Showdown Winnings vs. cbetting

ok so I've really been thinking about the showdown vs. non-showdown winnings discussion. There's good reason I've been considering this. Non-showdown winnings for my entire career are currently at ~-$10k. Now it's been a huge sample, and it includes when I lost, my total winnings are a little under $3k, thus my showdown winnings are at about $13k. Meaning if somehow I could simply break even in non-showdown pots I'd be up $13k. Now I don't think that's possible simply because the pots are connected and if I do better in non-showdown pots these pots don't reach showdown and thus I have less showdown winnings. Of course on the other hand when I successfully bluff before showdown I gain non-showdown winnings and also showdown winnings (from negative to 0).

So I'm considering a common scenario, marginal hands. Say I have 77 and the flop comes 359, or a better example say like JJ and it comes A93 rainbow. Basically party wa/wb, although in examples like the early one overcards have 6 outs. So I will usually check this one, call one street at least, rest depends on opponents, but let's consider a different line.

So in either scenario, the first because you suspect overs, and the second they could have KQ. So instead of checking you bet out to protect your hand. Let's look at the difference in showdown vs. non-showdown in these 2 examples. When villain has you beat the way I play you almost always lose a non-showdown pot. Top pair (especially in examples like the second one) will most likely bet 2 streets, you know you're beat, and you fold. If you're ahead you usually win a small pot at showdown, possibly value betting a river. Similarly, someone who bets out will take down most pots at non-showdown and when called will most likely be behind. Now depending on circumstances this behind can sometimes be a non-showdown pot as well, simply because villain may bet turn or river and we will fold. But we win a lot more non-showdown pots. So I used to think that it was just donks who had positive non-showdown winnings until seeing some stats here, not only of winning players, but of players who I knew played well (wv and SavagePenguin were two I'm pretty sure, thought maybe there were 1 or 2 more).

So basically I'm curious as to this is one of the major differences, just the different style in playing marginal hands. Curious of different cbet % vs. whether they generally do well in non-showdown pots or not.

I personally cbet 43.6% and am definitely a big-time loser in non-showdown pots.

Curious of basically everyone I guess but mainly the people who win at non-showdown pots. This has just been eating at me for the last few weeks just trying to figure this out. If this doesn't yield a solution I'm going to ask if I can do a sweat session or if they would do a video of their play, because I really want to see the difference in style for a person who wins in non-showdown pots. I can definitely learn something from that.

I play 25NL 6-max (7.5PTBB/100 winner)
I play roughly 17/14/2.3
I C-bet 73.8% of the time
About 10% of my winnings come from Non-showdown pots.
My W$WSF is 43%

is that what you wanted?

dsvw56 said:

I play 25NL 6-max (7.5PTBB/100 winner)
I play roughly 17/14/2.3
I C-bet 73.8% of the time
About 10% of my winnings come from Non-showdown pots.
My W$WSF is 43%

is that what you wanted?

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm guessing that people who cbet ~70+% are going to have non-showdown winnings, maybe lower but it's just the general mentality I think. What's kind of weird is my W$WSF isn't actually that much lower, it's around 39%. Although come to think about it that actually supports my theory, since mostly when you cbet a flop with a marginal hand, most of the time you're folding out better hands, and the slightly higher rate is the times I get outdrawn when betting would have folded out the worse hand a good amount of the time. Also it's good that you included VP$IP/PFR/AF, mine is similar, 16/12/2 I think last I checked, someone playing a crazy number of flops will be different from the standard TAG.

Of course even if I figure out that this is the reason, still need to figure out which is more profitable, although I'd love to have your winrate. I'm playing 100nl but winning at ~1 PTBB/100 so you're winning more cash per hand, although I'm 20-tabling (plus more fpps at 100nl).

%44 is REALLY low for cbets zach. I've heard numbers tossed around, and I think somewhere in the %60s is supposed to be optimal.

I don't get your wa/wb theory, and am pretty sure that's not the main spot where you'd be losing money (there's a reason players better than us say it's 'standard' to play wa/wb spots like that). Most probably you're not cbetting enough in other situations and aren't fighting for pots when you've missed or caught a small piece of the pot. Some of it could also be preflop, like 3betting light or something.

I'm ~15/12 FR, cbet similar to dsvw. Long-term loser with NSD winnings at about -3ptbb/100, or around $5k after 170k hands. Looking at my graph now, I broke even for a good 50k hand run, I wonder what was different then...

There's definitely something going on if you're only cbetting that amount.

