Let's talk about red lines

The discussion started in the Sept Graph thread, but I didn't wanna hijack that thread, so I thought I'd start a new topic. I'm not sure if there is any more discussion to be had on the topic, but any discussion about it can go here.

The subject started from my sept graph:

Originally Posted by Massimo

I'm all for the + red line but that bad in showdown winnings consistently cannot be good

Originally Posted by TonyB73

Dude, you're clearly 100x the player I am and I'm not trying to criticise just for the sake of it, but you must surely be a serious bluff-monkey to have a graph like that? Do you just fire off three barrels like all the time?

The funny thing is I honestly don't feel like I fire three barrels all that often. Nor do I feel like I bluff too too much postflop. I think my graph has to do with a few things. Probably the biggest factor is getting into a lottttt of 20/80s preflop(too many in fact, and is a reasonably big leak). 4bet calling off a lot of pairs from the btn, or 3bet/jamming a lot of pairs on the btn vs co has resulted in a pretty crappy blue line.

I also feel like I bet rivers a ton in spots (esp in position) with marginal hands that most people would probably just check back. This results in almost every small/medium sized pot that most people have as counting towards showdown winnings, as counting towards my non-showdown winnings. I think this adds up huge over the span of 40k hands in a month. (Imagine how many times you get to the river in a 10 bb pot and just check back where you could make a very very thin value bet. 100-200 times a month? That's 10-20 buyins that are interchangable between showdown and non-showdown right there)

I don't plan on changing the latter too much, but I plan on changing the 80/20's stacking off quite a bit this month, so we'll see how much that helps.

I agree though, in general I'm not a fan of my graph.

Originally Posted by zook

griffey: That graph is absurd. I can't imagine the type of play it would take to generate that. Getting into a lot of 80/20's would definitely make your blue line go down, but I can't imagine winning the other pots pre would make your red line go up that much. /head asplode

my redline plummets and i am a marginal winner.

Most ppl I know with redlines like yours are also marginal winners.

Players like nutsinho who have breakeven red lines are massive huge winners.


/my contribution

Griffey would u be down for back/forth sweat sessions so we can combine each other's games into a breakeven red line?

Originally Posted by Renton

my redline plummets and i am a marginal winner.

Most ppl I know with redlines like yours are also marginal winners.

Players like nutsinho who have breakeven red lines are massive huge winners.


/my contribution

I think this is kind of a silly argument. Just because one of the best online players has a break-even red line doesn't necessarily mean thats the path to greatness.

By your argument, anyone with a huge red line or massively down redline are destined to never be a "massive winner". An extension to your argument is that anyone with a break-even red line, then, has the potential for being a "massive winner" (which I'm sure we can both agree is not true).

I'll agree with you that most graphs you see here and on 2+2 of the big winners certainly contain ppl with near breakeven red lines. However, I have definitely seen some on 2+2 where big winners have huge red lines and either breakeven or largely negative blue.
It's not the standard, but it's definitely possible.

Instead of focusing on the 'red line' as a whole, I think its more productive to focus on what actions/plays are causing so many non-SD winnings, and which of these actions in our games are +EV for us and which are not.

Originally Posted by Renton

we can combine each other's games into a breakeven red line?

The thing is, I feel like at any time I can easily get a break-even red line. Just nit it up postflop, raise only legit hands, c/f when I don't have anything on the turn or any legit equity on the turn. Boom break-even red line.

I can't for the life of me understand massively negative red lines though.... but I'm sure those ppl can't understand mine, so it's all good!

ok, my thoughts, nothing special at all - but maybe something I say will trigger something worthwhile from someone else? Anyway, i'm going to play 6-max a bunch more during the next few months = Full Ring for the money I need, and 6-max cos my longterm goals involve a better-rounded poker proficiency. For now my thoughts on red-line vs blue line revolve around the different flavours of fish exploitation (note that my 6-max play was a quick jaunt from 5nl to 50nl, and then entirely 50nl and 100nl).

I played a very much 'target the uber-fish for big pots' style to start with, and it worked well. I then read about red lines and started bluffing at pots where there wasn't a successful bluff to be had - or maybe bet-sizing played a role? Anyway, i got called a lot and lost far more big pots than previously, and although the redline was less steep it was still on the way down. However, now the blue line didn't compensate for this effectively. I also noticed that I started to win less big pots at showdown, and i'm not really sure how this happened. I think it's because I started winning pots on earlier streets when I should have been trying to squeeze out multi-street value.

Re the blue line, if you're value betting thinly then obviously your showdown winnings will plummet - reasons are twofold. 1) people don't call as thin as we like to think = the pots where 'thin value' was supposedly available, i.e. your holding was weak but ahead, but villain folded result in non-showdown winnings. 2) when these alleged thin value bets get called, you lose.

