Standard Leak Check

Brews_and_CardsBrews_and_Cards Red Chipper Posts: 101 ✭✭
$0.10 NL (6 max) - Holdem - 6 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

CO: 96 BB (VPIP: 15.38, PFR: 7.69, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 14)
BTN: 100 BB (VPIP: 24.00, PFR: 14.67, 3Bet Preflop: 10.71, Hands: 77)
SB: 100 BB (VPIP: 25.42, PFR: 17.61, 3Bet Preflop: 8.96, Hands: 185)
Hero (BB): 132.7 BB
UTG: 243.5 BB (VPIP: 36.00, PFR: 24.00, 3Bet Preflop: 11.11, Hands: 26)
MP: 191.7 BB (VPIP: 52.63, PFR: 27.78, 3Bet Preflop: 14.29, Hands: 19)

Pre Flop: (pot: 1.5 BB) Hero has Q:spade: A:club:

fold, MP raises to 2 BB, fold, fold, fold, Hero raises to 7.5 BB, MP calls 5.5 BB

Flop: (15.5 BB, 2 players) 9:club: Q:diamond: 7:diamond:
Hero bets 10 BB, MP calls 10 BB

Turn: (35.5 BB, 2 players) J:club:
Hero bets 25 BB, MP calls 25 BB

River: (85.5 BB, 2 players) 8:club:
Hero checks, MP bets 61 BB

Hero?

When this hand first occurred, I thought it was pretty standard. But as I was laying in bed, I started thinking about it more. One of my biggest leaks of mine is I can be a station. And often call too many river bets. PT4 says over in over 8k hands of 6max this year, I've called a river bet and won at showdown 46% of the time. PT4 considers this good. But to me, that seems not great. Any input on that statistic and whether or not it should be higher is appreciated.

At the time, I believe my thought process was, what suited connector is he open/flatting with from EP? Hero holds the Ac which eliminates a lot of those potential holdings. But then the question I didn't ask myself until after the hand, what bluffs does he have here? And that's where I struggle to come up with anything. Maybe AKo with a Kc? Not enough in retrospect.

Any thoughts welcome.

Comments

  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 4,220 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I've called a river bet and won at showdown 46% of the time. PT4 considers this good. But to me, that seems not great
    This is a meaningless number without context or some sort of parameter.
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 582 ✭✭✭
    edited February 2019
    persuadeo wrote: »
    I've called a river bet and won at showdown 46% of the time. PT4 considers this good. But to me, that seems not great
    This is a meaningless number without context or some sort of parameter.

    If he has won 46% of the time after calling a river bet, that means he is winning way more than his pot odds would typically require, no? So how is it meaningless?
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 4,220 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Alrighty then, quick test of your statement:
    is he being overbluffed or underbluffed or is he calling ideally?

    Quickly use that number to determine something useful about his game.
  • MichaelBMichaelB Red Chipper Posts: 211 ✭✭✭
    It's not outside the realm of possibility that he turns up with a hand like :KD::9D: or :AD::6D:, but you're right, it's a head scratcher to put together a credible hand that doesn't have you beat on the river, even considering how active he is.

    Plus, considering you hold the :AC: and he's seemingly not particularly concerned that he doesn't have the nuts here, I think it's a long term -EV call.
  • MichaelBMichaelB Red Chipper Posts: 211 ✭✭✭
    As a general rule though, whenever anyone bets a four to a straight or four to a flush river when checked to, make a note of that and be on the lookout for anything suspicous.

    If he's turning hands like KQ or AJ into bluffs here on the river, you're just going to have to call him down in the future.
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 582 ✭✭✭
    edited February 2019
    persuadeo wrote: »
    Alrighty then, quick test of your statement:
    is he being overbluffed or underbluffed or is he calling ideally?

    Quickly use that number to determine something useful about his game.

    Never mind lol, I realized this while I was driving to work. If he only calls with the nuts this should be 100% but that doesn't mean it's good.
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 2,854 -
    persuadeo wrote: »
    I've called a river bet and won at showdown 46% of the time. PT4 considers this good. But to me, that seems not great
    This is a meaningless number without context or some sort of parameter.

    Would the population average be a useful context? One would hope PT4 is making this assessment on the basis of something.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 4,220 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I don't have access to my PT4 for the moment, so I can't really see it, but there are ways it could be made useful I'm sure. Statistics-savvy players should be able to see many ways forward here.
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 582 ✭✭✭
    TheGameKat wrote: »
    persuadeo wrote: »
    I've called a river bet and won at showdown 46% of the time. PT4 considers this good. But to me, that seems not great
    This is a meaningless number without context or some sort of parameter.

    Would the population average be a useful context? One would hope PT4 is making this assessment on the basis of something.