You also play FR right?

yep

oh, my W$SF is like 40. It think anything over 47 is like you're a pro.

fwiw when i was at 100nl, i had like 3x as much money won in non-SD pots as SD pots

Also, FWIW, I'd imagine it'd be harder to have positive non-showdown winnings at FR than at 6-max just simply because the strength of the average hand played is much higher.

Edit : Also the fact that you're 20-tabling is probably the biggest reason for it. I play 6-9 tables and make a lot of "moves" that are opponent specific.

vanquish said:

fwiw when i was at 100nl, i had like 3x as much money won in non-SD pots as SD pots

Click to expand...

Wow, that's insane. I know you're aggro, but that doesn't even make sense

dsvw56 said:

Also, FWIW, I'd imagine it'd be harder to have positive non-showdown winnings at FR than at 6-max just simply because the strength of the average hand played is much higher.

Edit : Also the fact that you're 20-tabling is probably the biggest reason for it. I play 6-9 tables and make a lot of "moves" that are opponent specific.

Click to expand...

Agree completely.

ChuckTs said:

Wow, that's insane. I know you're aggro, but that doesn't even make sense

Click to expand...

granted my SD winnings were barely positive due to coolerfests imo. i'm pretty sure my stars account is permanently doomswitched.

ChuckTs said:

%44 is REALLY low for cbets zach. I've heard numbers tossed around, and I think somewhere in the %60s is supposed to be optimal.

I don't get your wa/wb theory, and am pretty sure that's not the main spot where you'd be losing money (there's a reason players better than us say it's 'standard' to play wa/wb spots like that). Most probably you're not cbetting enough in other situations and aren't fighting for pots when you've missed or caught a small piece of the pot. Some of it could also be preflop, like 3betting light or something.

Click to expand...

ok I think you misunderstood or I wrote it badly or whatever, but I'm not talking about wa/wb spots, I'm talking about similar spots, where I've caught a small piece of the flop (you said pot, assume you meant flop). Basically my theory has been cbet the majority of missed hands villain-dependent, cbet a decent amount of TPTK+ hands (basically hands I bet for straight value), but the problem comes when I hit a marginal hand. Maybe raised PF with 78 suited and have a J83 flop. Do I cbet this flop? Am I getting folds out of better hands? Calls from worse? In general these hands I would play extremely passively, figuring I can give overs a chance to bluff although they will catch up once in a while. And then there are the players who will flat almost every cbet, maybe I need to be double barreling more into these types instead of just betting if I hit and checking if I miss, but when the HUD shows people over 300+ hands only folding to 20% of cbets, I tend to play that way instead of just knowing that this stat means they float a lot and I can double barrel profitably a lot.

Your cbet % is the likely answer.
Here are my stats FWIW (25NL FR):
16/11/3
cbet 59%
20% of profit from NSD hands
W$SF 41%

There is also a PT3 stat called cbet turn which I assume is how often you double barrel. That number for me is 39%.

Well go and peep cottonseed's cbetting video. Watch and rewatch it, he basically solves cbetting. Ed Miller's general classroom vids help as well.

Your example is very player dependent, but I can see where you might be making mistakes.

ChuckTs said:

Well go and peep cottonseed's cbetting video. Watch and rewatch it, he basically solves cbetting. Ed Miller's general classroom vids help as well.

Click to expand...

QFT

Well here is my graph of 50NL since Feb 08. I have more hands from it but that was when I was just screwing around, my results from 10NL and 25NL are nothing like my results at 50NL.




My stats are..

16.98/12.76/2.55

W$WSF: 43.89%
Cbet: 62.77%
Att to steal: 31.42%

Oh and I'm $330 below my all in expectation so I'm not completely terrible in pots that go to showdown but that graph is still pretty strange I think.

Right, I gonna be a little controversial here. I honestly think it's really rare (bordering on impossible) to play a TAG'ish style and have slightly negative to pushing on break even non SD pots AND still maintain a decent SD winning %age.

I've played 6max and FR and have endeavoured to maintain optimal stats ie something like 18/16/3 at 6max, 14/10/2 at FR say. I CB 60-70% of pots, for me it just doesn't work. My non SD winnings runs a near mirror image to my SD winnings line.

Now as far as I'm concerned, there are 3 types of players that will have decent non SD winnings (ie slightly neg to break even or better). Calling station type's, LAGGY players, and truly exceptional players who play few tables. And of these types, most will have poorer SD winnings, than typical TAG's.

