WSD%

[___1___]

Reading posts for the last couple years one thing, among many, has become very clear to me. All the best players at 5/10 and 10/20 go to showdown a lot more than I do. My WSD% has hovered right around 32.5% with my W$SD between 55 and 58.

Simply enough, I have no clue how to get to showdown more. It must be a function of something else that I'm completely missing. Obviously, everything postflop is based primarily on pot odds and reads.

Is there something I'm just completely missing?

Thanks for the help,

___1___

[Rubeskies]

You're probably just getting bluffed/raised off a better hand more than you think. These players (even ones you think are passive) love to take shots and gambooool, especially at the 10/20 level. You're probably just not used to how often these guys raise with less (often much less) than top pair.

I've recently started calling down more with middle pair and even low pairs HU when the betting patterns are weird and have been surprised to find how often MHIG.

[kiddo]

[ QUOTE ]
I've recently started calling down more with middle pair and even low pairs HU when the betting patterns are weird and have been surprised to find how often MHIG.


[/ QUOTE ]

When weak, passive players do something weird they often got a great hand. When LAGs do something weird they often got very little. At least thats how I react when someone does anything strange.

If u play loose preflop u should have a lower "go to showdown" because u more often will have worst hand, but I guess if u play a bit loose preflop u often also do it postflop.

[Rubeskies]

[ QUOTE ]
When weak, passive players do something weird they often got a great hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well at least at 10/20 I'll often see even the passive players throw a gay bet at me on the turn or river when a scare card hits or with a weakish holding that they either don't want checked through or think they can move me off a better hand. Sometimes even the passive ones will throw a random bluff raise at me. This happens especially if I've consistently shown the ability to let go of a hand before the showdown.

This shows the problem with the PT stats reads. Some passive players will bluff while other agressive players will never pure bluff. But you can't know these things from PT stats alone.

[TJD]

You are too experienced to be "missing" anything but perhaps you do not put the same "weight" on things as some others.

The factors that come into play are conected:-

1) Many pots are HU or 2-way on the flop. If they are not then full game WtSD% of 33% or so are probably OK since if you have missed there is just too much chance you are behind. To assume you are is probably correct so pot odds and the nature of our draw, whether you are closing the action etc. are all as important as in a full game.

2) However, most are HU or 3-way. We are ahead a LOT of the time even if we have missed. With so few folds between them and the pot many players bet out with a flush draw, an underpair, a gutshot or even with nothing. If we fold to these bets we will often (but not always be folding the best hand).

A read is useful of course but we do not always have one. The players with a higher WtSD% will be deciding to call down more often with just high cards and will be keeping up the pressure on the turn a lot more against passive players, with a view to taking a free showdown with position. Conversely, against an aggressive player, the high WtSD% players will be checking out of position to induce bluffs, thinking there is a decent chance to win with A high.

It is the significance you attach to your prospects of being ahead that is probably at diveregence with these others.

I have been known to be wrong /images/graemlins/grin.gif

However Peter_Rus did a good piece on playing AKo after being CR on the flop. It is worth looking at.

Peter AK (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=headsup&Number=1670525&fpa rt=1&PHPSESSID=)

Trevor

[TJD]

Passive players do NOT do as you describe except very, very rarely.

However, I suspect your use of the term "passive" is a read based on PT stats. All that shows is that the AF numbers of of no use which has been discussed many times before.

There are MANY players who have a AF of 1-1.5 who are very aggressive and very tricky. Their low AF is just due to their looseness post flop and the frequency of their calls.

Trevor

[arkady]

I think a more important question, does it matter? Jeff W proposed a CSD because in reality the numbers on their own are not all that meaningful. Would you prefer to go to SD more and win less often or vice versa? I believe that is a function of how one plays and your own personal style. I recall looking at your PT 5/10 stats and I don't believe you have much to be concerned about. You can reach a healthy win rate by employing different tactics and your PT numbers will differ in many categories from the "elite" players. If there was one winning number that means there would be one winning strategy and everyone would be a winner. Frankly poker would suck if that was the case.

[___1___]

[ QUOTE ]
I recall looking at your PT 5/10 stats and I don't believe you have much to be concerned about. You can reach a healthy win rate by employing different tactics and your PT numbers will differ in many categories from the "elite" players.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make good points. Like you, I've recently moved up to 10/20 6max permanently and am concerned about hitting a ceiling of sorts with my winrate as it corresponds to my particular style.

