Win at showdown, or before?

[KKillerss]

It's not like that I began to play yesterday, but have been a recreational player with some shallow study, enough to break even, or bust BRs... but trying to get a better grasp of it, and studying my recent game a question come to my head.

What is a sign of a better game in the long run, winning most of your money at showdown, or just with the betting action?

Obviously the most important is the win, but I wander. If I picked the best hole cards, hit the flop, maybe is better to not frighten the opposition, and milk the most money we can until showdown? Or protect you hand from river river bad beats?

 

[Leeyonah96]

I would likely C-bet if I am ahead and even I am not and observe the turn. Once I know the action of the turn then I will know if I can call his or her bet or check till showdown

 

[bertaS1234]

Better to win sooner rather than later

 

[Hermus]

What is a sign of a better game in the long run, winning most of your money at showdown, or just with the betting action?

Aggression is key. Sensible aggression at least. Aggression takes down pots that shouldn't be yours to take, while building the size of pots where you have the best hands. On loose passive tables, most of your winnings are going to come from showdown just because you're punished for bluffing and rewarded for value betting (+ the opposition rarely folds). On nitty tables you can expect more profit where you don't go to showdown just because you can bet more and your opposition folds more.

So what I'm trying to say is, aggression is important, but where your winnings come from depends on the table you're sitting at.

Obviously the most important is the win, but I wander. If I picked the best hole cards, hit the flop, maybe is better to not frighten the opposition, and milk the most money we can until showdown? Or protect you hand from river river bad beats?

Two things. First of all, bad beats don't matter. Just focus on making the correct play. What does matter sometimes is equity denial (e.g. you flopped top pair on a draw heavy board against a capped range).

Second, trapping your opponent can be the best play sometimes. Just keep in mind that betting also builds the pot. So if you go for three streets of value your final 2/3 river bet will be larger in an absolute sense compared to when you skipped a street.

 

[mara2259]

It's not like that I began to play yesterday, but have been a recreational player with some shallow study, enough to break even, or bust BRs... but trying to get a better grasp of it, and studying my recent game a question come to my head.

What is a sign of a better game in the long run, winning most of your money at showdown, or just with the betting action?

Obviously the most important is the win, but I wander. If I picked the best hole cards, hit the flop, maybe is better to not frighten the opposition, and milk the most money we can until showdown? Or protect you hand from river river bad beats?

I don't consider myself a great specialist, but I think the best strategy is to be able to read opponents. Knowing the range of the villain and his way of betting, you can, with a certain probability, determine the hand that he has collected or is trying to collect. Your bets should be sufficient for the villain to make a mistake when answering them (in other words, the odds of the pot for the villain should be slightly less than the likelihood that he will collect his winning combination) and not too large if he makes a mistake but still wins the pot. Alas, this also happens, especially if there are many maniacs at the table, playing with almost any two cards. If your bets are reasonable, then in the long run you will be profitable regardless of whether your opponents reach the showdown or not.

 

[VikyGia]

Hi

It is complicated friend, but it is always possible to start winning, what we do not know is if it is safe or not.

 

[KKillerss]

Thanks. Some interesting insights there.

 

[NWPatriot]

...
What is a sign of a better game in the long run, winning most of your money at showdown, or just with the betting action?
...

As for the question, I don't care how I win the chips, I want as many chips as possible.


If we understand how EV works and understand which play has higher EV, we can answer your question with math. There is a point called indifference where we don't care whether our opponent calls or folds, our bet size is indifferent to his actions. If we estimate that we have 66% equity, than a pot size bet will give us the same EV whether they call or fold (indifference).

If we have more equity than 66% and we make a pot size bet we will want a call to increase our EV. If we have less equity than 66% and we make a pot size bet then we will want a fold to increase our EV.

Of course poker isn't just a math problem (or is it?). Obviously with lower equities, we will gladly take a fold. With higher equities, we probably want as many chips as we can get.

So our bet sizes will shift around based on both of these ideas with no easy way to answer the question.

Good luck and God Bless.

 

[mushthebush]

If I have the nuts or the obvious better hand then I try to get the most value out of my opponent(s) and take it to showdown, even further if necessary ��. Weak and missed boards, there is no reason to take it all the way and lose. So in order to win it’s mandatory to win it pre showdown. However, it’s a delight to play with people who do take their weak hands to showdown and call every street.

However, I would recommend going the math way with EV, equities and odds. Numbers and Shakira’s hips don’t lie, right?

Cheerio!

 

[KKillerss]

As for the question, I don't care how I win the chips, I want as many chips as possible.


If we understand how EV works and understand which play has higher EV, we can answer your question with math. There is a point called indifference where we don't care whether our opponent calls or folds, our bet size is indifferent to his actions. If we estimate that we have 66% equity, than a pot size bet will give us the same EV whether they call or fold (indifference).

If we have more equity than 66% and we make a pot size bet we will want a call to increase our EV. If we have less equity than 66% and we make a pot size bet then we will want a fold to increase our EV.

Of course poker isn't just a math problem (or is it?). Obviously with lower equities, we will gladly take a fold. With higher equities, we probably want as many chips as we can get.

So our bet sizes will shift around based on both of these ideas with no easy way to answer the question.

Good luck and God Bless.

If I have the nuts or the obvious better hand then I try to get the most value out of my opponent(s) and take it to showdown, even further if necessary ��. Weak and missed boards, there is no reason to take it all the way and lose. So in order to win it’s mandatory to win it pre showdown. However, it’s a delight to play with people who do take their weak hands to showdown and call every street.

However, I would recommend going the math way with EV, equities and odds. Numbers and Shakira’s hips don’t lie, right?

Cheerio!

Thanks. Sometimes Poker hit us with different waves, and we tend to have a very selective memory for old accounts/hands, and a higher weight on the recent history.

In the end probably is best to take each hand without previous bias, with a good theory basis and situational awareness.

A lot of study, and a handful of Prozac!

 

[mina271]

to make it to the showdown you have to be sure that you also have the best hand, a set or 2 pairs are not, even a straight can lose against a flush in a show down. so to decide whether you want to make it to the showdown you have to look very carefully at what you have and how it fits with what is on the flop. I have often seen people who thought it would be smart to play slowly with AA and then lose in the showdown against 2 pairs or more. sometimes it's better to raise people out and sometimes it makes sense to wait until the showdown but then you have to have the really strongest hand