I have looked at conversations on this forum and 2+2, and I'm pretty convinced of this. Also you have to look at the likes of sample size as well. The likes of Zach, Chuck and myself play zillions of hands/tables. Chuck has said he had a stretch of 50k hands were he was break even in non SD winnings. I myself have had stretches of 25k hands were I was only partially negative. But we really need to look at sample sizes here to put a lot of this into perspective.

One more thing, as we progress up the limits, upto 400nl and beyond, again this is were the game will dramatically change and our non SD winnings will have to improve to enable survival at these limits. This will be through more semi bluffs/bluffs etc.

Yes I think we may be able to reduce this difference slightly, which will obv have a +ve affect on our winrates. But to reduce it dramatically will have to involve some major changes in style I think and poker goals (ie playing a helluva lot less tables).

Just my 2pennies worth!

zachvac said:

So I'm considering a common scenario, marginal hands. Say I have 77 and the flop comes 359, or a better example say like JJ and it comes A93 rainbow. Basically party wa/wb, although in examples like the early one overcards have 6 outs. So I will usually check this one, call one street at least, rest depends on opponents, but let's consider a different line.

Click to expand...

Now wait a second. I assume that you were the preflop raiser in these examples? I also assume that this is 6-max.
If that's the case then you certainly don't have marginal hands in those spots. You can't be scared of a single overcard, that just doesn't make sense.

In the first example, you should almost always bet out, mainly to protect your hand, but you may even get called by a KQ type hand. Bad players do it all the time (and not with the intention to float).

In the second example, it depends on your opponent. You will often induce bluffs from bad players if you check your JJ to them. You will definitely call a bet, and often times you should be very willing to call a second barrel as well.
C-betting this flop isn't too bad either. Against a bad player, you can probably check the hand down after you get called (they won't usually bet their A7 for value on any street). A good player will rarely have an Ace after he flat-called you preflop, but if he has a pocket pair he'll call your c-bet and possibly another valuebet on the river.

zachvac said:

What's kind of weird is my W$WSF isn't actually that much lower, it's around 39%.

Click to expand...

I used to have the same problem. 39% is definitely too low for 100NL and above. You should try to get this up to ~42%-45%.

zachvac said:

Maybe raised PF with 78 suited and have a J83 flop. Do I cbet this flop? Am I getting folds out of better hands? Calls from worse? In general these hands I would play extremely passively, figuring I can give overs a chance to bluff although they will catch up once in a while.

Click to expand...

This is a similar situation to your first example. Since your hand is vulnerable, you should be happy about taking down the pot on the flop. I would almost never play this hand "extremely passively".
Also, you can definitely get called by worse. Bad players will call with a 3, a gutshot draw or two overcards. You obviously won't get a Jack to fold, but your opponent won't have hit the Jack very often.

In general, a few things to consider are:
1) C-bet more than you used to (65%-70% might be a good range). Good spots to c-bet are dry highcard flops (Q93dsh, K82ssc) or flops that miss your opponent most of the time (858hcd). Bad spots are coordinated boards (568hhc). Also, don't be afraid to c-bet 3-way pots.
2) Double-barrel more. Bad players call your c-bets with all kinds of hands. As your bets get bigger on later streets, even calling station types will fold. Good players will often float you, so double-barrel them or check-raise their turn bet. Excellent turn cards to double-barrel are overcards to the flop. Most players who had top pair on the flop won't fold there, so a triple-barrel may be in order. This is all very situation dependent of course.
3) Play your draws aggressively, especially out of position. If you have a decent flush draw, just keep betting it. You have fold equity, and when you do hit your opponent has a hard time putting you on a flush.
4) Take down uncontested pots. Especially when you're in a heads-up pot against a limper, you can often just bet and take it down. Multiway pots that are checked to you in position can also be taken down very often. If none of your opponents shows any strength whatsoever, it's time for you to show some strength.
5) Bluff-raise sometimes if you flat-called a preflop raise. If you always fold to a c-bet when you miss, then flat-calling preflop becomes unprofitable. Opponents who c-bet a lot are ideal candidates to bluff-raise (or bluff-check-raise). Good boards to do it on are those dry boards that most people will c-bet. Careful against thinking opponents though: if he thinks that you can't possibly have much on that board, he may play back at you. But I don't think this is a major concern at 100NL.
Floating and betting the turn is another way to make preflop flat-calls more profitable. And finally, sometimes you may want to donk bet into the preflop raiser and possibly follow up with a turn bet in case he calls.
6) 3-bet more than just QQ+ and AK. If you have position against a preflop raiser, the 3-bet is very powerful and you don't need a big hand. If you get called, you will c-bet most flops in position and show a long-term profit. 3-betting out of the blinds means you won't have position postflop, but that makes your play look even stronger. CO and Button usually have wide opening ranges, so you can 3-bet very liberally. I'd much rather 3-bet a 89s than call with it.

