GaF Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 There are graphs in PT3 and one of them is as below: Just trying to get my head around what it means, and I think it may have just "clicked" - if I'm right then it's a pretty significant graph to utilise. My thinking is that if you are playing perfectly, then you should win the same amount of money with a showdown, as you do without a showdown. If you win more with a showdown than without, it means that you fold too often and dont go to showdown often enough. If you win more without a showdown, than with a showdown, then it means that you dont fold often enough and should go to showdown less often. I cant quite think through fully why I think that should be the case - "I just do", it seems right. But because I cant really understand myself why I think it, I cannot explain it or justify it (and so could also be totally wrong). Any thoughts on the theory? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaF Posted February 6, 2009 Author Share Posted February 6, 2009 Re: Money Won at Showdown v Money won without showdown Found a couple of threads on twoplustwo - but not sure what they mean to my hypothesis.... http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/114/pokertracker/analyzing-my-money-won-showdown-non-showdown-graphs-396584/ http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/114/pokertracker/money-won-without-showdown-graph-question-214815/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samba_SamPa Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Re: Money Won at Showdown v Money won without showdown Not sure about the theory that the 'won with' and 'won without' figures should be the same, but I do have an observation, just not sure how relevant it is. That is - your overall peaks are accompanied with 'won with' peaks, and similarly the real overall 'depths' are accompanied with 'won with' depths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samba_SamPa Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Re: Money Won at Showdown v Money won without showdown Obviously the pots are larger at showdown than without showdown, so would it not be the case that if your lines were equal to each other then you weren't extracting enough value from your wins at showdown? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubermonkey1 Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Re: Money Won at Showdown v Money won without showdown maybe its because of the play at the level:unsure i would guess a lot of our players would be sitting tight trying to catch out the aggressive loons our catching the calling stations(which there are many). so making a lot on showdowns but happily folding down a lot of smaller danger pots vs the aggressive players ,or not pushing out the calling stations coz you can't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slapdash Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Re: Money Won at Showdown v Money won without showdown Does money won (lost) without showdown include all the times you fold in the blinds? If so, then I'd expect that to be a fairly significant part of the difference between the with/without showdown figures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaF Posted February 7, 2009 Author Share Posted February 7, 2009 Re: Money Won at Showdown v Money won without showdown Yes - it seems all winnings/losses are included in the graph. Having said that, it is configurable with the filters, so, for example, we can set it to show just those hands where we saw the flop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaF Posted February 7, 2009 Author Share Posted February 7, 2009 Re: Money Won at Showdown v Money won without showdown If I repeat the original graph, for just those hands where he saw a flop, then I get the graph below. Money won with showdown, and without showdown is virtually the same which, gut feel, is a very good thing :unsure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nade Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Re: Money Won at Showdown v Money won without showdown I'm just reading Phil Galfond's (OMGClayAitken) 'well' on 2+2, so far on about page 40 :unsure been reading for about a week. Anyways i've just got to a bit where he comments on showdown winnings and he says: " Non showdown winnings are meaningful, but there's no "right amount" really. If you are losing money in non-showdowns, that means that you're folding more than your opponents. Also, people with high nonSD winnings usually have lower SD winnings, because they bluff more and get their money in light. If you have loose opponents, you should be losing money in non showdown pots probably. You'll be killing in SD pots. If they're tight, you should run over them and win the nonSD pots." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.