Small Stakes Shorthanded NL Poker Forums

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.

How would this disprove an alternative hypothesis that any player with a red line like yours would make more money overall by having a slightly lower red line? I am not saying this is the case, but it might be. If you're doing the kind of analysis that can determine which is correct, you probably can stop thinking so much about your graph anyway.

Change your strategy up to betting 100% and you'll find a disproof after a decent sample size.

You have committed a logical fallacy though. You have assumed a hypothesis and said that if you cannot prove the converse, then that is sufficient proof.

@OP: I can think of a couple regs I play with who are mindlessly aggressive as well as pretty big calling stations. I looked up their stats and not all of them had solid red lines as I thought they would. I guess some of them do things like mindlessly barrel and then have to fold to a river shove. Anyway here's one graph of a bad overaggro losing reg I found who has a good red line:

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg85/scaled.php?server=85&filename=graphf.png&res=landing

There were a couple other regs I found with positive red lines but negative green and blue lines. They aren't too common, but they do exist.

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.

Not necessarily, this statement would be true if all poker was headsup and rakeless. For example, if a hand goes multiway, and I bet/fold the flop but the other two players take it to showdown I will have a negative red-line while the winner of the pot would have a positive blue-line. The rake is an even bigger factor preventing this, especially at 50NL and below where it is so high.

Not necessarily, this statement would be true if all poker was headsup and rakeless. For example, if a hand goes multiway, and I bet/fold the flop but the other two players take it to showdown I will have a negative red-line while the winner of the pot would have a positive blue-line. The rake is an even bigger factor preventing this, especially at 50NL and below where it is so high.

Not necessarily but it's still pretty likely that there are more than zero losing players with a positive red line.

@OP: I can think of a couple regs I play with who are mindlessly aggressive as well as pretty big calling stations. I looked up their stats and not all of them had solid red lines as I thought they would. I guess some of them do things like mindlessly barrel and then have to fold to a river shove. Anyway here's one graph of a bad overaggro losing reg I found who has a good red line:

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg85/scaled.php?server=85&filename=graphf.png&res=landing

There were a couple other regs I found with positive red lines but negative green and blue lines. They aren't too common, but they do exist.

Great post, thanks! I guess I was wrong. Curious how this guy plays though, must indeed be a bizarre mix of mindless aggression and calling station tendencies? Also, what stakes are these?

Great post, thanks! I guess I was wrong. Curious how this guy plays though, must indeed be a bizarre mix of mindless aggression and calling station tendencies? Also, what stakes are these?

Wouldn't simply mindless aggression get this result as well?

Not necessarily but it's still pretty likely that there are more than zero losing players with a positive red line.

Yes of course there are! I posted a graph of one such player in my previous post. What I meant was that red and blue lines for everyone are not zero sum. When I read your first post in this thread for some reason I thought you were implying that they would be. But maybe I just misinterpreted what you were saying.

Great post, thanks! I guess I was wrong. Curious how this guy plays though, must indeed be a bizarre mix of mindless aggression and calling station tendencies? Also, what stakes are these?

Yes this particular reg is insanely aggressive and he never folds. His graph is on hands played at 100NL.

if you go all in EVERY hand, you will get positive red line.not sure about blue on though

Yes of course there are! I posted a graph of one such player in my previous post. What I meant was that red and blue lines for everyone are not zero sum. When I read your first post in this thread for some reason I thought you were implying that they would be. But maybe I just misinterpreted what you were saying.

Nah I was just saying that although not 100% proof, it's easy to see how such a thing is possible and quite likely due to that result, especially when you look at heads up games at higher stakes where rake is insiginifcant.

Consider the following hypothetical situation.

Game is heads up NL. Player A is always first to act. Player A's strategy is to shove preflop with every hand. Player B has the option to call or fold. Player B calls with the top 25% of hands (according to pokerstove). Forget for now whether or not this is the correct calling frequency against Player B's range.

Now, considering all that, assume that Player A and Player B play a large number of hands - let's say 1 billion. Player A's red line will be positive, but he will be a loser overall. Player B's red line will be negative, but they will be a winner overall.

I mean since we are talking about actual players there is an element of variance in those lines so I think such a player could exist, for example if he is running hot as hell card-wise but his opponent is not and he's betting all the time but his opponent is always at the bottom of his range so folds a lot

I also think that those 80/60 maniacs at 2NL that go donkbet pot pot have a positive redline with a losing blue line

I am sorry but I am ignorant, what is a blue line and a red line, I dont use my holdem manager much, I guess I should.

http://deucescracked.com/videos/1361-Episode-One
not a dick answer btw
I think this video explains those lines and its implications the best

I mean since we are talking about actual players there is an element of variance in those lines so I think such a player could exist, for example if he is running hot as hell card-wise but his opponent is not and he's betting all the time but his opponent is always at the bottom of his range so folds a lot

I also think that those 80/60 maniacs at 2NL that go donkbet pot pot have a positive redline with a losing blue line

Yeah, I agree. I was just illustrating a point.

I am sorry but I am ignorant, what is a blue line and a red line, I dont use my holdem manager much, I guess I should.

Red line = money won without a showdown. ( you bet, villain folds, you win the pot and red line goes up)
Blue line = money won at showdown

Green line (the most important) = blue + red lines