Stackoffski vs Stackoffski

Originally posted by Stackoffski
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.

Pot size perhaps?
Do the two graphs cover exactly the same stakes and the same number of hands?
I had a look at my graph with the same filter. It trends up, but less than 40 hands in that situation.

Originally posted by VorpalF2F
Pot size perhaps?
Do the two graphs cover exactly the same stakes and the same number of hands?
I had a look at my graph with the same filter. It trends up, but less than 40 hands in that situation.

Yes, they cover the same span of hands exactly. As for now, I don't know how to interpret the losing graph (with the 'any call on river' filter). I don't know any good youtube resources for analyzing my stats, probably a lot of videos can't really be trusted.

I just had a look at the stats from my 888 player and my Pokerstars player.
The two players have remarkably similar stats, my the PokerStars player has lost $120, the the 888 player has won $195
The river call efficiency for the PokerStars player is 1.23, and for the 888 player, it's 2.48.

Showing the graph of "any river call" also shows a downward trend for the PokerStars player.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a river call efficiency of just over 1 isn't worth much.
RCE = (amount won) / (amount called)
If on one hundred hands you call bets of $1 and lose, you lose $100, and your RCE is 0.00 (0 / 100)
If on one hundred hands you call bets of $1 and win, you win $100, you RCE is exactly 1 (100 / 100) but only if the bets you are calling return the same amount.

over those two hundred hands your RCE is exactly 0.5 — by you are exactly break-even.

But what if the pot is 100, and some goof bets $1 and you call and win.
Now your RCE is 101 / 1 — which is pretty nice.

So I think that the problem with a downward - trending graph of "call any river bet" with an RCE greater than 1 indicates that the river bets called were on average too large.

I'm not normally one to go chasing stats, this looks intriguing. I'm going to examine each hand for the PokerStars player where I called a river bet — there are only 35 of 'em.

Hi Vorpal,

Originally posted by VorpalF2F
I just had a look at the stats from my 888 player and my Pokerstars player.
The two players have remarkably similar stats, my the PokerStars player has lost $120, the the 888 player has won $195
The river call efficiency for the PokerStars player is 1.23, and for the 888 player, it's 2.48.

Showing the graph of "any river call" also shows a downward trend for the PokerStars player.

That's a pretty big difference. Is that a significant sample?

Originally posted by VorpalF2F
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a river call efficiency of just over 1 isn't worth much.

You're right, but I don't think you should be winning much by calling on the river? I think slightly above breaking even is nice there? Otherwise we probably should be raising/do the betting ourselves ...

Originally posted by VorpalF2F
But what if the pot is 100, and some goof bets $1 and you call and win.
Now your RCE is 101 / 1 — which is pretty nice.

So I think that the problem with a downward - trending graph of "call any river bet" with an RCE greater than 1 indicates that the river bets called were on average too large.

I'm not normally one to go chasing stats, this looks intriguing. I'm going to examine each hand for the PokerStars player where I called a river bet — there are only 35 of 'em.

Ah I think I get it now why it can be the potsize! Please let me know the results of your examination. I will take action the coming days

Originally posted by Stackoffski
Hi Vorpal,

Originally posted by VorpalF2F
I just had a look at the stats from my 888 player and my Pokerstars player.
The two players have remarkably similar stats, my the PokerStars player has lost $120, the the 888 player has won $195
The river call efficiency for the PokerStars player is 1.23, and for the 888 player, it's 2.48.

Showing the graph of "any river call" also shows a downward trend for the PokerStars player.

That's a pretty big difference. Is that a significant sample?

Probably not — 4500 hands or so each, but less than 100 actual river calls for each.
Less for the 888 player.

Originally posted by VorpalF2F
So I think that the problem with a downward - trending graph of "call any river bet" with an RCE greater than 1 indicates that the river bets called were on average too large.

Here is one rather obvious spot, where I think I should have found a fold...[1]

Some common mistakes:
 Calling with top two pair with made straights and flushes possible
 Calling with overpair or top pair and getting nailed by sets
 Underfulls

All things considered, it appears that two things matter:
 The amount required to call
 The pot size

I thought that perhaps Stack-to-Pot Ratio would matter, but it doesn't seem to.
Also, it seems that when I bet large on the river, I don't get called, so any hands that I won, my RCE is lower than those hands that I lost

[1] PokerStars - $0.25 NL FAST (6 max) - Holdem - 6 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

Hero (BTN): $25.00
SB: $25.74 (VPIP: 50.00, PFR: 0.00, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 2)
BB: $23.82 (VPIP: 100.00, PFR: 100.00, 3Bet Preflop: -, Hands: 1)
UTG: $14.60 (VPIP: 21.43, PFR: 21.43, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 14)
MP: $25.34 (VPIP: 14.29, PFR: 0.00, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 7)
CO: $44.65 (VPIP: 11.54, PFR: 9.62, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 53)