Re the overall aggression associated with a red line like this - what is the standard adjustment made my fish and wannabe good players? We (yep, i'm a wannabe) adjust inappropriately. Even though we know we should be calling thinner and raising more often etc we start treating the LAG as a maniac, and waiting for a monster to stack them. This results in playing more hands than normal pre-flop, but folding them too easily post-flop. This again results in the aggressor's red line heading sky high by winning 3-5bb in loads of hands, but on the rare occasions that a showdown occurs then the aggressor is typically toast = plummeting blue line.

I also wonder about the merging (wrong word perhaps) of thin value and bluff and whether you are always aware of which you are doing. This should/must influence the appropriate bet-sizing? or? I'm not sure if your sizing is range-consistent vs holding-consistent or not. This could be relevant? bluffing bigger to be more effective = your bluffs have to work far more often to be +EV = when bigger bluffs get called then your showdown line is further kaput.

Reading through your posts though, I think this is only part of the equation. You talked a bunch of getting into 20-80 spots far too often = obviously screwing your blue line. This likely also means that you're trying to get the chips in too early/aggressively when you're the 80% end of the bargain - allowing villains to too easily fold. This will also accelerate your red line, while not allowing the big pot showdowns that would leave your blue line looking a lot healthier.

Hope this makes some sense, maybe it's better to be colourblind...

I've always been pretty cynical of most conclusions based on graph lines because there's always so many specific things that may or may not be contributing to those lines. Trying to adapt your game based on a line seems less than ideal.

Instead of focusing on the 'red line' as a whole, I think its more productive to focus on what actions/plays are causing so many non-SD winnings, and which of these actions in our games are +EV for us and which are not.

I like this. I think progression as a poker player has to be done on a micro level once your game gets relatively solid. Small steps, iterative improvement focusing on specifics is going to do you so much more good than trying to change a line.

That being said, the blue line in question is almost certainly indicative of some problem, and it sounds like griffey's identified that -- the key here is that the line is a symptom of a problem with your game, not a problem with your game in itself.

I think one of the biggest issues with the redline going up is from what you state as being betting so much thinner on later streets. The thing that I have been thinking about is the whole "Weak hands calling/better hands folding" problem. Your thin bets are obviously to get thin value form worse hands but I think most of the time they are not. Your basically betting all those hands that we tend to check behind when too thin, where as you are always in bet/fold mode and still folding out those hands. You don't allow guys to get to the river with marginal hands since you are betting so much thinner. People know this and don't play marginal, showdown type hands vs you OOP knowing well that you will bet that river IP.

I think this does two things, it obviously effects the showdowns going down from less wins and the non showdowns go up from folds. It's a wash. the only way to change the actual winrate is to have them call the thin bets and not only earn more at showdown and less at non showdown, but to increase earnings.

I think you have identified the leak that requires attention and are doing the work involved to adjust. Your preflop game needs work. You need to get to the point of not flipping so often and find an edge. You need to be the one forcing them to adjust, not trying to adjus to them.

Have you ever done a video? Have you done one lately? I think some of us could surely learn something and someone may actually see something necessary to change if you posted a vid. No sound, no talking and playing your real game, not the tighter more relaxed griffey that we rail, but the aggro monkey, no checking, no folding griffey in those charts.

Also, any chance on seeing some showdown stats from last month? I am guessing your under 50% showdown and aver 45% WWSF but would also be interested in your WTSD%, it has to be lower than std.

Originally Posted by daven

I played a very much 'target the uber-fish for big pots' style to start with, and it worked well. I then read about red lines and started bluffing at pots where there wasn't a successful bluff to be had - or maybe bet-sizing played a role? Anyway, i got called a lot and lost far more big pots than previously, and although the redline was less steep it was still on the way down. However, now the blue line didn't compensate for this effectively. I also noticed that I started to win less big pots at showdown, and i'm not really sure how this happened. I think it's because I started winning pots on earlier streets when I should have been trying to squeeze out multi-street value.

I think a lot of what you say here, in terms of relating the red line to bluffing is a problem most people have. Certainly going for more thin value also influences it a lot, though this could be a stakes dependent thing. I feel like people at higher stakes have more of a propensity for hero calling than lower stakes (I could be mistaken), and so there's more value in going for a much thinner shove etc.

In terms of bluffing, its easy to just say "i'm gonna start bluffing more", but bluffing is definitely a skill that comes from a ton of practice/hand reading. If you're good at it, your red line goes up a lot and if you're bad at it, your blue line goes down a lot. I'd like to think that my hand reading is pretty good, and that's likely what is keeping my winnings positive despite my deathly blue line.

