If I’m not losing many showdowns, am I doing it wrong? (1 Viewer)

upNdown

upNdown

Royal Flush
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
21,725
Reaction score
36,958
Location
boston
I guess I’m trying to figure out if I should be getting involved in more pots, and playing harder/better postflop?

I play MTT’s usually around 5 tables, up to ten, wth a strong preference for deep, long structures when I can find them. And I’m a winning player.
What I’ve noticed lately is that I lose very few showdowns. I play pretty aggressively, preflop and postflop, so I guess I don’t get to a lot of showdowns. Range is neither tight nor loose - I’m much more interested in position and situations.
It feels like when I do lose at showdown, it’s one of those situations where I’m getting trapped, but realize it and lose the minimum.
I’m just trying to find places to improve my game, and In considering my game, I wonder if this indicates an area in which I can improve.
Thanks for your thoughts
 
I was listening to Daniel Negraeanu's podcast a while ago and he was talking about a tourney strategy of always wanting your opponent to fold. When your opponent folds you always chip up vs. going to showdown you might lose (even when way ahead on the flop or pre-flop).

Essentially, he was promoting a low risk strategy of trying to slowly chip up without risking your whole stack. As with your other example of AQ > AK. It would have been better had AQ folded because even though you had him crushed you ended up losing chips.

Another tourney concept I have heard (IIRC from Huck Seed) is mixing it up early on. While the blinds are cheap you can afford to play some speculative hands that can hit the nuts like 79 or J9 etc. Later in the tournament when blinds are expensive you need to play high cards and hope to hit a strong pair. However, early on if you can get a nutty hand that no one sees coming you can perhaps double up.

Anyway I fucking suck at tourneys but I understand (some of) the strategy...I am just too impatient to put it into practice.
 
I get what you're saying... I don't have an answer. There may be a scenario where you are betting too aggessively on the turn to price out draws and your opponents are correctly folding too often. Perhaps smaller turn bets will get them to call... this however will result in you losing more showdowns... but ultimately winning more... just one example... is it valid, I don't know.
 
Could mean anything, or a combination of things. In no particular order:
  • you're a really great player
  • you're playing against really bad players, or maybe just really sticky players
  • you're really lucky
  • your opponents are really unlucky
  • you are folding too many hands pre-showdown that would win-some/lose-some, and losing value from those hands by folding too much
  • you are betting too large pre-showdown and getting folds (avoiding showdowns), and losing value from those hands (which will be win-some/lose-some, but would generate overall bigger net wins than getting all folds)
EDIT: Thought of another one.....
  • you're currently experiencing rampant variance. Come September, we'll see you post that you haven't won a single showdown in weeks. But overall, it will be a net zero-sum outcome. Enjoy it while you can. (y) :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
Lemonzest said:
I was listening to Daniel Negraeanu's podcast a while ago and he was talking about a tourney strategy of always wanting your opponent to fold. When your opponent folds you always chip up vs. going to showdown you might lose (even when way ahead on the flop or pre-flop).

Essentially, he was promoting a low risk strategy of trying to slowly chip up without risking your whole stack. As with your other example of AQ > AK. It would have been better had AQ folded because even though you had him crushed you ended up losing chips.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think that’s largely how I play. I’d almost always rather take the chips that are in the middle right now, than any of the risks that could come with seeing another card. And that’s something I know I struggle with - getting paid enough for those non-nut but still monsterous hands.

  • you're a really great player NOPE, just good enough against the people who’ll play $100 tournaments
  • you're playing against really bad players, or maybe just really sticky players Yes, there’s a good deal of this at $100 tournaments

Shaggy said:
I get what you're saying... I don't have an answer. There may be a scenario where you are betting too aggessively on the turn to price out draws and your opponents are correctly folding too often. Perhaps smaller turn bets will get them to call... this however will result in you losing more showdowns... but ultimately winning more... just one example... is it valid, I don't know.
Click to expand...
Right, that’s what I’m wondering. Should I be interested in a few more lost showdowns if it means a few more won showdowns? And As Dave alluded to, is that accomplished by not betting good hands so aggressively, or by playing a broader range of hands further, post flop, or what.

And come on, I’m not fishing for compliments. I want to get so good at poker that the compliments just come flying at me all the time.
 
navels said:
what percentage of showdowns do you think you are winning?
Click to expand...
Maybe I should keep track. But if we’re not counting preflop all-in situations, actual showdowns, I’d guess something like 75%. But that’s 75% of a small number. Maybe I’m getting to showdown something like once an hour? Which seems maybe low for tournament poker?
 
Part of it is just experience too. I usually know whether I am good or not by the end. If I am beat I will generally fold.

Newer players often stay in "hoping" they are good or make "crying calls".

With experience you are usually pretty strict with you opening hand strength and therefore have straightforward decisions leading to the river. If you open strong hands and play ABC poker its not that complicated. You bet 3 streets of value and you are likely good unless you get raised. I know that is an oversimplification but in many cases it really is that simple.

Newer players hang around calling with weak holdings and just hoping for the best.
 
Looking for a fix to a problem that may not exist could have a detrimental impact on your game, especially in multi-way pots.

