Originally posted by Stackoffski
I am way worse even ..
Those black marks are all well within the green — so at first glance I'd say you're doing much better...
Notifications
Clear all
Originally posted by VorpalF2F
Those black marks are all well within the green — so at first glance I'd say you're doing much better...
... Let's call it a draw 
Didn't play that 100K freeroll because too many prizes are sattelite tickets I don't care about.
Played a few 1000 hands more. Got a lot of setups in a short period of time all of a sudden. Took me down, but still beating the rake.
Spoiler
Originally posted by Stackoffski
Didn't play that 100K freeroll because too many prizes are sattelite tickets I don't care about.
You didn't!? I focused on C$ prize and while playing mtt I watched drama, haha.
Maybe next time I play with other hyper mtts.
Originally posted by VisionBoard
You didn't!? I focused on C$ prize and while playing mtt I watched drama, haha.
Maybe next time I play with other hyper mtts.
Later on I did want to register late and gamble, but then it was full already. I think I will play it next week and play something on the side ... good idea!
Meanwhile cashgames are a disaster. Did not play a lot.
Spoiler
I wonder how I am still up 
Originally posted by Stackoffski
Meanwhile cashgames are a disaster. Did not play a lot.
I wonder how I am still up
That graph covers a huge time span.
Note the trends of the red and blue lines toward the end.
There are good reasons for that to happen, and most are covered in one of the best threads on PokerStrategy.com
https://forums.pokerstrategy.com/forum/thread.php?postid=1214424#post1214424
Originally posted by VorpalF2F
That graph covers a huge time span.
Note the trends of the red and blue lines toward the end.
There are good reasons for that to happen, and most are covered in one of the best threads on PokerStrategy.com
https://forums.pokerstrategy.com/forum/thread.php?postid=1214424#post1214424/blockquote >That's not a long time span
I know I made 2 big mistakes, but other than that is just set-ups of big hand vs bigger hand. Losing almost all preflop allins. I didn't really play any different at the start of the graph.
I checked the thread (again apparently, not the first time someone pointed that thread out to me :f_tongue:). It is not that I am trying to win without showdown, I just want to win the hand, with or without showdown.
In my defence, also notice I am still up, and that the EV line does not dive as drastically. Not at all.
O, and I am playing pretty tight preflop now, which means I will be more aggressive postflop as my range is stronger.
Originally posted by Untiltable
This could be problematic, depending on how literally you meant this.A common mistake and a frequent note I have on beginners or recreational players is "wants to win pots". Whenever the focus is on "how can I win this hand?" it's NOT on "how can I make the highest EV play?" Because those two things are not the same. The former can lead either to playing too passively and trying to ensure a showdown, or ill-timed and poorly executed desperation bluffs on the river when there's no chance to win otherwise.
Not necessarily what you meant at all, but it's worth noting anyway.
Yeah, I agree. I don't think I make desperation bluffs, it's always for a reason. Usually because I think I am up against a weak range.
But, if you would look at the blue line in the graph more closely (where it is going down), you can see all the 100bbs+ drops. Most of that is preflop all-ins. That's really almost all of the losing. So it's not really from postflop play.
My Average preflop all-in equity:
47.4% over total of 109 all-in hands.
47.5% for 76 preflop shoves.
49.7% for 33 preflop calls.
The shoves should not be 50% because when you shove yourself you have fold-equity, right?
The calls should be >50% in the long term though.
Originally posted by Stackoffski
Yeah, I agree. I don't think I make desperation bluffs, it's always for a reason. Usually because I think I am up against a weak range.But, if you would look at the blue line in the graph more closely (where it is going down), you can easily see all the 100bbs+ drops where I lost a preflop all-in. That's really almost all of the losing. So it's not from postflop play.
My Average preflop all-in equity:
47.4% over total of 109 all-in hands.
47.5% for 76 preflop shoves.
49.7% for 33 preflop calls.
The shoves should not be 50% because when you shove yourself you have fold-equity, right?
The calls should be >50% in the long term though.
Originally posted by Untiltable
There will already be some money in the pot regardless of action - most likely quite a bit of money - so you'd have much better than 50/50 odds on your call. Meaning 50% isn't at all required to break even.Don't ask me what these numbers "should" be though, because I have absolutely no idea. The real answer again is probably just bringing focus back to studying and making better plays in general.
Yes, you are right. thanks!