Originally Posted by daven

Reading through your posts though, I think this is only part of the equation. You talked a bunch of getting into 20-80 spots far too often = obviously screwing your blue line. This likely also means that you're trying to get the chips in too early/aggressively when you're the 80% end of the bargain - allowing villains to too easily fold. This will also accelerate your red line, while not allowing the big pot showdowns that would leave your blue line looking a lot healthier.

In terms of 80/20's, this is just a matter of my adjustments to more aggressive pre-flop games. My adjustment was to stop 4bet bluffing as much and instead to 4bet/call with more pairs and 3bet more pairs and jam over 4bets (in spots I thought their 4bet bluffing freq was high).

When I say 80/20's I'm specifically referring to preflop spots with pairs where I'm hoping for preflop fold equity and decent equity when all in but end up getting into pair vs overpair spots.

Originally Posted by jyms

I think one of the biggest issues with the redline going up is from what you state as being betting so much thinner on later streets. .....Your thin bets are obviously to get thin value form worse hands but I think most of the time they are not.

Most of these bets are in spots where I have some weak top pair or mid pair. I call the flop, turn goes ck ck and river they check to me. If I think the flop was drawy, all draws bricked and its possible he's gonna hero call me on the river then its pretty likely I bet in this spot. If its a dry board and he can't put me on any air, then I'm much much less likely to bet here.

There is also some inherent value in people never seeing your cards. I'm not sure how to quantify that value in terms of bb's, but it's certainly something.

Originally Posted by jyms

Also, any chance on seeing some showdown stats from last month? I am guessing your under 50% showdown and aver 45% WWSF but would also be interested in your WTSD%, it has to be lower than std.

I'll have to check these when I'm at home. If I were to guess, I'd say its 49-50% WWSF, 28% WTSD and 48-49% W$SD%. I'm interested in seeing how good/bad I am at guessing, once I get home!

edit - i just realised that the blue line is being hugely influenced by you sucking at luck during this graph period. This graph looks profoundly different, including static blue line over the second half, if you just ran ok for a while!
Maybe don't change too much, just set up a sacrificial altar etc

Originally Posted by griffey24

If you're good at it, your red line goes up a lot and if you're bad at it, your blue line goes down a lot. I'd like to think that my hand reading is pretty good, and that's likely what is keeping my winnings positive despite my deathly blue line.

good point, seconded. I had the problem of being bad at it so my red line went up a little, but the blue line.....

Originally Posted by griffey24

When I say 80/20's I'm specifically referring to preflop spots with pairs where I'm hoping for preflop fold equity and decent equity when all in but end up getting into pair vs overpair spots.

interesting. I guess this is about villain's all-in calling ranges and their 3/4 bet ranges being stronger than you credited them with? Or them having sufficient reads on you + PokerStove nouse to understand which type of hands to call with?
sounds like you know what to do anyway.

Originally Posted by griffey24

Most of these bets are in spots where I have some weak top pair or mid pair. I call the flop, turn goes ck ck and river they check to me. If I think the flop was drawy, all draws bricked and its possible he's gonna hero call me on the river then its pretty likely I bet in this spot. If its a dry board and he can't put me on any air, then I'm much much less likely to bet here.

There is also some inherent value in people never seeing your cards. I'm not sure how to quantify that value in terms of bb's, but it's certainly something.

I find myself doing this too often and getting owned more often than paid at the 100NL nit-festival. I definitely bet the river too thin for my typical opponents. Unfortunately my red line still stays even to slightly negative.
Nonetheless, I'm really trying to correct my bet sizing issues. I was wondering about your sizing in this scenario with a mid pair?
Ex. say you call IP w/88 then villain fires flop 2/3 PSB and you call, turn goes chk, chk, now what is your std. river bet size if pot is ~18x?

1. Regarding your thin river value bets.

A)Create a filter in HM where you select some marginal made hands on the river (E.g. low pair/bottom pair - TPWK) Select 'bet' as your river action. Go to the 'Hands @ Showdown' report. If your W$SD% is less than 50% you should definitely be checking back instead of betting in this spot.

B)(If it is pretty close to 50% you should also do a filter to see how many times you bet-folded the river & factor that in. A bit complicated but if you W$SD% is 50% out of 400 hands in filter A) and you bet-folded 100 times as well this means you only got paid off by worse 200/500 times you bet the river with a marginal hand or 40% which would mean you are better off checking more often.)

(Obv. calling on the river is dictated by pot odds but betting last to act we need to be called by worse 50%+ to be +EV excl. metagame.)

