Non-Showdown Hand Leaks

[Kid Style]

I notice on a lot of graphs that the non-showdown hands are usually going to be negative. Based on the following graph, I think this is a little too steep for $50 NL though. Is this standard? Thoughts?

yep, you're a nit

[jyms]

some of the worst poker in my life was played when I was being conscious of the red line

[Kid Style]

some of the worst poker in my life was played when I was being conscious of the red line

That was my first thought as well. But I still think non showdown is still a little too steep, maybe that I'm folding too much post flop is a good indication?

[jyms]

There is a big difference between playing well enough that the red line is not going down and playing to make the redline not go down. One is just aggression, the other is folding when behind and bet/raising when ahead.

[Kid Style]

There is a big difference between playing well enough that the red line is not going down and playing to make the redline not go down. One is just aggression, the other is folding when behind and bet/raising when ahead.

Duly noted. Good advice. Thanks

To add to what jyms said, the red line is not a problem, it's a symptom. A lot of good players have the red line going down, and still win a lot because their blue line more than compensates for it.

[Kid Style]

To add to what jyms said, the red line is not a problem, it's a symptom. A lot of good players have the red line going down, and still win a lot because their blue line more than compensates for it.

Yeah, I shouldn't go thinking that I should level off my red line. Then I'll put out useless aggression. On the other hand, I still think there is a leak in being a little too nitty postflop. Prob not the best thing to worry bout in 50 NL but needs refining.

[kmind]

There is a big difference between playing well enough that the red line is not going down and playing to make the redline not go down. One is just aggression, the other is folding when behind and bet/raising when ahead.

This is a really nice post. Both sentences. The second part of your second sentence goes unnoticed a lot imo.

There is a big difference between playing well enough that the red line is not going down and playing to make the redline not go down. One is just aggression, the other is folding when behind and bet/raising when ahead.

This is a really nice post. Both sentences. The second part of your second sentence goes unnoticed a lot imo.

I agree
a lot of 100NL regs have fallen into the "auto-float" trap where they call most flops
then to protect their floats they start to flat strong hands
and now all they do is call all day

I think something that's very effective is raising in spots where you think a float is good because a raise could be better
if you build your strategy on aggressive raising when in position instead of calling, your overall strategy going to the flop is going to be a lot more robust

as an added bonus, your fold to turn cbet will decrease
I know a lot of people I play against have that stat as high as 50% which is basically saying "cbet flops against me and barrel the turn to make profit"

[Fnord]

There are sooooo many inputs to the red line. Probably the biggest is how often your opponents pay-off your bets.

[daven]

my first 15k hands at 50nl 6-max i ran 5ptBB/100.
Then I decided to work on the redline for 3k hands. I lost 4 buyins.
I got them back and then some when i started to ignore it again.

The reasons,

There are sooooo many inputs to the red line. Probably the biggest is how often your opponents pay-off your bets.

One is just aggression, the other is folding when behind and bet/raising when ahead.

and more. When people work on 'the red line symptom' they tend to address it incorrectly and think they should be winning more with bluffs. After thinking about this some, and some IRC discussion I think this isn't how to work on the red line.

If you recognise value spots that are thinner than the nuts and bet/raise them more, then you'll generate a lot of folds (red line goes up) where you would normally have seen showdown (red line stays down, blue line goes up).
If you are really good at extracting value (i.e. getting to showdown with winning hands) your blue line goes up, red stays down.
etc.

Just work on your overall game, keep winning, and soon enough the red line situation will start to improve. Don't stress it too much though...

[Kid Style]

my first 15k hands at 50nl 6-max i ran 5ptBB/100.
Then I decided to work on the redline for 3k hands. I lost 4 buyins.
I got them back and then some when i started to ignore it again.

The reasons,

There are sooooo many inputs to the red line. Probably the biggest is how often your opponents pay-off your bets.

One is just aggression, the other is folding when behind and bet/raising when ahead.

and more. When people work on 'the red line symptom' they tend to address it incorrectly and think they should be winning more with bluffs. After thinking about this some, and some IRC discussion I think this isn't how to work on the red line.

If you recognise value spots that are thinner than the nuts and bet/raise them more, then you'll generate a lot of folds (red line goes up) where you would normally have seen showdown (red line stays down, blue line goes up).
If you are really good at extracting value (i.e. getting to showdown with winning hands) your blue line goes up, red stays down.
etc.

Just work on your overall game, keep winning, and soon enough the red line situation will start to improve. Don't stress it too much though...

This! I understand now. So it's fair to say that if your red line is taking a steep, evaluate your blue line because you are actually going to showdown with your strong hands more often! I didn't think of that. You guys are too good