stats over almost 20k hands (nl10)

Only thing that matters is winrate, dunno why there are so many posts that look exactly like this ... When you start struggling then I could understand posting something like this, but why look for leaks when you're winning at 5BB/100 ? Just keep playing until you have problems, then look for ways to improve.

i get ur point but meh, b/c 6 is better than 5. 7 is better than 6... it can be better, every time. i want to fkn crush these stakes all the way up to the level where i stopped - nl50 and to come there the best i can. it's much cheaper to fix this kind of stuff here than on higher levels.

alot of people think its normal to have a red line like this
i dont
think about it -.-

Alot of people think its good to have a positive redline at the microstakes where nobody folds.
I dont.
think about it-.-

+ Show Spoiler +

On January 29 2010 13:01 Maynard! wrote: Alot of people think its good to have a positive redline at the microstakes where nobody folds. I dont. think about it-.- + Show Spoiler +

red line doesnt have necesserialy something to do with bluffing. Its just how agressive you are. Now you could try to get your redline up by bluffing more, or you can try to valuebet more, which is the correct thing to do at micro stakes.

Ofcourse its bad to try to just force the red line positive, but trying to improve it is not bad if you do it the right way.

On January 29 2010 12:34 HeRoS)eNGagE wrote: alot of people think its normal to have a red line like this i dont think about it -.-

seems my friend have no problem with his red line above $0.



saw numerous graphs like that one with red in positive waters...

On January 29 2010 14:10 ytricky wrote: Show nested quote + On January 29 2010 13:01 Maynard! wrote: Alot of people think its good to have a positive redline at the microstakes where nobody folds. I dont. think about it-.- + Show Spoiler + red line doesnt have necesserialy something to do with bluffing. Its just how agressive you are. Now you could try to get your redline up by bluffing more, or you can try to valuebet more, which is the correct thing to do at micro stakes. Ofcourse its bad to try to just force the red line positive, but trying to improve it is not bad if you do it the right way.

and how to improve it? whatever i try is not functional
i need enlightenment lol.

On January 29 2010 14:28 Skaarj390 wrote: Show nested quote + On January 29 2010 12:34 HeRoS)eNGagE wrote: alot of people think its normal to have a red line like this i dont think about it -.- seems my friend have no problem with his red line above $0. saw numerous graphs like that one with red in positive waters...

having a positive redline is probably hurting him more than helping, I have a negative redline with a higher winrate than him at the same stakes, same sample size

On January 29 2010 14:31 Skaarj390 wrote: Show nested quote + On January 29 2010 14:10 ytricky wrote:   On January 29 2010 13:01 Maynard! wrote: Alot of people think its good to have a positive redline at the microstakes where nobody folds. I dont. think about it-.- + Show Spoiler + red line doesnt have necesserialy something to do with bluffing. Its just how agressive you are. Now you could try to get your redline up by bluffing more, or you can try to valuebet more, which is the correct thing to do at micro stakes. Ofcourse its bad to try to just force the red line positive, but trying to improve it is not bad if you do it the right way. and how to improve it? whatever i try is not functional i need enlightenment lol.

I told you already.

1. dont try to brute force it
2. Try valuebetting more, where you see it fit. If you think a spot is really thin, just bet less to get called at a higher frequency, instead of not betting at all in fear of valuetowning yourself.

Red line is overrated. Red line is also a product affected by variance, if you're going to take your red line into consideration, look at very large samples only, otherwise just focus on making every decision an optimal one. If you want to find out how to increase your winrate, don't go running towards observing stats and graphs. Every unsure hand you encounter, write it down, and study to find out reads/info you may have overlooked or better alternative lines/bets you could have done. The more you get used to those types of situations, your winrate is surely to increase.

All that matters is how much money your winning, your winrate is strong. Now it just becomes a function of how many hands you play / how quickly you move up stakes. Playing 2x more hands should mean 2x more money.. if you are not interested in playing a ton of hands, try taking stabs at a bigger stake, playing a stake that is 2x the buy in could mean 2x more money in the same # of hands. Take a stab - if it dosnt work, check out your HH make sure you played well, if you did but just ran like shit (which happens) rebuild and re-stab

Things like this are always a balance between what your poker goals are. If you just want quick steady money at a steady hourly rate, then mass tabling is the way to go. By the looks of your graph it definitely looks like you are playing a lot of tables, but at a 5BB/100 winrate it's also very solid. You could definitely transform your game and bring your red line to even and double your winrate, but this would also require that you drastically cut back on tables and focus on playing more LAG and running more bluffs. You might in the end have a prettier looking graph and higher winrate, but it could also cut back on your hourly rate depending on how many tables you have to drop. If you're truly focused on skill and progression then my advice would be to cut back on the tables and work on the leaks, but realize that it may take a hit on your initial hourly rate. If you're happy with your current hourly rate, and not to say you can't progress mass tabling, just keep going with it and stacking ppl and realize that you can't have the best of both worlds. Either less tables and higher winrate or more tables lower winrate. Go with what works best for you.

On January 29 2010 14:28 Skaarj390 wrote: Show nested quote + On January 29 2010 12:34 HeRoS)eNGagE wrote: alot of people think its normal to have a red line like this i dont think about it -.- seems my friend have no problem with his red line above $0. saw numerous graphs like that one with red in positive waters...

?? the guy who started this thread has made 3x more money in the exact same # of hands, who gives a shit about some dumbass line

some of your guys priorities are absolutley ridicilous, try getting better stop looking at retarded graphs, people who win money at this game dont give two shits about these graphs

On January 31 2010 13:45 TalentedTom wrote: Show nested quote + On January 29 2010 14:28 Skaarj390 wrote:   On January 29 2010 12:34 HeRoS)eNGagE wrote: alot of people think its normal to have a red line like this i dont think about it -.- seems my friend have no problem with his red line above $0. saw numerous graphs like that one with red in positive waters... ?? the guy who started this thread has made 3x more money in the exact same # of hands, who gives a shit about some dumbass line

thats nl2

Most poeple that have positive red line have way worse SD winnings lines
so it basically the same thing most of the time

@ OP you r not stealing the blinds often enough
too lazy to make other analysis right now

What I do believe could be something you could take into consideration (although I cannot back it up by any sort of statistical proof) is that players at these stakes that share similar stats do tend to have better red / blue line ratios. You have a decently loose image, try to use it for thinner value bets / more bluffs imho. Although true, the only thing that really matters is your long term winrate.

More thread savers, less blah blah blah

I've gone both ways with having a skyrocketing red line and a tanking red line, and basically making it a priority like Tom said is really silly.

But if you want to know what affects your red line the most, it's your PFR and 3bet.

thanks everyone for advices. i appreciate that. also i must admit that i never thought about some things until i saw those answers