    Doesn't Leak Tracker do this? Don't think they have a river calling bet success % there though.
  • Brews_and_CardsBrews_and_Cards Red Chipper Posts: 101 ✭✭
    @LeChiffre

    PT4 Leak Tracker is where I grabbed the number. When I initially looked at the statistic, I believe I was too quick to take it at face value and not really analyze what it meant. I was thinking it simply showed I was wrong that I had the best hand when calling a river bet, the majority of the time. Which is why it struck me as odd that PT4 considered it "Good." But after @persuadeo 's comment, I started thinking about it in more detail, and it doesn't bother me as much.

    My understanding of the Leak Tracker tool, is that they compare your statistics to other successful poker players. Which is why they have the range per stat, when considering whether or not a specific stat requires improvement. I don't know if it's a population average or not. Or how many players they used to create those ranges.

    Perhaps, looking at all of my LT River stats gives a better image.

    WSD (Won Money at Showdown) - 49.3%
    WTSD (Went to Showdown) - 30.86%
    WSD After River Call - 46.4 %
    Fold to River Bet - 47.85%

    The Leak Tracker tool is interesting. And I wonder if I put too much value in the statistics. I almost believe it's simply acting as an immediate gratification for my ego. Most of the numbers are considered "Good" and I take that as praise. But I would much rather shake that nonsense off and actually use the numbers to evaluate where my play needs improvement. For example, two of the few statistics not considered "Good" are my Fold to Flop Bet and Fold to Flop Cbet. Apparently I'm floating too wide. So today, I plan on building a report to look at hands that called a flop bet and looking at that range.



  • LeChiffreLeChiffre NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 582 ✭✭✭
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    TheGameKat wrote: »
    persuadeo wrote: »
    I've called a river bet and won at showdown 46% of the time. PT4 considers this good. But to me, that seems not great
    This is a meaningless number without context or some sort of parameter.

    Would the population average be a useful context? One would hope PT4 is making this assessment on the basis of something.

    Doesn't Leak Tracker do this? Don't think they have a river calling bet success % there though.

    Apparently I was wrong here. But yes, LeakTracker uses an extensive sample of winning player.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 4,220 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I can imagine some very interesting things that would involve sizing, pool tendency, and this river %. After all, no one in this thread has evaluated that number correctly in the scenario that it did mean something on its face, because if 46 was good, that would not necessarily mean he is calling well and should win more if he calls less, it could very well mean he is calling too infrequently, because his bluff catches are winning too often. Now we can further extrapolate that if his combos are being misused, that he is not VB his better combos nor raising the river enough.

    But in reality, without opponent info for when he folds or secondarily, pool betting pattern, we can't infer really anything correctly. For instance, we can't even confirm by inference from that number that he is bluff catching incorrectly because we know nothing of the actions, formations, sizings, and pool tendency on the river. Even worse, if the numbers are telling you something that is intuitively wrong - OP says he empirically pays off too much - what are we to make of the contradiction? (actually more on that at the end.)

    Still, we can draw something in general, on the other hand: If that number goes much higher or very low, there would be a discernible and problematic trend: what would that be?

    I'm not the person to do all this, unfortunately. I focus on strat, not stats. I would suggest going back to game play to evaluate this hand and others you have paid off, win or lose. After, all big pots are key for the very simple reason that they risk the most BBs.

    1. In a three bet pot, OOP, player has decided to use a fairly large flop sizing, and bet twice. This isn't particularly indicative of good range play, not that we can be certain since we are just imagining both ranges. Still, even without analysis I'm imagining having the club is going to make this a call on the river and a fold without. So if this is the right call but he lost, is the right lesson learned?

    The problem is the flop: this situation can simply be much better for his winrate if he starts with a smaller bet or check, because now this particular hand ends up showing down much, much better.

    2. Since this hand looks like someone who is playing very linearly, very straightforwardly, I would imagine countless other spots where this could become an issue, so even if we never talked or even saw the above contextless statistic, a glance at this HH should be a red flag. If he's betting hand for value and protection where he should not or does not need to (linear play), it is indicative of likely overfolding later on poor runouts - contrary to is own feelings on his game.

    So now we come back to that contradiction - a player feels like he is paying off too much, probably made the right call in a vacuum with the club here, and then looks at the number and thinks he wants it to be higher. Everything is off kilter - the strategy, the interpretation, and likely, the results.
  • Brews_and_CardsBrews_and_Cards Red Chipper Posts: 101 ✭✭
    @persuadeo

    Give it to me straight, doc. 8 week course of poker antibiotics? Or is it more serious than that?

    I did make the call, mainly because I was holding the Ac. He had KcQc.

    Sounds like I'm far too linear and need to make adjustments.

    How would you have played this hand?
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 4,220 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Haha, just keep improving along the lines I mentioned, however that works for you.
  • AceFromSpaceKKAceFromSpaceKK Red Chipper Posts: 297 ✭✭✭
    I think that you should check/call turn and check/fold to river bets, especially if they bet like 70-100% pot (and maybe more). This board smashes V's range.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file