Small Stakes Shorthanded NL Poker Forums

So, as we all know, there are various winning styles in NLHE, including ones with negative non-showdown winnings and positive showdown winnings. Now lately I've been thinking that my red line going up is generally a consequence of playing well, bluffing in the right spots, not putting in dead money, etc.

My question is, is there anyone here who has seen a significant sample of a player with a positive red line but who is losing overall?

In theory we can of course imagine such a player, but does he really exist? And more interestingly, does he exist in the realm of serious poker players, i.e. not complete spazztards?

Anybody making just to many hopeless or ill-timed bluffs would have a positive red line, but be a loosing player overall. I'm sure there are tens of thousands such players, many of them serious ones trying to be aggresive just not good enough to win or simply running bad.

Anybody making just to many hopeless or ill-timed bluffs would have a positive red line, but be a loosing player overall. I'm sure there are tens of thousands such players, many of them serious ones trying to be aggresive just not good enough to win or simply running bad.

This is in theory though. I'm not sure if it's in practice. The reality is that these 'hopeless bluffs' will get called and therefore won't result in a positive red line.

My theory is that the red line isn't so much a result of mindless aggression as it is of not sticking money in in bad spots, like calling raises out of the blinds and then check/folding, or calling once and check/folding the later streets.

When players try to raise their red line by launching ill-timed and hopeless bluffs, I feel they might see their red line actually decline, because they find themselves either getting looked up or lost on later streets and forced to fold.

What I'm saying is that a positive red line is for a large part the result of minimizing losses in non-showdown pots, more so than it is maximizing winnings.

What stakes are we talking about? Cbetting/double barreling too much, then giving up could easily result in a positive red line. It's theoretical that it could happen with a losing player, but it was definitely happening with me at 25NL, but not enough to make me a loser.

I confused. How does cbet/barreling and then check folding the river make a positive red line?

Also jasper, getting called more will lower your blue line, not red line.

Also jasper, getting called more will lower your blue line, not red line.

Of course, yeah.

But yeah, it's clear already that misconceptions about the red line are everywhere. This is why I am wondering, this illustrious super aggressive player with a positive red line, but who is losing overall, does he actually exist?

As for stakes, I'd say 50NL and up?

I confused. How does cbet/barreling and then check folding the river make a positive red line?

Also jasper, getting called more will lower your blue line, not red line.

Sorry, I edited my post and confused my point. What I intended as an example was to stop being aggressive on the river (thus he's not going to fold out many better hands who couldn't take three barrels), but would still stubbornly call with something like TPGK.

Sorry, I edited my post and confused my point. I meant to say the theoretical player would stop being aggressive on the river (thus he's not going to fold out many better hands who couldn't take three barrels), but would still stubbornly call with something like TPGK.

This makes sense to me.

Of course, yeah.

But yeah, it's clear already that misconceptions about the red line are everywhere. This is why I am wondering, this illustrious super aggressive player with a positive red line, but who is losing overall, does he actually exist?

As for stakes, I'd say 50NL and up?

At lower stakes, I have see a number of 80/55 players who are hyper aggressive without any understanding of board texture or hand reading. These guys are going to have a positive red line (people will fold a lot more than they do) but a negative blue line (they are going to get called a lot and lose because they have a weak range). I would imagine it to be less common at higher stakes, but not impossible.

At lower stakes, I have see a number of 80/55 players who are hyper aggressive without any understanding of board texture or hand reading. These guys are going to have a positive red line (people will fold a lot more than they do) but a negative blue line (they are going to get called a lot and lose because they have a weak range). I would imagine it to be less common at higher stakes, but not impossible.

Hypothetically, these players may indeed have said graph, do they do though in reality? Really curious if someone can show me evidence.

Inb4 Grindcore spits some knowledge

Hypothetically, these players may indeed have said graph, do they do though in reality? Really curious if someone can show me evidence.

I don't have enough hands on any one player in my current db, so I can't say. Why do you doubt it to be true?

Hypothetically, these players may indeed have said graph, do they do though in reality? Really curious if someone can show me evidence.

What question(s) are you trying to answer and how does it help you become a better player ?

If there are players with positive blue lines, negative red lines and are winning players, then it's pretty likely there are players with positive red lines, negative blues lines and are losing players.

What question(s) are you trying to answer and how does it help you become a better player ?

In my own game, I feel that when I am playing my best, my red line goes up. When I feel I play poorly, I notice that my non-showdown winnings are suffering. I'm putting in money where I shouldn't, only to fold on later streets, I don't have the awareness to recognize profitable bluffing spots, etc.

What I am trying to establish for myself is whether the red line overall can be used as an indicator for playing well. This would help greatly with the mental game, knowing when you simply got lucky in a session and when you are actually on top of your game.

My hypothesis is the following: there are no small- and midstakes regulars with a positive red line who are also losing players. If this can not be disproved, the conclusion would be that positive red line = g00t play.