2. I'm guessing you are semi-bluff raising a lot of draws GS+ so you win a lot in non-showdown winnings when they fold but you are usually a slight underdog when all the money goes in. Just do some filters where you select the draws that you often raise on flop/turn and compare the BB/100 of raising with calling and folding. (Obv. you should still be bluff raising a fair amount for meta-game.)

3. It is natural for peoples red lines to improve and their blue lines to go down as they move up stakes and play harder competition.
Weaker players generally go to showdown too often, ergo you have less fold equity vs. them (Bad red line) but they pay you off with weaker hands more often (Good blue line) & vice-versa with stronger players. The only obv. advice I could suggest there is make sure you are table selecting well & getting involved in more pots with weak players (pay you off more = better blue line) & maybe avoiding really good regs with marginal hands.

4. Finally the thinner you are capable of VB the more your red line is likely to go up which you have already explained.

crap.. I meant to copy and paste out of this comment but deleted it instead.

Proper hand example with JdTd is below. My basic point was that it's impossible to say what size is best on the river for a thin value bet and that it entirely depends on villain, board and image.

If my image is bad I am more likely to bet bigger when draws miss.

If villain is stubborn or spewy aggro, I'm more likely to bet very small with a mid pair type hand and hope he stubborn calls worse or c/r bluffs over inducing small size.

Thanks Noble that filter is a good idea.

and Griffey, that is perfect for what I was looking for.

Originally Posted by griffey24

Originally Posted by jyms

Also, any chance on seeing some showdown stats from last month? I am guessing your under 50% showdown and aver 45% WWSF but would also be interested in your WTSD%, it has to be lower than std.

I'll have to check these when I'm at home. If I were to guess, I'd say its 49-50% WWSF, 28% WTSD and 48-49% W$SD%. I'm interested in seeing how good/bad I am at guessing, once I get home!

not sure if this is standard or not but it seems like you're seeing showdown fairly often for claiming to bet really thin+bluff often on river and have people surrender the pot. it's as if you're getting looked up more often than think you are. this could partly explain the blue line, aside from the preflop stuff you mentioned, as for the red line I imagine alot of it comes from taking down the pot on earlier streets, at least more than you would think.

so get home and confirm these numbers sir

If your WTSD% is really around 28% despite you VB thinly then it could mean that you are calling down a bit too lightly?

Originally Posted by Silly String

Thanks Noble that filter is a good idea.

Yah thanks Noble, I'll check this later too.

An extension to this comment: People seem to be carried away with the idea that they are pretty sure they are ahead, but that if they make a reasonable bet that they will be only called by better.

-The problem is they are stuck in the land where a reasonable bet must be 2/3 pot or 3/4 pot as if this is a rule or something. It's NOT a rule. We could definitely bet much smaller.

Same example as before, $2/4, MP vs Hero on Btn with :Jd: :Td:

MP raises to $12
Hero calls

Flop: :Qh: :Ts: Pot ($30)
MP bets $22
Hero calls
Turn: Pot ($74)
MP checks
Hero checks
River: Pot ($74)
MP checks
Hero bets $20

assumptions:
-villain will bet all Qx+ on flop and turn
-villain will bet JJ,ATs a reasonable % of time on turn and c/c rest
-villain bets KJ on turn 70% and c/c rest
-villain bets AJ/AK 40% and c/c some % and c/f rest
-villain checks all other pairs, some c/c and some c/f
-villain shuts down air

-After the turn goes check check, we discount all Qx+ so
-our river bet value towns ourselves vs JJ/ATs the times he doesn't double barrel them (4.5 combos) and KTs (3 combos) - so we LOSE to 7.5 combos (assume he will call with all given the price)

gets to river with:
-60% of AJ/AK get there without betting the turn AJ (~7 combos) / AK (~10 combos)
-combos of 9Ts and 8Ts (~6 combos)
-combos of 67s/78s (~8 combos)
-combos of 88/99 (~12 combos)
-combos other pairs/air (>40ish combos)
-combos of KJ that ck turn (~4 combos)

-If he calls with 75% of Tx combos (~5 combos), stubborn calls with 20% of 7x,88/99 and AK then thats (~6 combos) which is already 11 combos > 7.5 combos that beat us
-he will also c/r a non-zero % of time as a bluff with KJ/AJ and other air given our small inducing bet
-betting $20 with JT here is +EV and we could probably even bet more thinly, and its just a matter of what size is best or better

Sorry about the math combos rant!

Originally Posted by noble007

If your WTSD% is really around 28% despite you VB thinly then it would have to mean that you are calling down very lightly.

I'll have to check on this once I get home, but I think the reason I have a highish WTSD despite me saying I vbet thinly is based around my button play.