I just don't believe it is a coincidence that all players with winrates approaching or above 3bb/100 go to showdown more than I do. Seriously, Peter_Rus, Schneids, Nikla, Gazza, Magikist, and (probably) gonores, all have a very high WSD%. I really don't think it's a coincidence. If you can tell me one person who makes 3bb/100 hands shorthanded and goes to SD 32 or below and I might change my mind...

___1___

[kiddo]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I suspect your use of the term "passive" is a read based on PT stats. All that shows is that the AF numbers of of no use which has been discussed many times before.

There are MANY players who have a AF of 1-1.5 who are very aggressive and very tricky. Their low AF is just due to their looseness post flop and the frequency of their calls.

[/ QUOTE ]

If u are aware that a loose player got lower aggression factor then a tight one raising the same hands I dont see what is the problem.

U can easily make a list that says:
"VPIP 50 and AF 2" is same as "VPIP 25 and AF 1"

This isnt always true but no reads never are so why should we say these stats are "of no use"?

[arkady]

Well in order to move this dicussion further, I think we should establish what exactly you mean by "high SD". Mind you I do agree with you, that is definitely a pattern I have seen among the higher winning players. A combination of looseness from the BB/SB(especially in 10/20) and SD.

But for starters let is decide what is a high SD, or at least, higher than the norm.

[___1___]

[ QUOTE ]
But for starters let is decide what is a high SD, or at least, higher than the norm.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmmm...we'll go with 35+.

[arkady]

Over my short 10/20 tenure I am at 34.21 and I have been tight in the blinds.

I think 35-37 is really a good range to be and unfortunately you are correct. Just looking over what I have seems like the names you have mentioned are indeed higher. With numbers ranging from 35 to 39.

These guys also either defend a lot and/or steal a lot. By a lot I mean more than your average player.

Hmm...what is your "folded to river bet %"?

[___1___]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm...what is your "folded to river bet %?"

[/ QUOTE ]

41%...Way too high?

[J.R.]

if you want a high 30s wtsd, yes, otherwise, i don't think so

some samples (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=headsup&Number=1641843&For um=,f8,&Words=%2Bstat%20%2Briver%20%2Bbet&Searchpa ge=1&Limit=250&Main=1632428&Search=true&where=body sub&Name=&daterange=1&newerval=1&newertype=y&older val=&oldertype=&bodyprev=#Post1641843)

[arkady]

given your SD now, no...but as you go up that number must go down.

[TJD]

[ QUOTE ]
U can easily make a list that says:
"VPIP 50 and AF 2" is same as "VPIP 25 and AF 1"

[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely wrong. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I have seen this on the site before and it is just so far from being true that I did not even bother to respond to it /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Mind you, perhaps other peoples view of what aggression means is different to mine. For me it is how often people bet and raise. A guy who bet and raised on every hand every time would be very aggressive. A guy who never bet would be very passive. Perhaps people have other views on what aggression means.

That means that without such a short cut to understanding we need a better read OR some stats that actually give you how aggressive someone is rather than a combination of their aggression and looseness.

It IS possible to get the info we want from PT but it requires some programming to get the notes exported. It does not exist in PT.

Of course, I accept that we often do not have reads and that reads are often not perfect.

My phrase "of no use" was perhaps a bit over the top. How about "virtually no use" or "very little use" or "the best you get without doing your own work on the data"

Unfortunately all PT gives us is AF and that is what people use. However, it is a very misleading stat on which to base decisions.

Trevor

[alekhine8]

A lot depends on how many hands you are playing to begin with. I am only about 20% VPIP but am going to showdown over 39% of the time and winning almost 55%.

If one is playing many more hands, they are likely stealing and missing the flop more, defending blinds and missing flops more, etc. and will not be going to showdown as much.

I am wondering if I am making some mistakes on the river, only folding to a bet 27% of the time with AF = 1.1. I am probably missing some value bets here and there, but I am snapping a lot of bluffs being a little more passive on the river as well which I think offsets this.

Good luck.

[mperich]

Went to SD: 39.1
W$SD: 52.1

You may be checking the turn too often when you have the lead, which gives draws a) a free chance to hit and b) a shot to bluff at you on the river with a lead bluff. If you bet the turn instead you can see a free showdown usually which ups the # of showdowns seen.

-Mike

[J.R.]