Concentrate on your heads-up play and asses those hands afterwards for max value.
 
Mojo1312 said:
Looking for a fix to a problem that may not exist could have a detrimental impact on your game, especially in multi-way pots.

Concentrate on your heads-up play and asses those hands afterwards for max value.
Click to expand...
Heads up meaning two in a hand or two at the table?
 
Mojo1312 said:
Two in a hand.
Click to expand...
I feel like that’s the huge majority of hands I’m involved in. I don’t think I spend a lot of time in multi-way pots. Hmm. Maybe I should start tracking this stuff.
 
I would.

Take the time in between hands evaluating whether you might have lost value in pots that you won heads-up.
 
There's a lot to be said for taking down a lot of low-risk pots in tournaments rather than seeking out max value every time. Just because you're a favorite preflop, on the flop, or on the turn doesn't mean you necessarily want it to play out to the end. Generally, the bigger the blinds are relative to stacks, and the more vulnerable your hand is to getting drawn out, the more you should be happy to just take down the pot.

An extreme example is when blinds are totally massive and eating up stacks. If it's the 1,000/2,000 level, and you have 7,000 and your opponent 5,500, you almost always want him to fold if you shove on him, even if you pick up AK or QQ. Scooping those 3,000 chips (and maybe antes) 100% of the time is a good enough win to pass up on winning 6,500 or whatever about 60–75% of the time. Pot equity–wise, it's a smaller gain, but you can secure a tournament win more reliably; losing that 25–40% of the time puts you on the verge of busting out.

This becomes super-obvious when you're heads-up. Sure, a sticky villain will be often be quite crushable heads-up, but he will also win a fair number of matches, especially if blinds are large compared to stacks. On the other hand, a weak-tight villain will almost never win if you exploit him well enough. Just steal-steal-steal and then get out of his way as soon as he seems interested in seeing a hand through. When he gets aggressive, fold all your marginal and semi-strong hands upfront; only play very strong hands that are likely huge favorites. Otherwise, get the hand over with so you can get back to winning those easy chips with no resistance. You'll be ready to move in for the kill in no time. Very few showdowns required.
 
Maybe you aren’t bluffing enough?

Tournaments are a different beast than cash, theoretically you shouldn’t be bluffing too often until the bubble/late stage of tournaments.

ICM and SPR have a huge effect on this as well.
 
Jimulacrum said:
There's a lot to be said for taking down a lot of low-risk pots in tournaments rather than seeking out max value every time. Just because you're a favorite preflop, on the flop, or on the turn doesn't mean you necessarily want it to play out to the end. Generally, the bigger the blinds are relative to stacks, and the more vulnerable your hand is to getting drawn out, the more you should be happy to just take down the pot.

An extreme example is when blinds are totally massive and eating up stacks. If it's the 1,000/2,000 level, and you have 7,000 and your opponent 5,500, you almost always want him to fold if you shove on him, even if you pick up AK or QQ. Scooping those 3,000 chips (and maybe antes) 100% of the time is a good enough win to pass up on winning 6,500 or whatever about 60–75% of the time. Pot equity–wise, it's a smaller gain, but you can secure a tournament win more reliably; losing that 25–40% of the time puts you on the verge of busting out.

This becomes super-obvious when you're heads-up. Sure, a sticky villain will be often be quite crushable heads-up, but he will also win a fair number of matches, especially if blinds are large compared to stacks. On the other hand, a weak-tight villain will almost never win if you exploit him well enough. Just steal-steal-steal and then get out of his way as soon as he seems interested in seeing a hand through. When he gets aggressive, fold all your marginal and semi-strong hands upfront; only play very strong hands that are likely huge favorites. Otherwise, get the hand over with so you can get back to winning those easy chips with no resistance. You'll be ready to move in for the kill in no time. Very few showdowns required.
Click to expand...

This is a great answer.

To sum this up, when SPR is high, you should only be entering the pot with premium hands (1010+, AK/AQ) because better quality hands are going to be winning at show down (flushes, straights, sets, etc)

When SPR is low, Ax/Kx suited hands are much more valuable. Typically you are seeing a lot of fold/shoves preflop and top pair or A high is usually good.
 
I finally got around to reading Negreanu's Small Ball (in Power Hold'em Strategy) and it seems like that's pretty much my style of play. In it, he pretty much espouses not getting to showdowns unless you have the nuts or close to it. So maybe its fine.
I realize that book is 10 years old, and small ball probably isn't optimal strategy these days (if it ever was) but at my low stakes level of play, current optimal strategies might not be a huge concern.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Similar threads

Bill_Man618
Dealing with bad sessions
Replies
27
Views
775
Talrem
Talrem
Taghkanic
Would you play it differently?
Replies
27
Views
1K
NeutronHim
N
Taghkanic
Aaargh
Replies
21
Views
1K
Schmendr1ck
Schmendr1ck
CraigT78
Cash Game Rebuilding my Bankroll
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
CraigT78
CraigT78
BadCardHaver
Am I being ridiculous?
2 3
Replies
75
Views
3K
BadCardHaver
BadCardHaver
Back
Top Bottom