I think those are the most important factors. You really don't need to bluff a ton to improve those non-showdown pots.
Obviously, at higher stakes more people will start playing back at you and you'll have to add things like 4-betting light or 5-bet shoving as a bluff into your arsenal. I've lost numerous buy-ins doing this at 50NL before I realized that just about every 3-bet means "very strong hand" and 90% of all 4-bets mean "KK or AA".

Jagsti said:

Right, I gonna be a little controversial here. I honestly think it's really rare (bordering on impossible) to play a TAG'ish style and have slightly negative to pushing on break even non SD pots AND still maintain a decent SD winning %age.

Click to expand...

What do you consider a "decent SD winning %age"?

Chris_TC said:

Now wait a second. I assume that you were the preflop raiser in these examples? I also assume that this is 6-max.

Click to expand...

Yes and no, although they were both made-up hands, I'm talking about situations where I am the preflop raiser, but it is FR, not 6max, sorry if I didn't specify this.

Chris_TC said:

If that's the case then you certainly don't have marginal hands in those spots. You can't be scared of a single overcard, that just doesn't make sense.

Click to expand...

Well I guess I need to define marginal. Basically I was talking about hands where I'm not comfortable putting a large percentage of my stack in the middle and seeing showdown.

Chris_TC said:

In the first example, you should almost always bet out, mainly to protect your hand, but you may even get called by a KQ type hand. Bad players do it all the time (and not with the intention to float).

In the second example, it depends on your opponent. You will often induce bluffs from bad players if you check your JJ to them. You will definitely call a bet, and often times you should be very willing to call a second barrel as well.
C-betting this flop isn't too bad either. Against a bad player, you can probably check the hand down after you get called (they won't usually bet their A7 for value on any street). A good player will rarely have an Ace after he flat-called you preflop, but if he has a pocket pair he'll call your c-bet and possibly another valuebet on the river.

Click to expand...

I think part of this is difference between 6max and FR, but the first one is what I usually do, call a flop bet and depending on board and opponent call a second barrel, but pretty much unless I've hit a better hand (set, flush, straight) I'm not calling the third barrel.

Although you're still kind of right, seen so many underpairs call 3 barrels from sets and stuff, although 3-barreling probably is a mistake I could probably bet flop and then if river check bet the river for value as well (ie I don't expect top pair to check the river and my line looks weak) and I guess I'd be calling the river bet (again depending on board, more busted draws = more calls).

Chris_TC said:

I used to have the same problem. 39% is definitely too low for 100NL and above. You should try to get this up to ~42%-45%.

Click to expand...

As mentioned it is FR, is this still true?

Chris_TC said:

This is a similar situation to your first example. Since your hand is vulnerable, you should be happy about taking down the pot on the flop. I would almost never play this hand "extremely passively".
Also, you can definitely get called by worse. Bad players will call with a 3, a gutshot draw or two overcards. You obviously won't get a Jack to fold, but your opponent won't have hit the Jack very often.

In general, a few things to consider are:
1) C-bet more than you used to (65%-70% might be a good range). Good spots to c-bet are dry highcard flops (Q93dsh, K82ssc) or flops that miss your opponent most of the time (858hcd). Bad spots are coordinated boards (568hhc). Also, don't be afraid to c-bet 3-way pots.
2) Double-barrel more. Bad players call your c-bets with all kinds of hands. As your bets get bigger on later streets, even calling station types will fold. Good players will often float you, so double-barrel them or check-raise their turn bet. Excellent turn cards to double-barrel are overcards to the flop. Most players who had top pair on the flop won't fold there, so a triple-barrel may be in order. This is all very situation dependent of course.
3) Play your draws aggressively, especially out of position. If you have a decent flush draw, just keep betting it. You have fold equity, and when you do hit your opponent has a hard time putting you on a flush.
4) Take down uncontested pots. Especially when you're in a heads-up pot against a limper, you can often just bet and take it down. Multiway pots that are checked to you in position can also be taken down very often. If none of your opponents shows any strength whatsoever, it's time for you to show some strength.
5) Bluff-raise sometimes if you flat-called a preflop raise. If you always fold to a c-bet when you miss, then flat-calling preflop becomes unprofitable. Opponents who c-bet a lot are ideal candidates to bluff-raise (or bluff-check-raise). Good boards to do it on are those dry boards that most people will c-bet. Careful against thinking opponents though: if he thinks that you can't possibly have much on that board, he may play back at you. But I don't think this is a major concern at 100NL.
Floating and betting the turn is another way to make preflop flat-calls more profitable. And finally, sometimes you may want to donk bet into the preflop raiser and possibly follow up with a turn bet in case he calls.
6) 3-bet more than just QQ+ and AK. If you have position against a preflop raiser, the 3-bet is very powerful and you don't need a big hand. If you get called, you will c-bet most flops in position and show a long-term profit. 3-betting out of the blinds means you won't have position postflop, but that makes your play look even stronger. CO and Button usually have wide opening ranges, so you can 3-bet very liberally. I'd much rather 3-bet a 89s than call with it.