In pokertracker click on "filter" in your general info page and select "folded to a river bet". You could take a hard look and decide for yourself

[kiddo]

[ QUOTE ]
Mind you, perhaps other peoples view of what aggression means is different to mine. For me it is how often people bet and raise. A guy who bet and raised on every hand every time would be very aggressive. A guy who never bet would be very passive. Perhaps people have other views on what aggression means.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not sure what you mean with "how often people bet". What we want to know is if we can trust this guys bets or not, do we aggree on this? What we want to know is not how often he bets but what it means when he actually bets. A loose player will, postflop, have lower AF even if he bets with excatly the same hands as a tight player because he will much more often have a not so strong hand, worth a call but not a bet.


I fully understand that aggressionfactor is a combination of betting and calling. What is it that you cant trust?

Three examples:

1. If we have two players with, lets say, VPIP30/PFR18 and the first got AF flop, turn, river 4,4,3 and the second guy 1,1,1 you dont think this can be used as a sign that the first one will play any hand aggressive and the second guy will often slow down?

2. Or if two players with same VPIP got AF 1,5,3 and 3,2,2 this cant be used as a sign that the first one slowplays a lot and attack with any flopped hand on turn and that we shouldnt trust the first guys turnraises to much? And that the second guy plays aggressive but more straightforward?

3. Or if a player got VPIP 60/PFR2 and AF 0.3,0.4,3 we couldnt trust this guy to play passive everywhere but river? And that we probably should call with very little on river.

In what way are theses reads of, as u say, "virtually no use" or "very little use"?

[J.R.]

Part of the problem might be you said this in your original post

[ QUOTE ]

U can easily make a list that says:
"VPIP 50 and AF 2" is same as "VPIP 25 and AF 1"


[/ QUOTE ]

and this is backwards

a vpip 50 AF 1 is probably analgous in postflop aggression to a 25 VPIP 2 AF

[cartman]

WOW! My "folded to a river bet" is 28%! What a monkey I must be. Maybe that's why I can't get my river aggression above 1.35. It is hard to increase the value of a fraction when the denominator is a million percent. For what it's worth, my went to SD is about 39.4% and my Won $ at SD is 50.4%.

Who wants to yell at me first?

Cartman

[J.R.]

pay attention (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=headsup&Number=2115838&For um=,All_Forums,&Words=&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main= 2115838&Search=true&where=&Name=27728&daterange=&n ewerval=&newertype=&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev= #Post2115838)

[kiddo]

Oh, yep, of course, I wrote the post and the I managed to delete it and wrote it again pretty fast and opps, did a misstake.

[cartman]

J.R.,

I truly appreciate your posts and I do pay attention to them. You have been a ton of help to me and I thank you. I have been spending most of my time trying to solve the dilemma as to how to get this number higher. In other words, looking for situations in which I am making unprofitable calls. I didn't mean to imply that I never realized that my 28% was too low. Thanks to you specifically and some others, I am working on fixing the problem. This (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2126388&page=5&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1) post is a direct result of your advice and my attempt to make appropriate changes. I apologize if it seemed as if your advice fell on deaf ears. Thanks again.

Cartman

[TJD]

OK folks - official. This is the LAST time I am doing this! I have made many previous posts about this and will not do any more. /images/graemlins/smile.gif "You can take a horse to water......"


[ QUOTE ]
1. If we have two players with, lets say, VPIP30/PFR18 and the first got AF flop, turn, river 4,4,3 and the second guy 1,1,1 you dont think this can be used as a sign that the first one will play any hand aggressive and the second guy will often slow down?

[/ QUOTE ]

I shall respond to this one and leave the rest to the reader /images/graemlins/smile.gif

To simplify the argument I shall assume a game in which things such as flushes and str8s do not exist and it is IMPOSSIBLE to be dealt a PP. Both guys bet or raise EVERY time when they make a pair+ (32.4%). I reckon that means that their aggression is the same. The fact that they bet and raise exactly 32.4% tells me that they bet and raise with a pair+ EVERY single time they get one. Do you think their aggression is different?

Player 1 always folds if he does not hit a pair.

Player 2 always calls if he does not make a pair since he is "loose" post flop.

AF (Player 1) is infinite 32.4/0. PT calls this zero (because of division by zero) but to avoid that silly situation, we will assume that he did call once by mistake in a huge amount of hands and that his AF is 999 or something similar. Or perhaps we assume that PT alters its code to put 999 in when this division by zero might occur.