Drama continues...
A little bit more of me losing. Playing nl2 now. GGPoker (rush) is tough I think. Paid $56 rake and won $7 (EV). However, if you play a lot you do get some money from side-stuff like the ThanksGG freeroll or the Jackpot at GG every now and then. In fact, I estimate these things far exceed your actual winnings at the tables.
At GG with rush cashgames, you probably have to just play a lot, win back the rake, and wait until you hit something in their loyalty program.
Spoiler
Hands where I called the river:
Spoiler
Originally posted by Stackoffski
A little bit more of me losing. Playing nl2 now. GGPoker (rush) is tough I think. Paid $56 rake and won $7 (EV). However, if you play a lot you do get some money from side-stuff like the ThanksGG freeroll or the Jackpot at GG every now and then. In fact, I estimate these things far exceed your actual winnings at the tables.
At GG with rush cashgames, you probably have to just play a lot, win back the rake, and wait until you hit something in their loyalty program.
Those have odds similar to lotteries, but they're paid for out of GG's higher-than-average rake. So although hitting the big-hand jackpot now and again seems like a lot of fun, you're just getting a part of your own money back. It's best to concentrate on keeping your win rate above the rake rate. Then the side money is an enjoyable extra.
Originally posted by Stackoffski
Hands where I called the river:
Now that you've noticed this, do you have a plan to attack it?
Since you're using PokerTracker, they have a stat called "River Call Efficiency"
From the definition:
From the definition in the app:
Ratio of the total amount won on the river to the total amount called on the river. Money that is taken out of the pot as rake is not counted as money won.Formula: Amount of Game Currency Called on the River and Won / Amount of Game Currency Called on the River
From that, you can see that the break-even point is 1 (lose as much as you gain), so anything above 1 is good. Too high and you're folding too much, less than 1 and you're calling too much.
There is a good thread about it here: https://forums.pokerstrategy.com/forum/thread.php?threadid=440434
Edit: I'm curious now. I'm going to do a report showing only this stat, went-to-showdown and won at showdown. I'll let you know what I find, but it will be much later today
Originally posted by VorpalF2F
Those have odds similar to lotteries, but they're paid for out of GG's higher-than-average rake. So although hitting the big-hand jackpot now and again seems like a lot of fun, you're just getting a part of your own money back. It's best to concentrate on keeping your win rate above the rake rate. Then the side money is an enjoyable extra.
No, really if you play a lot you do get some money back from those things, but of course it's not very reliable to depend on every week 
Originally posted by VorpalF2F
Originally posted by Stackoffski
Hands where I called the river:Now that you've noticed this, do you have a plan to attack it?
Since you're using PokerTracker, they have a stat called "River Call Efficiency"
From the definition:From the definition in the app:
Ratio of the total amount won on the river to the total amount called on the river. Money that is taken out of the pot as rake is not counted as money won.Formula: Amount of Game Currency Called on the River and Won / Amount of Game Currency Called on the River
From that, you can see that the break-even point is 1 (lose as much as you gain), so anything above 1 is good. Too high and you're folding too much, less than 1 and you're calling too much. There is a good thread about it here: https://forums.pokerstrategy.com/forum/thread.php?threadid=440434
Edit: I'm curious now. I'm going to do a report showing only this stat, went-to-showdown and won at showdown. I'll let you know what I find, but it will be much later today
My river-call efficency 1.35 on average, that seems pretty high? Only 0.78 at the BB though, but pretty high overall. I don't get it, why am I loosing there? Will look at the thread.
Originally posted by Stackoffski
My river-call efficency 1.35 on average, that seems pretty high? Only 0.78 at the BB though, but pretty high overall. I don't get it, why am I loosing there? Will look at the thread.
Higher than 1 is OK.
Too high means you're folding too much — but how high is too high.
Mine for this month is 2.42, but only 1324 hands — and only on 93 occasions I saw the river out of that.
Here is a short video from Phil Galfond that explains it well...
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/C6641hJRYVs
Originally posted by VorpalF2F
Here is a short video from Phil Galfond that explains it well...
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/C6641hJRYVs/blockquote >Just above 1 seems good then (probably for higher stakes). At lower stakes it should be a bit higher maybe because it's easier to bluffcatch on the average.
So I am calling the river effecient after all. I filtered for 'actions and opportunities -> any river call' and it showed a losing graph. I am probably overlooking something simple.