Click to expand...

Thanks, this has actually helped a lot. 4-6 I think I've been doing. The one problem I get into with the 3-bet pots and cbets is a lot of players will just flat KK/AA. I've been cbetting what I think are good flops anyway, but I'm getting burned for like 30% of my stack with hands like bottom pair or 7 high. I think the major difference is it's FR and 3-bet calling hands are a lot tighter. The problem is there's no such thing as a good flop. A low flop could be AA/KK (or always the fact that they have AK that they think is good and that we're just trying to steal) and of course a big card like an A or K could be a set or TPTK that players will play for stacks with in 3-bet pots (rightly so).

I think #2 though is the most helpful and the thing I need to work on most. My triple barrels with sets almost always get folded, so it makes sense that I can now triple barrel with bluffs. Obviously villain and board dependent, but for example yesterday had a perfect shot of doing it, flush draw hit, overcard hit (and it was a Q, not an A, I really don't like it when aces hit because players will have Ax way too much, either giving them 2 pair or them calling all the way with AK because they're a fish). I came so close to triple barreling (would have been for stacks) but ended up checking down and seeing 99.

The one thing is for #5, other people are doing that too at 100nl. Here's a typical spot where I have no idea how to proceed. I raise QJ suited from the cutoff, a blind calls and we see a flop of 962 rainbow, relatively dry and I have overs. So I cbet this flop, and villain minraises. Maybe I'll put this fake hand (or maybe we have AK) in the ring HA. It started happening so often though that I started delaying the cbet to the turn if I got 2 checks, and depending on villain and board I would raise some of his turn bets.

Chris_TC said:

I think those are the most important factors. You really don't need to bluff a ton to improve those non-showdown pots.
Obviously, at higher stakes more people will start playing back at you and you'll have to add things like 4-betting light or 5-bet shoving as a bluff into your arsenal. I've lost numerous buy-ins doing this at 50NL before I realized that just about every 3-bet means "very strong hand" and 90% of all 4-bets mean "KK or AA".

Click to expand...

Yeah, I watched a video about 3-bet pots on Stox that was at 6max $3/$6 I think. Started trying to use the stuff there, found out none of it works against guys who are only 3-betting JJ+/AQ+ and who will only call 3-bets with AK/99+. But I'm going to look at my current data, 3-betting light is definitely profitable, but I'm beginning to wonder if just giving up on flops you don't connect with is better since you're facing such a small range when you get called. Obviously this works to your advantage when you 3-bet suited connecters or pocket pairs and flop a set or 2-pair and get a stack, but bluf c-betting is questionable, definitely going to go over those hands after writing this.


Also going to watch Kyle's video on cbetting. Thanks for all the help. Even though it seems I was pretty much wrong, still glad I wrote it since it identified a leak of mine. Thanks all.

WVHillbilly said:

What do you consider a "decent SD winning %age"?

Click to expand...

Ok difficult to say depending on whether fr or 6max, but I'd imagine 55%. I did word that slightly incorrecty, b/c it is possible to have 60% W$SD and still be -ve in $won if that makes sense. IE you lose $ in big pots but win the small ones at SD.

My point was that if your taking a lot of NSD pots then conversely your SD $ winnings are affected imo.

Jagsti said:

Ok difficult to say depending on whether fr or 6max, but I'd imagine 55%. I did word that slightly incorrecty, b/c it is possible to have 60% W$SD and still be -ve in $won if that makes sense. IE you lose $ in big pots but win the small ones at SD.

My point was that if your taking a lot of NSD pots then conversely your SD $ winnings are affected imo.

Click to expand...