AF(Player 2) is 32.4/67.6 = 0.48

You are saying the aggression of player one is higher than player 2. I say that if they both bet and raise at every opportunity when they hit a pair then their aggression is the same. You say that the fact that player 1 is 999 and player 2 is 0.48 means that Player 1 is more aggressive. How on earth can that be? BOTH players bet and raise with exactly the same hands EVERY single time. How can they be different?

In reference to the preflop looseness argument in the previous post, do you think AQ is more likely to hit a pair than 72? If they BOTH bet/raised every time they hit a pair, they would both bet/raise the same amount. The second guy (the higher VP$IP player) will be betting 2nd and 3rd pair more often. But what do you do with AJ on a KJx board? Do you not bet out because you only have 2nd pair? In SH games ANY pair is normally good enough to get aggressive with (at least initially).

The loose players aggression will of course backfire more often since he is in the pot with a weaker hand and is more likely to be betting 2nd or 3rd pair. However, if the tight and the loose player both bet 32.4% (using my simplified game) then they BOTH bet EVERY time they hit a pair.

Trevor

[J.R.]

I'm just screwing around way too late at night /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[kiddo]

In the quote from my post u used I wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
If we have two players with, lets say, VPIP30/PFR18 and the first got AF flop, turn, river 4,4,3 and the second guy 1,1,1 you dont think this can be used as a sign that the first one will play any hand aggressive and the second guy will often slow down?

[/ QUOTE ]

I use the words "as a sign", not "as a fact", because I fully understand that if first player only sees two options raise/fold and second player only sees raise/call they can very well betting excatly the same hands but have AF 4 and AF 1, or even more differentiated, aggression factors. In your example they got 999 and 0.48 /images/graemlins/smile.gif

So, I fully understand that this can happen and I am pretty sure this will happen. But the question is: How often will this happen?

I use aggressionfactors everyday and my experience tells me that we can trust them. The first player will normally bet much more hands then the second one.

Players normally isnt crazy. There is a consistent logic in each player. If they, for example, are very loose preflop they are loose in each position - when they defend their blinds - and they are also loose postflop.

The aggressionfactor dont always tell us the truth about which hands they bet but tell us the truth often enough to be used as a read against unknowns. Do you diasgree with this?

[goodguy_1]

hey kiddo and anyone else out there I assume you use PV or GT+.When you look at Aggression measures from PT do you use Average Aggression PostFlop or Aggression on each street:flop,turn and river.I only use Average Aggression PostFlop on PV.

[MAxx]

i only use avg agg. however i think street by street info could be useful. for example it is not all that uncommon for some players to be nutty aggressive on the flop and then are very reasonable/even prudent on the turn.

[goodguy_1]

[ QUOTE ]
for example it is not all that uncommon for some players to be nutty aggressive on the flop and then are very reasonable/even prudent on the turn.


[/ QUOTE ] yes I am one of those players...learning to tone it down thu on the flop.I just added the specific street Aggression numbers to my PV layout-using it now.I'm not a fan of stat-overload but it seems ok so far.

[TJD]

[ QUOTE ]
The aggressionfactor dont always tell us the truth about which hands they bet but tell us the truth often enough to be used as a read against unknowns.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very high AF (>3) or very low (<0.8) are pretty reliable

In between that range there is a lot of variability according to the looseness. Of course, in the absence of ANY other information, something, even if not too reliable, is probably better than nothing.

Let me give you a few examples picked up very quickly from my DB. Left hand column is my aggression rating. I have split them into just 3 categories here for simplicity but the range is continuous although I do autorate from my program in these broad categories to give me an icon to see as well as numbers to look at.

Passive is the bottom 25% in terms of aggression. Ag is the top 25%. N is the middle 50%. I put their AF at the side

Ag 1.36
Ag 3.33
Ag 2.86
Ag 2.13
P 1.71
P 0.63
N 0.57
N 1.32
N 2.25
N 3.13

The huge variations are caused by the calls they make.

We even see that a passive has a higher AF than an Ag.

I have not specially selected these, they were just the first few from the A's where I had enough hands played against them to allow a comparision against my own numbers which include observed hands as well.

There are some things I do see.

Most of my passives also have a low AF. That is because failing to be sufficiently aggressive is one of the hallmarks of a bad player and their other one is to call too much instead of folding so the 2 relate quite well a lot of the time.

The AGs can be wildly different depending on whether they are loose or tight post flop.

Neutral range has the same problem.

T