SB posts SB $0.10, BB posts BB $0.25

Pre Flop: (pot: $0.35) Hero has K♣:K♥:

fold, MP raises to $0.50, fold, Hero raises to $1.30, SB calls $1.20, fold, fold

Flop: ($3.35, 2 players) 3♣:Q♠:6♦:
SB checks, Hero bets $1.66, SB calls $1.66

Turn: ($6.67, 2 players) 5♣:
SB checks, Hero bets $3.31, SB calls $3.31

River: ($13.29, 2 players) 7♠:
SB bets $19.47 and is all-in, Hero calls $18.73 and is all-in

SB shows 9♣:8♣: (Straight, Nine High)
(Pre 21%, Flop 10%, Turn 25%)
Hero shows K♣:K♥: (One Pair, Kings)
(Pre 79%, Flop 90%, Turn 75%)
SB wins $48.75
Rake paid $2.00

@ Vorpal: I will probably check some of my hands tomorrow ... it is already getting better since:

Meanwhile I also broke my losing streak (ev) ... not really winning either, but not losing:

Running 14 buyins under ev, but that's okay ... will play some more tonight

About 4K more breaking even hands:

Still playing $2nl. I recently started to open more hands preflop again as I was playing pretty tight preflop. I then also switched to opening to 2bbs instead of 2.5 bbs in order to call more 3bets. But, I am switching back to 2.5 bbs now. I think that will win me more.

Originally posted by Stackoffski
Still playing $2nl. I recently started to open more hands preflop again as I was playing pretty tight preflop. I then also switched to opening to 2bbs instead of 2.5 bbs in order to call more 3bets. But, I am switching back to 2.5 bbs now. I think that will win me more.

I open 3x everywhere except BU, where I open 2.5x
Also, I have a terrible winrate at NL 2 and NL 4, but I do OK at NL 20.
Go figure

Finally, I hit an upswing today and the money comes flying:

Originally posted by VorpalF2F

Originally posted by Stackoffski
Still playing $2nl. I recently started to open more hands preflop again as I was playing pretty tight preflop. I then also switched to opening to 2bbs instead of 2.5 bbs in order to call more 3bets. But, I am switching back to 2.5 bbs now. I think that will win me more.

I open 3x everywhere except BU, where I open 2.5x
Also, I have a terrible winrate at NL 2 and NL 4, but I do OK at NL 20.
Go figure

Because those very low games play very unpredictable at times and they respect your raises more on higher levels is it because of that?

Not for me Michael Checkson (the real one?), I don't think it matters much at nl2 what range they call from the bb whether I open to $0.04 or $0.05. And, since I win most pots that I open, I can win more each of those pots.

I lowered my opening size because I thought they'd call more and I can outplay them postflop (in position), and also call their smaller 3bets more often. But I found most of them called about the same ranges, so now I increased again.

I hit 40K hands since getting back to the cashgames!

Going well now, from downswing to breakevenswing to upswing (Oh, I am always looking at EV-line)

What goes up most come down ... 4K hands more of me losing. Well, after rain comes sunshine and after downswing comes upswing ..

Originally posted by Stackoffski
Not for me Michael Checkson (the real one?), I don't think it matters much at nl2 what range they call from the bb whether I open to $0.04 or $0.05. And, since I win most pots that I open, I can win more each of those pots.

I lowered my opening size because I thought they'd call more and I can outplay them postflop (in position), and also call their smaller 3bets more often. But I found most of them called about the same ranges, so now I increased again.

No, not the real one unfortunately. Ok everything you say makes a lot of sense. Hope you are doing well now with your adjusted sizing.

I did some simple foldequity calculations again with stats from 60+K hands from nl$2 rush. It is for preflop RFI (based on 2.5bb opening size), and for the cbets after my RFI preflop got called:

Based on that I started widening my opening ranges more than I already had recently. Also cut back on tables and only playing 2. I need the extra time to check whether I can open a questionable hand. Before each session I take the time to color-code each player playing 3 or 4 tables + the biggest stacks, according to agrression (as showed by their stats). And while playing I color-code more people. That way, I can get a quick profile of what kind of players are behind me and in the blinds.

I also started winning again, but it's only 2K hands more. However, I am getting paid off more often. I think that is based on my stats being a little bit higher now, and no coincedence.

Pretty pretty good result in the $100K weekly freeroll. I have myself a cashgame-bankroll again. I made kamikazi at the end because places 9-3 win a $2500 sattelite ticket that I don't want. Luckily I just succeeded in time with the kamikaze, before reaching the final table

Originally posted by Stackoffski
Pretty pretty good result in the $100K weekly freeroll. I have myself a cashgame-bankroll again. I made kamikazi at the end because places 9-3 win a $2500 sattelite ticket that I don't want. Luckily I just succeeded in time with the kamikaze, before reaching the final table
Yeah, that should do... ♠_biggrin:

50K rush hands since late october and about breaking even EV.

Just started nl$10.

Obviously already playing more mtts now that I have some cash to play. Maybe I will win there ... let's gamble!