I open/steal a TON on the button and when called I ck back a wide range of hands on the flop, call all turn bets, and check back a lot on the river in these spots. That contributes a lot to my WTSD.

okay i'm guessing quite a few players will have a very similar graph to mine here. I've had this sort of trend for a long long time.

I think redline often is also a correlation of how many tables you play. For instance this graph is 6 tabling.

I'm a long term winner somewhere around 3ptBB/100 up to and including 200NL. I'm obv not a great player, but I seem to be winning. I never play unless there's fish at the table, preferably two. Also I generally ensure the fish are to my right. Because I'm mostly focusing on fish I'm forced to be far more on the value side of post flop play, including some thinner stuff like 2nd pairs obv but it means I'm forced to give up a TON of pots even to small bets because I think pure bluffing a ton esp against fish is terrible.

OOP i have a tendency to cbet most flops that I'm supposed to cbet, but then giving up near 100% UNLESS i have a hand or 8+ outs - this also leads to losing a ton of non-showdown spots.

i'd be interested in knowing the most simple things a players can do for non-sd spots. Playing super nitty or a ton of bluffing is not what i'm looking for.

Ya Bspahn my graph is very similar. I basically bumhunt table select constantly at 6max and try to play as much as possible with the fish. I can't imagine ever having a positive redline in the games I'm playing in, though i'm sure I'm wayyy off optimal style.

I definitely am going to get worked by good hand readers at 400nl+ as the games have more good players and fewer fish. I play 6-12 tables depending on selection, stake, etc (I'll play 12 100nl/200nl tables or like 8 200/400 tables)

thanks for the post mixchange.

seems like you play a similar style to myself except at bigger stakes.
i really limit myself to 6 tables because i seem to play extremely poorly if I play 8+ every single time I've tried it. Maybe it's the reduced mental capacity of being 30, who knows.

I think the nature of playing mostly fish leads to huge blue and crap red lines because they don't fold. They hero call ace high, they make extremely strange bluffs or thin value bets (i dont get it they sometimes bet 3rd pair on the river and similar things but since they're not even thinking about the game I don't know if that's supposed to be a bluff or thin value!?)

in any case we need hands to win against them, even 2nd pair decent kicker and such things, but bluffing them is extremely futile when they call with any pair/ace high all the time it kills our semibluffs.

i think players like griffey/alexos/marshall are mostly playing regs and exploiting them and getting into thinking wars and all this, and they are the most suited for moving up through the levels because they are not focusing on finding fish, but rather playing many pots with exploitable regs... not sure where i'm going with this but as stated by others a lot of different graphs can be decent even if they are very different.


what I do know is one style is suited for becoming the next nutsinho and moving up and my style is suited for earning a living from fish and maintaining a bankroll, for now anyway.

Originally Posted by bspahn

I think the nature of playing mostly fish leads to huge blue and crap red lines because they don't fold.

This is definitely true. They force you to showdown and you're forced to have hands at showdown. Given this, they also force you to give up when you don't have hands and shut down. So yah, fish hunting is definitely a recipe for the style of graphs.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm horrible at table selection. My table selection involves going into stars, joining all the tables with 5 ppl. If one opens up and has a seat on the right of someone I find annoying, I might close it. Joining all waitlists of tables with a waitlist of 0,1 or 2 ppl. Then waiting till they open and usually playing most tables unless the seat is once again on the right of someone difficult.

Essentially my table selection is NOT being on the right of tough players as opposed to TRYING to be on the LEFT of bad/fish players.

Originally Posted by bspahn

i'd be interested in knowing the most simple things a players can do for non-sd spots. Playing super nitty or a ton of bluffing is not what i'm looking for.

You might find some simple scenarios on when to fire that 2nd barrel here, (all the input is from good aggressive players)

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...ts-t88688.html

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $4.00 BB (6 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

Button ($430.40)
Hero (SB) ($400)
BB ($220)
UTG ($181.25)
MP ($83.45)
CO ($297.25)

Preflop: Hero is SB with Q, J
2 folds, CO calls $4, 1 fold, Hero bets $16, 1 fold, CO calls $12

Flop: ($36) 3, 8, 5 (2 players)
Hero bets $24, CO calls $24

Turn: ($84) A (2 players)
Hero bets $52, CO calls $52

River: ($188) 5 (2 players)
Hero checks, CO checks

Total pot: $188 | Rake: $3

Results:
Hero had Q, J (one pair, fives).
CO had 2, 2 (two pair, fives and twos).
Outcome: CO won $185


Ya prolly a lot of game selection. I don't think I'd be a winner battling regs all day. Griff, maybe you just need to table select a little better and be more cautious pre? Maybe do a session where your goal is value vs. fish and getting good seats? IF you aren't doing that, its always a way to pick up some ez stacks ;p

so many of my opponents are like this, how do you ever have a positive redline? and LOL@ shoving river ;p He soul read snaps obvi

3 betting 4 betting and squeezing will have a lot of impact on your non showdown winnings as well since your able win a lot of dead money uncontested.

