Red line losers.

I used to think that showdown results and non-showdown results were inversely proportional - meaning if one goes up, the other goes down. Now, mind you, this doesn't mean that both can't be above 0 - my assumption however was that the line already up would suffer from that effect. So, when people claimed that one had to strive to get their red line above 0 I disagreed.

I felt that sounded beautifully sound and logical however recently I started second guessing myself. I guess the main reason is that I don't see many graphs from the biggest winners that would have non-showdown results in the negative (you guys have any?). I think when Leatherass was crushing midstakes he was a good example, but those were different times I feel.

I also get the feeling that maybe having a really high showdown winning is just proof of playing snug. However that also means you are getting called a lot. So I don't know, I am kind of confused.

Can you be a big winner in todays 6max games with a plummeting red line? If no - why not (would appreciate a thorough explanation)?

Nanonoko comes to mind as a crushing reg who had red line allllll the way down, but his game was a lot more preflop heavy than most. Mind you I haven't seen his recent graphs and am basing it on an old NL600 graph with a loooot of hands

edit: don't know what plummeting means so sorry if I got it wrong.

my red lines have always been shitty. ive always had big winrates in the games i played in but i dont play in the toughest games around. i do think if i improved as a player and got "tougher" my red line would improve, but after a certain point im sure SD would suffer.

but really its a style thing. i check back more than most, try to get hands to showdown, make big folds and one of my weaknesses has traditionally been not vbetting super thin. so my game is kinda set up for having super high showdown winnings and bad non showdown and no matter what im prob gonna get buried in my red line

locoo beat me to it. The last big nano graph I saw, that redline was the worst I've ever seen for someone with so much success, however that was for midstakes. More recently his redline is still losing at HS (sample was smaller) but not as badly

Dauts style is similar to Durrr's style, even possibly Durrr plays more passively than that

This is what a hyper aggro v durrr/dauts style results in without proper adjustment ^^

On July 24 2012 23:35 Highcard wrote: Dauts style is similar to Durrr's style, even possibly Durrr plays more passively than that This is what a hyper aggro v durrr/dauts style results in without proper adjustment ^^

ya i def do think this style is tough to pull off heads up. when you have such a wide range and dont make that many hands its hard to win hands when you are being passive. i do have some trouble heads up in general and think durrrr vs isildur and durrrr vs jungleman are good examples of what happens if you try to play that game heads up.

I know takechip's redline is way over but he's like breaking even in showdown or somethin like that

Also, people who might think that from the graph, isildur is insanely spewing to achieve that. However, Jungleman said that isildur has one of the best balanced ranges he plays against (played against). Because of that, you have be very careful how you slowplay/trap vs aggros because it can complete shit over your entire range as Daut was talking about in HU making huge profits for villains nonsd.

TBH I think that if you are thinking about playing the best players/tough games, worrying about if a bad redline will still suffice is approaching it wrong. You need to be thinking about GTO as much as possible and then deviating from it slightly when you can. Apparently this is exactly what Sauce has been working on for years and now everyone is very scared of him.

Imo it is really a matter of style and does not matter too much if you win more through sd or non-sd, especially in lower games where people play more abc and less player specific. What comes to mind as a slight problem in tougher games and heads-up is, that people who try to play more for showdown winnings give away more info about their ranges than people who win mostly without showdown, which can give the non-sd player more info about opponents game than the other way round.

Any time people discuss redline/blueline I think ASongs graphs @_@

it's all about the green line

redline is not just bluffing, it's also being affected by bluffcatching , thinvaluebetting...

On July 25 2012 01:21 Joe wrote: Imo it is really a matter of style and does not matter too much if you win more through sd or non-sd, especially in lower games where people play more abc and less player specific. What comes to mind as a slight problem in tougher games and heads-up is, that people who try to play more for showdown winnings give away more info about their ranges than people who win mostly without showdown, which can give the non-sd player more info about opponents game than the other way round.

best post in thread imo.

as for me, if i want to i can play and get a high redline, and i can also play to get a low red line. who the fuck really cares as long as you can win?

On July 25 2012 05:32 wobbly_au wrote: Show nested quote + On July 25 2012 01:21 Joe wrote: Imo it is really a matter of style and does not matter too much if you win more through sd or non-sd, especially in lower games where people play more abc and less player specific. What comes to mind as a slight problem in tougher games and heads-up is, that people who try to play more for showdown winnings give away more info about their ranges than people who win mostly without showdown, which can give the non-sd player more info about opponents game than the other way round. best post in thread imo. as for me, if i want to i can play and get a high redline, and i can also play to get a low red line. who the fuck really cares as long as you can win?

I'm really curious, what do you change to do this? It just seems tough T_T

double post

ive always had a positive redline but for me atleast when i play on stars, where games are alittle more tighter preflop i dont continue vs 3bets as much and when i fold more to 3bets and pretty much always being oop my redline tends to go up the roof

with not continueing without initiative as much that is

idk much about blueline/redline really, and ive never bothered to care, most months i win alot in redline, but sometimes i have a negative redline by pretty much and still win alot of $

Interesting topic. I have had a positive redline for the past couple of years and actually struggle with turning profit in showdown hands. I think my game would improve a lot if i could find a better balance between non showdown and showdown winnings. Usually when i play a little more passive, barreling less, trying to get more to showdown and stuff i get better results, even thought this might just be due to other players being used to my other style.

i've always had a marginally losing redline. i think the longest stretch of positive redline i ever had was 3 months? something like that. whether this is an effect of 20+ tables or just my general playstyle i'm honestly not sure, i would say i in general play more passive than the average internet reg but nothing ridiculous.

I have a good winrate at the games I play ,50-200NL mainly Full Ring,but my non showdown winnings always have been bad.Basically its even rare for me to a have single day with 2000+ Hands and positive non showdown winnings.My showdown winnings on the other hands have always been really high,much higher than those of most other graphs ive seen with comparable winrates.
For the last 3 months i ve tried to improve my non-showdown winnings, and guess what,I am breaking even since then

For what that means and what not,i think its a very complicated thematic.
But i do think that there is a big difference between stakes you play and Full ring or 6 max.
Basically having good non-showdown winnings means you either suck at showdown winnings,because people always find the right fold vs you, or you are good at bluffing but then the really tough thing to do is balancing this with your showdown winnings...resulting in profit.
I think at higher stakes its much more important to look for the red line than at lower stakes.
At lower stakes its often enough to make people think you are aggressive or loose,while in reality being pretty tight...just not the typical abc tight.
And at lower stakes bluffs are often harder to pull...thats why most players from 50 -200 NL i know that have good red line graphs are losing or B/e players,Full ring and to a lesser extent 6 max.
More fishes=more showdown winnings and less bluffs.

I agree w/ Joe.

Also w/ wobbly in that vs some guys i have a way high red line and vs others it goes straight down ... depends mostly on two things ... randomization of cards, and opponent type.

if i keep getting good (but not nutted) hands and because i feel im ahead of my opponents range, i tend to lean towards more and more aggression generally causing red line to go up. if run outs keep falling bad for me or i'm not getting decent hands to 4bet or call 3bets and play agro post, then my green line is generally going to go up and red line will go way down cuz im forced to play a more trappy type game since my opponent is probably running me over a bit during that time.

I think in theory if you are playing optimally you should have an alternating red and blue lines varying on what your image is and how you exploit it, so leaning towards vbetting when you have a bluffy image and viceversa. That might be a bit too simplistic way to look at it in todays games but honestly I think what really matters is the green line, if that is going well you are doing it right.