Non -showdown profit/loss

[Aisthesis]

Ok, the "where does the profit come from" thread got me thinking about the question of what profit or loss comes from unshown hands.

So, here's what I did for a recent chunk of .50/1 hands (8k hands):

1) Filter by "went to showdown and won": Here, I get $6,514.

2) Filter by "went to showdown and lost": Here, I get -$4,238.

Ok, so the difference there is about $2,300, and the losses at showdown are about 2/3 of the winnings.

3) Now, over the same stretch of hands, I've only won $1,075 total. So, that means I've LOST $1,200 on hands that didn't go to showdown.

Well, crap, that still doesn't get the stat I wanted, because in the "not going to showdown" hands are included all the hands I folded. What I'd really like to know is the portion of my winnings that came from OTHERS folding without showdown.

Any ideas?

I'll update myself if I come up with anything. Sorry this is still rather confused, but I think there's an interesting stat in all this somewhere...

[Aisthesis]

Ok, how's this (same 8k hands)?

1) I filtered first with "doesn't matter" under showdown, but only if I bet, raised or called on the flop. I then get a total profit of $1,650--and this of course includes the cases where I lost at showdown, etc.

2) Now, I keep bet, raise or call on the flop checked in the pto filters, but check "went to showdown". Now I get only $979 profit.

So, I made about $670 from those hands where it didn't go to showdown--roughly 2/3 of the amount I made from the showdown hands.

Breaking it down further:

First, bet the flop: Profit from all hands = $1,346. Profit from only those going to showdown = $712. So, when I bet, half my profit came when it didn't go to showdown.

Second, raised flop: Wow, the total profit here is almost nothing, namely $90, and it's slightly less ($82) for those cases where it went to showdown. This looks to me like it might be a major leak in my game, actually.

Third, called flop. Profit is $215 total, of which $185 is from showdown.

Hmmmm... still not completely sure what all this means, but that's what I get for me.

[pete fabrizio]

everyone "loses money" on their non-showdown hands, that doesn't mean that you're not profiting on them. you profit when you lose less on those hands than your opponents.

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
Second, raised flop: Wow, the total profit here is almost nothing, namely $90, and it's slightly less ($82) for those cases where it went to showdown. This looks to me like it might be a major leak in my game, actually.

[/ QUOTE ]

these tend to be the "race" pots, so it could just be an artifact of your small sample, but i still find this very interesting, and it may even have meaningful implications outside of your game.

[Aisthesis]

Depends on how you filter it. If it's the hands where YOU folded before showdown, then you obviously lost money.

What I'm trying to get at is the portion of hands you win by getting others to fold.

[Aisthesis]

Yeah, and over a large portion of this sample, I've been experimenting with doing a lot of flat calling on the flop and raising very rarely with position--like flat calling with top set or with naked nut flush draw or with a lot of wraps.

Anyhow, that may account for this weirdness.

Also, it may have something to do with the filter, which says "pre-flop raise-action on flop." I find it hard to believe that this is capturing every time I raised the flop, since it only shows a total of 5 (!!) hands out of 8k. I know I raised more flops than THAT despite my propensity to flat call with position.

[Aisthesis]

I fear this attempt is only showing raised pots, actually.

[Buzz]

Aisthesus - Your efforts are interesting and food for thought.

Seems to me whether or not you have to show your winning hands depends on how well your opponents play. When they play badly and call you down when you have the winning hand, you win more than when they play better and fold losing hands before the showdown.

Similarly, when you play well and fold your losing hands before the showdown, you lose less with them.

Thus if you profit more when you show down your hand, it means your opponents are playing worse than you by calling more with hands that would have been better folded, whereas you are folding your losing hands before the showdown and thus not paying your opponents off. And/or it means that you are doing a good job of picking off their bluffs. (If you showed a loss when you showed down your hand, it would mean you are calling more than your opponents with hands that would have been better folded).

There’s hardly any way you can profit more than you lose when you don’t show down your hand. The presumption your opponents are making when they fold is they are folding a hand that would end up losing. (Otherwise they would not fold). Thus your profit when you don’t show down your hand is due to your opponents suspecting or recognizing they probably have losing hands and folding when you bet or raise. They’re only not properly folding when you they cave in to your bluffs.

So you have to find a way to see how often your bluffs are successful. This does not seem very difficult for each hand where you bluff, if you keep track of when you bluff (flag those situations, boards, opponents, position, hand history, etc. more than the cards you hold), but what it does not show is how much more you profit when you actually have the winning hand. In other words if you bluff, bluff, bluff, and then bet a solid winning hand, you’ll be more likely to get paid off with the solid winning hand. (Don’t misunderstand, no sane person probably bluffs three times as often as they bet a solid hand when playing Omaha).

The point is, the benefit of occasionally bluffing is not necessarily so much the profit you make by getting your opponents to lay down winning hands as the profit you make by getting your opponents to pay you off when you have the winning hand.

In other words, no hand is an island of itself. You’re trying to isolate your hands to see where you profit and where you lose. But that is impossible, because by losing one hand, you may increase your profit on many future hands.

Seems to me (I’m just guessing) your profit probably comes more from some individuals than from others. If you want to maximize your profit, you should (and you’re probably already doing this) focus on playing in games with individuals you can beat. (This is probably elementary to you, and if so, I apologize for the post).

Buzz

[alavet]

[ QUOTE ]
@@Breaking it down further:

First, bet the flop: Profit from all hands = $1,346. Profit from only those going to showdown = $712. So, when I bet, half my profit came when it didn't go to showdown.

Second, raised flop: Wow, the total profit here is almost nothing, namely $90, and it's slightly less ($82) for those cases where it went to showdown. This looks to me like it might be a major leak in my game, actually.

Third, called flop. Profit is $215 total, of which $185 is from showdown.@@<br />
[/ QUOTE ]
i like it
nice research
i want to see the similar stats of pros

[Aisthesis]

You bring up a lot of interesting points here.

What I was originally trying to get SOME kind of grip on was what portion (which is clearly going to depend on opposition) of profits is coming from "they fold" and what portion from "I had the best hand at showdown."

On the bluff end of it, I did try recently to track this on a spreadsheet, but it proved too tedious (probably could've done it if I hadn't added in some extras in the calcution). Basically, I defined a "bluff" as a bet (or raise) on anything less than top 2 or a 13-outer to the nuts. What I did notice over the very small sample I waded through was that my bluffs accounted for a significant share of profit, which was more for value bets but still.

But you also bring up another interesting point: Maybe you should be bluffing so much that your bluffs are actually slightly UNPROFITABLE for the sake of gaining value on your big hands.

One other thing I wanted to mention was the first part of your post, about folding losers, etc. In PLO, I'd say roughly 90% of the time, we're talking about 2 hands that have SOME potential. It's mainly a question of where various players draw the line in terms of outs and situational analysis.