villain turn c-r/variance
 

One of my leaks (don't know the magnitude yet) is overplaying my hand (like top pair) in the face of villain turn c-r HU (I think they're taking shots w/weak hand just because I pfr and no A/K hits the board so I figure they figure all I have is an over). This is in $1/2 6m. So I wrote a perl script to extract villain turn c-r to examine them in-depth.

I happen to have 30k hands from a friend who is a considerable/consistent winner there throughout. We both play party and typically about the same hours during the day/night. And out of curiosity ran the script against his hands as well. The result (over ~16k hands) was that I was c-r 94 times and him, 51 times. Naturally we're both net losers in this situation but my bb/100 is almost 3x worse than his in this situation (I believe mostly because of the overplaying aspect). Safe to say (I think) that in effect I am 4x worse off in this one situation than he is (c-r 2x as much but >= 2x worse loss rate).

So I'm definitely looking at how badly I play in this situation (making my expected losses worse than they need to be), but I'm curious now about me being c-r 2x as much as him. As opposed to something like a subset of starting hands distribution, is a poker situation (like facing turn c-r) subject to variance to the same extent other variance-related poker events are? Or might there be some aspect in his play that (wild guess) *discourages* turn c-r (besides him checking thru)? My guess is that the more aggressive player is likely to get trapped this way and although my friend is 25/15 he's not particularly aggressive postflop. But I really have no idea so am looking for opinions here...

Mike

edit: I have to add that position-wise, I was almost 3x as likely to be playing from blinds as him (in villain c-r hands) so IMM this makes the results even uglier (i.e., I wasn't even in position to be c-r as often as him).

Re: villain turn c-r/variance
 

[ QUOTE ]
was that I was c-r 94 times and him, 51 times

[/ QUOTE ]
You have sample size issues, heh.

Re: villain turn c-r/variance
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
was that I was c-r 94 times and him, 51 times

[/ QUOTE ]
You have sample size issues, heh.

[/ QUOTE ]

The sample space is 16k hands, not the # times c-r. Maybe 16k is too small for convergence if turn c-rs are subject to variance. My question (still) is, are they?

Mike

Re: villain turn c-r/variance
 

Well, if you're eliminating all hands other than the ones where you were check raised, your sample size isn't 16K hands. The point I'm getting at is that if you had one of your sample hands where you were pretty deep stacked and had a wickedly cold deck (say top boat vs. quads) and lost a few hundred BBs, this will dramatically skew your results...especially considering the relatively know number of times you've been C/R'd. If this is limit and not NL, this will obviously be different.

The aggression factor certain plays a role. If you're ultra aggressive, it's not surprising that you're C/R'd more than he is. Have you done any analysis on how many times you were both checked to, and of those, how many times you both bet?

Re: villain turn c-r/variance
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, if you're eliminating all hands other than the ones where you were check raised, your sample size isn't 16K hands. The point I'm getting at is that if you had one of your sample hands where you were pretty deep stacked and had a wickedly cold deck (say top boat vs. quads) and lost a few hundred BBs, this will dramatically skew your results...especially considering the relatively know number of times you've been C/R'd. If this is limit and not NL, this will obviously be different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I get your point (on sample issue). I probably obscured my question in OP.

My question here is not the difference in results but the fact I was c-r 2x as much as him; leading me to wonder "is being c-r a function of variance or is it caused (mostly) by other things?"

One could say "variance" in that the hands villains get are a function of variance but how villain plays those hands IMM isn't. Which leads me to believe turn c-r aren't (for the most part) a function of variance. But I'm only guessing; so I posted.


[ QUOTE ]

The aggression factor certain plays a role. If you're ultra aggressive, it's not surprising that you're C/R'd more than he is. Have you done any analysis on how many times you were both checked to, and of those, how many times you both bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

No but that's a good idea..

Mike