I have no doubt that you are right about NSD winnings affecting SD winnings. I know Zach and you have expressed that you wish your NSD winnings were higher but I'm not sure if it's people like me, with positive NSD winnings, who shouldn't be changing their game.

I actually asked the question earlier because I was trying to see which of your 3 groups with + NSD winnings I would put myself in. I'm definitely not a LAG or anywhere near exceptional so that only leaves me with calling station. I'd say that's about right.

BTW I see SD about 24% of the time I see a flop and my W$SD is 52%.

WV - I just think it's a trade off tbh. There's is no doubt I could/should improve my NSD winnings, because even if I only do this slightly I will improve my overall winrate. Improving it dramatically at the stakes I play will involve some sort of trade off, I'm sure.

I hope someone here can prove otherwise, that it possible to have good NSD winnings (or break even) and have good SD winnings as well, over a significant sample.

zachvac said:

As mentioned it is FR, is this still true?

Click to expand...

I believe it should be above 40% even at FR, but I'm not too familiar with FR stats, maybe somebody else can answer this.

Thanks, this has actually helped a lot. 4-6 I think I've been doing. The one problem I get into with the 3-bet pots and cbets is a lot of players will just flat KK/AA. I've been cbetting what I think are good flops anyway, but I'm getting burned for like 30% of my stack with hands like bottom pair or 7 high. I think the major difference is it's FR and 3-bet calling hands are a lot tighter.

Click to expand...

If 3-bet calling ranges are very tight at full ring, then you should probably check-fold a lot of flops. Since you'll be picking up so many pots preflop, you can afford to let go of those hands that see a flop but have no hope of winning a showdown.
Of course, you'll constantly need to adjust. Some players may pick up on the fact that you 3-bet a lot and often give up postflop, so be careful.

The one thing is for #5, other people are doing that too at 100nl. Here's a typical spot where I have no idea how to proceed. I raise QJ suited from the cutoff, a blind calls and we see a flop of 962 rainbow, relatively dry and I have overs. So I cbet this flop, and villain minraises. Maybe I'll put this fake hand (or maybe we have AK) in the ring HA. It started happening so often though that I started delaying the cbet to the turn if I got 2 checks, and depending on villain and board I would raise some of his turn bets.

Click to expand...

The delayed c-bet is certainly a good play in a lot of situations. In your example, where your flop bet gets minraised, you can often float your opponent (ideally in position of course). Bad players don't tend to follow up with a turn bet if they see that their bluffraise on the flop got called. You can then either bet and take it away or check and take a free river card.
Some bad players will follow up with a turn bet but will make it a ridiculously small bet. This warrants an auto-raise with any two of course.

If you play with a HUD, you should take a look at your opponent's "raise flop %" (Poker Office has this stat, I'm not sure about other HUDs). I consider everything above 10% to be bluffy and will float or 3-bet these guys very light if they raise me on the flop.

But I'm going to look at my current data, 3-betting light is definitely profitable, but I'm beginning to wonder if just giving up on flops you don't connect with is better since you're facing such a small range when you get called.

Click to expand...

Yes, as mentioned above, this must be a difference between 6-max and full ring. My c-bets are very profitable in 3-bet pots at 6-max. One thing to consider is: People don't tend to bluff in 3-bet pots, they will mostly play their hand according to its strength.
This means basically two things: you can mostly afford to c-bet small (I often c-bet only half pot), and if you face resistance you're usually up against a genuinely big hand.

Jagsti said:

WV - I just think it's a trade off tbh. There's is no doubt I could/should improve my NSD winnings, because even if I only do this slightly I will improve my overall winrate. Improving it dramatically at the stakes I play will involve some sort of trade off, I'm sure.

I hope someone here can prove otherwise, that it possible to have good NSD winnings (or break even) and have good SD winnings as well, over a significant sample.

Click to expand...

I guess it could be my sample size (~35,000 hands) as well. Hell that's only a good week for you or Zach. I'm also playing 25NL, so as I move up in stakes my NSD winnings may be what suffers?

I spent a cuppla years learning all this crap. Studied hard for a long time and now........

Like trigonometry, once you learn it. It's useless, but for occasional circumstances. Well, not useless, it just becomes less and less important.

I dunno, it's more important (to me) to get my eyes off the numbers and onto the action.

Don't even use a poker helper/stat tracker anymore.

That said, I do my money gaming at a live casino. Only play for free on line. And I play em just like a donkey. What a relief. Just throw it out there. It really is quite cathartic.

Who the $#*& cares?


---