CO graph is bad, it should look alot more like BTN, you are probably playing way too tight from CO, aslong as BTN isn't some super lag tard then you should be opening CO almost as wide as BTN. 
Notifications
Clear all
General Poker Discussion
38
Posts
19
Users
0
Reactions
6,383
Views
Originally posted by fusionpk
CO graph is bad, it should look alot more like BTN, you are probably playing way too tight from CO, aslong as BTN isn't some super lag tard then you should be opening CO almost as wide as BTN.Way too tight?
My reasoning was: since he is loosing a lot of showdowns, he could be playing too loose and losing to BTN calls/raises.
If you play tight isn't it a tendency you should come to the showdowns with more strenght?
i misread his graph strange tho, idk hard to say without seeing some numbers or a range
Ok... now the real noob question.
Quite many people say it's not possible to have a positive red line on the micro limits (villains call to much, never fold, etc).
BUT... if that's the case, where does the "no showdown" money go to?
If we think of "money at sd" and "money w/o sd" as closed systems (i.e., you can only win money w/o sd without a showdown and money at showdown with a showdown), it's not possible to everyone lose money in one or the other system.
Unless we assume it all goes to rake (which I'd say cannot be the case, considering some graphs out there), for someone to have losses on no-showdown, someone else must have a positive red line.
Where's the flaw in my reasoning?
Originally posted by luizsilveira
Ok... now the real noob question.Quite many people say it's not possible to have a positive red line on the micro limits (villains call to much, never fold, etc).
BUT... if that's the case, where does the "no showdown" money go to?
If we think of "money at sd" and "money w/o sd" as closed systems (i.e., you can only win money w/o sd without a showdown and money at showdown with a showdown), it's not possible to everyone lose money in one or the other system.
Unless we assume it all goes to rake (which I'd say cannot be the case, considering some graphs out there), for someone to have losses on no-showdown, someone else must have a positive red line.
Where's the flaw in my reasoning?
There's definetly alot of value to be gained at non-showdown at micro's since players are pretty terrible and very exploitable.. even the regs.. But imo.. it's so much harder to play a style like that then to just play standard TAG.. you need to be a WAY better player imo to make a really agressive and exploiting opponent type of game work.
Just to give you an idea of what is possible.. This is my NL25 graph from a small cash game experiment.. My goal was to just play rediculously agressive and try to exploit the players every chance i get.. I can tell you.. i made quite a few players tilt.
If you would take just a few things from my maniac style during this you would probably increase your non-showdown winnings by a very signifcant amount.
here's the graph.. just to make it clear.. the highest red line is non-showdown winnings.. the one below that is EV.
By hahaownedlol at 2011-03-02
Originally posted by Hahaownedlolz
Originally posted by luizsilveira
Ok... now the real noob question.Quite many people say it's not possible to have a positive red line on the micro limits (villains call to much, never fold, etc).
BUT... if that's the case, where does the "no showdown" money go to?
If we think of "money at sd" and "money w/o sd" as closed systems (i.e., you can only win money w/o sd without a showdown and money at showdown with a showdown), it's not possible to everyone lose money in one or the other system.
Unless we assume it all goes to rake (which I'd say cannot be the case, considering some graphs out there), for someone to have losses on no-showdown, someone else must have a positive red line.
Where's the flaw in my reasoning?
There's definetly alot of value to be gained at non-showdown at micro's since players are pretty terrible and very exploitable.. even the regs.. But imo.. it's so much harder to play a style like that then to just play standard TAG.. you need to be a WAY better player imo to make a really agressive and exploiting opponent type of game work.
Just to give you an idea of what is possible.. This is my NL25 graph from a small cash game experiment.. My goal was to just play rediculously agressive and try to exploit the players every chance i get.. I can tell you.. i made quite a few players tilt.
If you would take just a few things from my maniac style during this you would probably increase your non-showdown winnings by a very signifcant amount.
here's the graph.. just to make it clear.. the highest red line is non-showdown winnings.. the one below that is EV.
By hahaownedlol at 2011-03-02
is this a troll or are you serious? not sure
^ Not sure what you mean. He asks about nonshowdown winnings.. i show him what's actualy possible.
My graph is obviously a very extreme example of how much value there actualy is. I tilted and spewed away probably 3 buyins during these 1k hands too.
So with a few adjustments this could actualy be a very profitable way to play.. since if i had not lost that huge pot i'd been up over 2k bb in 1k hands.. but i lost it and i'm 1000bb under ev in a bit more then 1k hands.. Showdown winnings don't even matter if your goal is to get as much value at nonshowdown as that's what i was doing.. As long as you can breakeven at showdown with this style then your doing very very good.
It's a very small sample size.. but it really doesn't matter that much. I was exploiting these players so badly it's pretty irrelevant how bad/good i or they ran.
But my point was.. i'f you'd take a bit from my agressive play then you could just have a normal graph with non-showndown winnings above 0.
Originally posted by Hahaownedlolz
But my point was.. i'f you'd take a bit from my agressive play [...]
And that would be doing...?
Originally posted by luizsilveira
Originally posted by Hahaownedlolz
But my point was.. i'f you'd take a bit from my agressive play [...]
And that would be doing...?
I'm not really a cash game player. What Nightfrostass suggested sounds good to me.
If you do want to know what i did. then it's below. I'm really not a cash game player though. So i don't want to see people follow my advice then QQ cause it doesn't work.
Spoiler
What i did was.. 3bet very loose.. and even 4 bet very loose.. i noticed people called 3bet and 4bets very tight. Preferably do it in position. So that you can still outplay them if they do call. that + some rediculously sick bluffs is what i did. I really don't recommend doing what i did 
it was mostly just for fun. Was playing my opponents more then my cards really.