Alright I checked my stats, at least I have a pretty good ability to guess my own stats!

22.3/17.9/2.68 with a 3bet of 8.1, WTSD 28.4%, W$SD 47.8% and WWSF of 51.8%

wow,

All I can say is that your preflop game must be pretty much the cause of most of your grief. There is really nothing wrong with the numbers. I would suspect that the balance between the slightly high showdown stat and your slightly lower W$SD stat is because of your preflop all ins, which may be a bit high and is also causing a ton of losses if your getting in too weak too often. Swing a few AI's pre the other way and watch the change.

WWSF is fucking ridiculous scary. People must just wait to hit hands and fold most of the time. I see a ton of 42-44WWSF by aggro winners, but 50%? When they do get to the river they have waited till they have it.

I think having a w$wsf that is that high is a leak. I'm gonna think about why when I'm not half asleep.

I do think it has a lot to do with the players you're facing. Unfortunately I don't have a good sample on 25NL and below and less than 10k on 200NL.

@50NL SH my red line plummets
@100NL SH both lines are positive
@50NL FR my red line is break even
@100NL FR my red line goes down slightly
winrates are consistently around 9bb/100

And I think that makes sense because at 50NL sh most players are just monkeying around with no real idea of what they're doing... they've seen a CR video where someone 3-bets 45o, and now they think it's the most brilliant thing ever... and at FR all the regs are doing the same thing that has worked for them at the lower levels which is basically waiting to flop tp+ and not bother to fight back at all.

I just recently found I am leaking pretty massively vs flop raises, and showing down too often with marginal hands.
I think I do bluff too much with no equity, and @50NL I'm often misreading less than 1/2 pots bets as weakness, raise and get owned.
I almost never check back or call the river when I think I'm ahead of the villains range.
I double and triple barrel quite a bit.

I can't begin to understand how you could have such a massive non-showdown line as griffeys. I think it takes super human hand reading abilities. Or a network with the nittiest player base ever known to man... You don't play ipoker by any chance?

anyway, here are my overall graphs for 50 and 100NL:

Griff -- Just a quick Q

When was the last time your goal starting a session was to find really big fish, sit with position on them, and stack them? And being really picky about your seat selection for the whole sesh?

Griffey, what are your specific stats by position. I'm specifically interested in blind play and button play.

Your WTSD% seems to be the main potential leak in those stats.
Go to 'holdem manager articles' click on article 1.

Obviously we shouldn't be striving for certain numbers but just trying to play good poker but it is interesting that you are near the optimal 'sweet spot' in all your numbers except WTSD% & consequently W$SD%.

Having said that your button strategy seems pretty good.
I would just check that all the hands you open on the button are profitable for you. (For e.g. I can't play anything more than +- the top 45-50% profitably but I seem some people opening 70%+ from here.)

Originally Posted by griffey24

I'll be the first to admit that I'm horrible at table selection. My table selection involves going into stars, joining all the tables with 5 ppl. If one opens up and has a seat on the right of someone I find annoying, I might close it. Joining all waitlists of tables with a waitlist of 0,1 or 2 ppl. Then waiting till they open and usually playing most tables unless the seat is once again on the right of someone difficult.

Essentially my table selection is NOT being on the right of tough players as opposed to TRYING to be on the LEFT of bad/fish players.

This is an epic leak. Buy HM Table Scanner, it will help.

Originally Posted by Massimo

Griffey, what are your specific stats by position. I'm specifically interested in blind play and button play.

EP 14.1/14
UTG+1 15.1/14
CO 24.3/23.3 3bet 7.5
BTN 42.6/36.3 3bet 10.9
SB 17.1/11.5 3bet 7.0
BB 16.8/7.7 3bet 7.7

sample over 56k hands, over the last two months

Originally Posted by mixchange

Griff -- Just a quick Q

When was the last time your goal starting a session was to find really big fish, sit with position on them, and stack them? And being really picky about your seat selection for the whole sesh?

lol ummm never! No I mean, ideally if I can find some fish I'll sit with them. I'm more focused on this type of thing if I'm taking shots obviously, as that would be my primary reason for taking shots.

Maybe its me but sometimes I feel like there just aren't that many fish on stars 2/4+, but that could just be my non observant ways talking.

(note: I don't even show short stacking tables. only have min 50 bb tables showing, which might influence how many donks there are too)

Originally Posted by zook

This is an epic leak. Buy HM Table Scanner, it will help.

coool, I'll look into this!

