the same as my blue line, indicating I almost never fold in big pots I think. I don't know that this is the worst thing in the world, but it clearly isn't the best. Anyone out there who plays big pots well have a sense of how often they give up on big pots?

All pots:


By ActionStan at 2007-10-27

Small Pots < 20BB:


By actionstan at 2007-10-27

Medium Sized Pots between 20 and 75BB:


By actionstan at 2007-10-27

Large Pots > 75BB:


By actionstan at 2007-10-27

[SimaoMacaco]

bump for stan.. now if only those pics were big enough to read

[DenDuurs]

This is interesting except I have no idea what the lines mean. What are the different colors?

[SimaoMacaco]

**Green is total winnings (this is useful as it includes hands that do not go to showdown)
**Red is Sklansky bucks (equity adjusted winnings)
**Blue is showdown winnings (what actually happend rather than equity adjusted)

[pattay]

stan, these graphs dont mean [censored], and everytime someone posts one and tries to read into it for actual info, a part of my soul dies

[ActionStan]

Then let me apologize for killing part of your sole.

[SimaoMacaco]

[ QUOTE ]
stan, these graphs dont mean [censored], and everytime someone posts one and tries to read into it for actual info, a part of my soul dies

[/ QUOTE ]

not so... this graphs are actually quite informative.

If you take Norman's model for action's

In poker everything we do involves forming a PLAN, we translate that plan into an Intention, a H.L. Plan, an Action squence before finally taking the Actions themselves that in turn effect physical reality. This is the easier part of poker, it involves study and knowing what to do, whe to do it, etc.

Once we effect the world, we must then Perceive, Recognise, Interpret before we finally Evaluate what occurred. This is not easy as we often see the results over too small a sample, we do not know villains cards, and we suffer the effects of short term variance.. we might therefore get incorrect feedback and adjust our future actions inappropriately. The poker problem is two fold, knowing what to do and doing it.. preciecing the effects of what we do and adjusting it.

These graphs are a good attempt at giving more accuracy to the Perception, Recognition, Interpretation and Evaluation or our actions. Which is a huge part of the poker problem.

[pattay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
stan, these graphs dont mean [censored], and everytime someone posts one and tries to read into it for actual info, a part of my soul dies

[/ QUOTE ]

not so... this graphs are actually quite informative.

If you take Norman's model for action's

In poker everything we do involves forming a PLAN, we translate that plan into an Intention, a H.L. Plan, an Action squence before finally taking the Actions themselves that in turn effect physical reality. This is the easier part of poker, it involves study and knowing what to do, whe to do it, etc.

Once we effect the world, we must then Perceive, Recognise, Interpret before we finally Evaluate what occurred. This is not easy as we often see the results over too small a sample, we do not know villains cards, and we suffer the effects of short term variance.. we might therefore get incorrect feedback and adjust our future actions inappropriately. The poker problem is two fold, knowing what to do and doing it.. preciecing the effects of what we do and adjusting it.

These graphs are a good attempt at giving more accuracy to the Perception, Recognition, Interpretation and Evaluation or our actions. Which is a huge part of the poker problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

ya lost me [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[br.bm]

Small Pots:
Most of your winnings come without showdown. Looks like you are good at stealing small pots. Don't worry about the showdown winnings here.

Medium Pots:
Here you are loosing very much. I guess you go too far with your draws and onepair hands. Tighten up when you aren't the agressor. Play less oop maybe. And you should become better in stealing or not stealing those medium pots.
(stealing a 3bet pot w/ two villians is very hard)

Big Pots:
You just run bad. The EV is much higher than your actual winnings. Nearly 100% of your winnings come from showdowns which is natural. It's hard to win a 75+ BB pot without one.


uhm, yeah stop being a station. Try to figure out hands that you can beat (and villian is likely to hold) before you call.