EV graph -- What should I do?
 

Well, I'm not really sure what to do.

I took a 2 day break from poker, but have recently come back and the beats continue. I'm not going to name beats, but I believe I have suffered some pretty bad luck in the past 5000 hands. I'm negative for flopped sets, and I always play them fast. Anyone have any psychological suggestions that have helped them getting over bad swings?

And I think this shows I'm running bad... But I'm kinda a noob with these...

lol @ 16 BI below SB over 4000 hands (This is all NL25 FR btw)

first thing, I edited your image to fix the size problem, will comment soon.

Ahh thanks, didn't know how to do that ;)

You a mod melioris?

so there are a lot of problems with the calculations involved in pokerEV graphs. The difference in Sklansky bucks vs total winnings is misleading. But yeah, you are probably running bad.

The measurement of value is the difference of your SD winnings vs total winnings. You are losing about $100 over 4.2K hands, which is 400BB. Assuming you are playing 6-max, if you folded every SB and BB you would be losing 980 BB (1.4 BB per orbit at $0.1/0.25 for 700 orbits), so you are +540BB in that comparison.

A lot of people, particularly the folks at 2+2, will like your non-SD monies to be positive and will tell you it is a major leak if it is not. They are wrong. The relationship between those two lines is a function of your style of play, postflop aggression, AND table selection. Yes, if you are value betting thin, aggressive post flop, and bluffing then it is likely to lower your SD winnings a little (or not change it at all) while increasing greatly your non-SD winnings. But most people discount (or don't think about) that if you are a disciplined practitioner of table selection, it will increase your SD winnings while decreasing (maybe into negative territory) your non-SD winnings.

Lets think about how table selection relates to the differences in these two lines. If you are sitting at good tables, with lots of loose passives, then your non-SD will run downward as you should be almost always trying to get to SD with marginal hands, discounting FE when sizing bets and only betting for value. If the fish are passive, I will give up when faced with resistance. Clearly you do not want to be bluffing or trying to get your fish to fold better hands, you will be showing down weak hands and taking the fish to value-town every chance you get. This will affect how these two lines relate.

One problem with depending upon SDs for the source of your winnings is that you are more prone to cycles of running bad. So it could be that you are running bad, but I would wager that you are also not playing optimum either. I am not saying that to be a dick, but when one runs bad one tends to become less aggressive, more results orientated, and less thinking. How many tables are you playing? Play less. Seriously, I have taken that advice recently and it has made a world of difference in my game.

shhhh, I am a stealthy mod......

and I moved this to general poker discussion because, although this feels like a beat, it should generate good discussions and is most def poker related.

+Rep mel. Nice.

Thanks a lot for the post mel! Lets see what I can do...

Well actually, I'm playing FR, which has 9 seats on FTP. So that means that I'm losing 1.4BB/orbit over 466 orbits, which is 652 BB, so I am +252 BB in that comparison. Still healthily positive, so not so much changes there.

I know fully that I am no where near an optimal player. I am always looking for ways to improve. I also agree that I should probably cut back tables (I currently 8 table primarily). I think the reason I wasn't cutting back tables was two-fold. Assuming I'm a winning player experiencing a downswing, the more volume I put in the less variance and the faster I get out of it. I (was) under the mentality that assuming I'm going to go on an x hand downswing regardless of # of tables, that playing 8 tables would get me through it 4 times as long as 2 tables. Of course this is kind of a silly thought process because everything is magnified over 8 tables: subtle tilt, and a losing psychology. Lately I always get it all in with KK or AA preflop and just expect them to be cracked.

The other reason I wasn't cutting back tables was monthly hand goals. My goal (was) 20K hands for April, of which I'm less than halfway there (big negative sessions make me end early ;)). I think that although it's good to set goals, the only ultimate goal that should override all others is to improve your game in any way possible. By playing so many tables it's very easy to lose sight of this.

Another leak I'm finding is playing statistics and players to much. At NL100+, this is probably the way to go; but I'm at NL25, where math and solid grinding is much more profitable. Too often I'm analyzing hands from weeks ago where I lost big money on a flop CB/3betshove play with air, and thinking "wtf was I doing?". Then on looking up the villain in PT, finding that he's a 60% raiseCbet over 400 hands.

I also CB way too many multi-way and 3bet pots (Not sure if always CBing 3b pots is a leak at NL25... I CB 2/3 pot against non-regs and I feel like I must be positive in that situation, but I'm at work with no PT...). This looks to be the main reason my non-SD is $100 below my SD. I think that when you start playing a serious game, and make the switch from weak-passive fish to a tight-aggressive style, it's better to over CB then under CB, at least to get the feel of it. But now maybe it's time to back off, especially since regs probably have 3000+ hands on me (considering I do on them), and see my CB% hovering at 90%.

All in all thanks for the post, I know I ramble quite a bit here but it's more me just thinking aloud, and very helpful for my game. If anyone see's any errors in my thought process, please point them out, I can't be offended! ;)

I have only time for a quick reply right now, but lately I have switched from 4 tabling to 2 tabling and seen an increase in my hourly rate. This is a small sample, say around 10K hands, but still.....

I would be very surprised if you sustained this in the long run. I just really have trouble believing that you win less than HALF as much when you play 4 tables as when you play 2.

Unless you go negative WR ;)

Not the case with mel obviously, but when cutting back from 24 tables it could be.

Ahh multitabling...