Originally Posted by meeloche

I think having a w$wsf that is that high is a leak. I'm gonna think about why when I'm not half asleep.

I was thinking this same thing when I posted this. I mean it's good and all to be winning lots of flops, and I suppose if you're good at hand reading this would be higher than if you weren't. But I think even with good hand reading, it kind of also suggests that I'm not letting go of certain pots easily enough, and just giving them up.

I'm pretty sure this stat is closely related to my high red line, or at least the plays/actions postflop that lead to having such a high WWSF.

Hmm actually nothing stands out too much, but here are some things:

Your CO 3bet % is way too high, people just dont raise light enough utg and in mp and on top of that you have 3 players behind you to act.

Something wrong about your blind play but i cant put my finger on it.

Idk i guess someones gonna have to watch you. Maybe make a video?

This is all the things I can think of that would make your redline absolutely highest.

1. You rarely ever call. When you do you do not fold. If you call somewhere and do happen to fold it was only because you called because it gave you a very good oppourtunity to bluff on a later street.

2. When you have no SD value you bet/raise until they fold.

3. You take lines with good hands that give you oppourtunities to make good bluffs (i.e. balance your ranges well).

4. You threebet a lot when there is fold equity and you shove over 4bets very light.

5. Unless you planning on c/ring and not folding, everytime you check you fold and you only do this in very small pots.

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

This is all the things I can think of that would make your redline absolutely highest.

1. You rarely ever call. When you do you do not fold. If you call somewhere and do happen to fold it was only because you called because it gave you a very good oppourtunity to bluff on a later street.

2. When you have no SD value you bet/raise until they fold.

3. You take lines with good hands that give you oppourtunities to make good bluffs (i.e. balance your ranges well).

4. You threebet a lot when there is fold equity and you shove over 4bets very light.

5. Unless you planning on c/ring and not folding, everytime you check you fold and you only do this in very small pots.

Interesting points, some of which I think may be true.

I think points 3 and 4 are true for sure.

The first point I'm not sure about. Sometimes I almost feel like I'm one of those players that calls lots of flops and turns , but folds too many rivers. Which is kind of funny, since this is the exact type thing that causes negative red line.

I don't think 2 is particlarly true. Though I will say this, that if I start a bluff that I think is +EV, I'm not gonna pussy out on it. If I'm repping something I'll keep repping it to the river. None of this, I tried on the flop and turn so I'll give up on the river scene. So in that sense, I guess that would cause either a high red (when works) and a negative blue (when it doesn't).

Point 5, I actually think I'm the opposite of that too. I bet flops often and then c/c turns often. If anything I have the leak of when I c/c once, I convince myself that I caused them to induce, and end up c/calling waay too many subsequent streets. Once again, this is a blue line killer.

Good points though, I'll for sure keep an eye out for these.

By default do you always cbet middle pair and or bottom pair? If you do vs the right ppl there are a lot of times where checking and inducing bluffs is gonna be more profitable then betting and taking down the pot. Or if you do do that then turning your bluff catcher into a bluff on a river cause he's got a bluff could be responsible as well.

Originally Posted by griffey24

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

This is all the things I can think of that would make your redline absolutely highest.

1. You rarely ever call. When you do you do not fold. If you call somewhere and do happen to fold it was only because you called because it gave you a very good oppourtunity to bluff on a later street.

2. When you have no SD value you bet/raise until they fold.

3. You take lines with good hands that give you oppourtunities to make good bluffs (i.e. balance your ranges well).

4. You threebet a lot when there is fold equity and you shove over 4bets very light.

5. Unless you planning on c/ring and not folding, everytime you check you fold and you only do this in very small pots.

Interesting points, some of which I think may be true.

I think points 3 and 4 are true for sure.

The first point I'm not sure about. Sometimes I almost feel like I'm one of those players that calls lots of flops and turns , but folds too many rivers. Which is kind of funny, since this is the exact type thing that causes negative red line.

I don't think 2 is particlarly true. Though I will say this, that if I start a bluff that I think is +EV, I'm not gonna pussy out on it. If I'm repping something I'll keep repping it to the river. None of this, I tried on the flop and turn so I'll give up on the river scene. So in that sense, I guess that would cause either a high red (when works) and a negative blue (when it doesn't).

Point 5, I actually think I'm the opposite of that too. I bet flops often and then c/c turns often. If anything I have the leak of when I c/c once, I convince myself that I caused them to induce, and end up c/calling waay too many subsequent streets. Once again, this is a blue line killer.

Good points though, I'll for sure keep an eye out for these.

There all true if you want to absolutely maximize your red line, but you may not actually do them.