If your not experiencing the same results then just 3bet/4bet less. Poker is all about adjusting.. People 3betting and folding to 4bets too much.. then start 4betting more. If people call 3bets too much then 3 bet less. If people make calls with their draws with horrible pot odds then just bet even more when they're drawing. An added advantage of 3/4betting loose is that when you do have it they will call your 3bet/4bets lighter.
Originally posted by Hahaownedlolz
Originally posted by luizsilveira
Ok... now the real noob question.Quite many people say it's not possible to have a positive red line on the micro limits (villains call to much, never fold, etc).
BUT... if that's the case, where does the "no showdown" money go to?
If we think of "money at sd" and "money w/o sd" as closed systems (i.e., you can only win money w/o sd without a showdown and money at showdown with a showdown), it's not possible to everyone lose money in one or the other system.
Unless we assume it all goes to rake (which I'd say cannot be the case, considering some graphs out there), for someone to have losses on no-showdown, someone else must have a positive red line.
Where's the flaw in my reasoning?
There's definetly alot of value to be gained at non-showdown at micro's since players are pretty terrible and very exploitable.. even the regs.. But imo.. it's so much harder to play a style like that then to just play standard TAG.. you need to be a WAY better player imo to make a really agressive and exploiting opponent type of game work.
Just to give you an idea of what is possible.. This is my NL25 graph from a small cash game experiment.. My goal was to just play rediculously agressive and try to exploit the players every chance i get.. I can tell you.. i made quite a few players tilt.
If you would take just a few things from my maniac style during this you would probably increase your non-showdown winnings by a very signifcant amount.
here's the graph.. just to make it clear.. the highest red line is non-showdown winnings.. the one below that is EV.
By hahaownedlol at 2011-03-02
@luizsilveira Fish win at non-showdown because they never fold. Play 1k hands with out folding a single hand and just bet or call then you simply can't lose at non-showdown. But they're losing big pots at showdown since they call to much.
@Hahaownedlolz Yes its possible to have high non-sd winnings if you play LAG style. But that requires you to be 100% focused on every hand and play very agro style which also means higher variance. You also have to consider your hourly since you can play twice as many tables while playing tag and its doubtful that playing laggy will double your winrate.
i shouldn't post here , i think
i'm pretty much in the same case, just "the other line "
Here is my graph on nl2 , only nl2 , i'm a beginner( 
) so ... any advice is good
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
@Hahaownedlolz Yes its possible to have high non-sd winnings if you play LAG style. But that requires you to be 100% focused on every hand and play very agro style which also means higher variance. You also have to consider your hourly since you can play twice as many tables while playing tag and its doubtful that playing laggy will double your winrate.
I completly agree. I was single tabling most of this. So while i think i could have a very sick bb/100 doing this.. my hourly probably wouldn't be that amazing vs good solid TAG's who 4-6 table.
That's why i said it was a fun experiment and don't actually recommend doing it. You'd indeed have to play very focused cause if you don't your spewing away chips before you know it.
Originally posted by kakeiho
Can you post a HEM that list your winnings by position?
I am posting now stats and graphs for all positions, so I hope for some more advise and toughts from you guys about my leaks.
SB:
BB:
EP:
MP:
CO:
BU:
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Originally posted by MatejM47
@luizsilveira Fish win at non-showdown because they never fold. Play 1k hands with out folding a single hand and just bet or call then you simply can't lose at non-showdown. But they're losing big pots at showdown since they call to much.
Interesting.
I had a goooood session today exploiting one fish. He was even multitabling so I managed to get onto his 4 tables for the delight of my bankroll and I.
Anyway, this guy was playing 65/15, betting pot-size even with 3rd pair low kicker, and making the most absurd calls. Even so, he had a HUGE stack in two of the tables (around 4BI).
wtf
So I went to pokertracker, to analyse his game on the data I had. Surprise, surprise: ALL his winnings came from no sd winnings (he had a skyrocketing red line) but he had BIG losses on showdown (thankfully, some of those to me).
And interesting enough, his behaviour even boosted the call-draw-then-fold attitude towards him, which in turn made his red line even higher. But it was worth paying *anything* to see a draw, because he would usually be all in by the river if you hit.
Just want to say when i was starting at nl5-nl10 my redline -bb/100 was nearl as bad as yours.
Still i was able to have 6-10bb/100 overall winrate.
Redline is kinda complicated stuff. Its very hard to just say bluff more, 3bet light more, cbet less, defend more blinds etc.
you can improve your redline by simply valuebetting more - which some ppl think is all about blue line.
Its very hard to give advices just based on some numbers..
I personaly think you shouldnt care too much about some lines and focus on ur game in general.
What do you do in certain spot and why? What do you want to accomplish? What is the range of ur opponent? What is the best optimal line against unknown opponent? etc.
I have spent a lot time caring about my redline trying to be more tricky and bluffraise more turns etc not rly thinking why am i doing and what is my opponents range - just to get my redline higher. Dont do decisions just to improve ur redline.
Btw having massivly negative redline from SB and BB is pretty standart given we post our blind and are forced to fold most of the time.
^Agree with above. On micros people don't fold often so its hard to get a very good non-sd ratio. Make sure your SD winnings are high and don't forget to valuebet.
On low stakes, starting NL25/NL50 people fold more often and you should improve your non-sd there. Although it isn't easy without good postflop experience.
I guess for micros 100-150bb non-sd lose per 1000 hands is pretty normal, a 5bb/100hands winrate is quite easy as well. (3bb/100hands + rakeback is more than enough)