In regards to point 5 it sounds like your play is good for red line. Now if you c/c'ed the turn and c/f'ed the river it would be bad for redline. Note part of point 1 is being a total station.

Being an absolute station is totally integral to red line. If someone doesnt feel like they can bluff you but at the same time realizes because of this the best thing to do with his value hands is best than he is going to be checking and folding to a bet a lot.

from september graphies thread:

Originally Posted by Marshall28

Originally Posted by griffey24

I also feel like I bet rivers a ton in spots (esp in position) with marginal hands that most people would probably just check back. This results in almost every small/medium sized pot that most people have as counting towards showdown winnings, as counting towards my non-showdown winnings. I think this adds up huge over the span of 40k hands in a month. (Imagine how many times you get to the river in a 10 bb pot and just check back where you could make a very very thin value bet. 100-200 times a month? That's 10-20 buyins that are interchangable between showdown and non-showdown right there)

I think I have to call you out on this one.

It's almost ridiculous to assume that because you are v-betting the river more thinly that its the biggest reason for your high red line and low blue line.

If you really were making thinner value bets and bluffing more often with good frequencies, your blue line would not go down, it would go WAY UP because you would be inducing c/r bluffs from worse hands, you'd be be getting called by worse hands and you'd be able to checkraise (and b/3b) the river more thinly for value. All of these things imply that you are getting to showdown, and if you are doing them better than your opponents, it would be impossible for it to be the cause of your blue line.

I think you need to take another look at this and re-consider.

Obviously if players are paying a lot of attention and adjusting properly, then a lot of what you said is true. But you're making a lot of very BIG assumptions about our villains I feel.

The biggest is that they are in fact capable of making these adjustments to thin value bets in the first place. But the fact is, very few people are suddenly c/r'ing me lighter on the river for value, or seemingly c/r as bluffs either. Most people are content in either folding or taking the cheap price I'm giving them and calling with whatever they have.

And to be able to b/3bet more on the river also involves our villain's participation, in raising what they feel is our thin bet to begin wtih. Once again, this seems to happen very rarely so I don't think we can make these assumptions.

I've read the entire thread, and learned a lot. But let me also toss out a couple of thoughts.

1. I love poker. If people can play it so differently and still succeed, what a game!!

2. In your last post grif, I think you hit on an odd paradox of poker. The decent regs adjust quickly to all the basic playing styles, but anything out of the ordinary and they may never find a coherent adjustment. The may not even try to adjust.

3. I was just thinking if I was playing you, and had 250 - 800 hands on you, what a sample of your stats would look like, especially W$SD. If others (or some percentage of them) use your W$SD stat when trying to play you, they're calling a lot more than they should, right? They're making thin value calls 'cuz of your HUD image. Just wondering if that doesn't contribute somehow.

You guys also need to look at the situation conversely: If your playing in such a way that your opponent cannot win pots without a sd you will win a lot of money without sd.

Originally Posted by meeloche

By default do you always cbet middle pair and or bottom pair? If you do vs the right ppl there are a lot of times where checking and inducing bluffs is gonna be more profitable then betting and taking down the pot. Or if you do do that then turning your bluff catcher into a bluff on a river cause he's got a bluff could be responsible as well.

I probably cbet midpair type stuff more often OOP than IP. Mostly cause I don't trust myself getting into a c/c mode and handling it in a +EV manner. Though in these spots, I do bet flop and c/c turns a fair bit, and try inducing bluffs from bricked draws on turns etc.

Originally Posted by Robb

2. In your last post grif, I think you hit on an odd paradox of poker. The decent regs adjust quickly to all the basic playing styles, but anything out of the ordinary and they may never find a coherent adjustment. The may not even try to adjust.

I think most players just adjust to situations that are more obvious to them, and more clearly annoying/frustrating. If you're getting 3bet non stop preflop, that is more 'in your face' and more noticeable, and as a result, probably more conducive to adjustments.

If you check once or twice vs someone, in a spot where you have air or a weak hand often, it's probably not as frustrating facing a bet. A lot of people just fold easily and don't think twice, so its probably not a spot they think much in terms of making adjustments. Furthermore, if they aren't calling that often in these spots, they probably aren't seeing how thinly this person is betting often enough to warrant them adjusting to it.

Originally Posted by meeloche

By default do you always cbet middle pair and or bottom pair? If you do vs the right ppl there are a lot of times where checking and inducing bluffs is gonna be more profitable then betting and taking down the pot. Or if you do do that then turning your bluff catcher into a bluff on a river cause he's got a bluff could be responsible as well.

Although in pos if you want to increase your red line you'd prob want to check bottom and middle pair instead of cbet it. OOP as well check/folding or check calling down can be just as effective.