Importance of showdown % won question

[rkiray]

A post on the internet forum got me thinking about important stats. Specifically how important
are % of flops seen and showdown win %. I have a data base with over 64,000 ring hands in it
from Paradise Poker (also over 30k tourney hands, but this post is ring hands only). I thought
that the best players played about 20-25% of their hands and an optimal showdown % would be
between 40-50%. I thought this because I had read many times that the most common mistakes
most players make is to call or bet too many hands pre-flop and on the flop and to fold too
much on the
river especially when its only one bet. Combine this with not all showdowns being heads-up, I
thought a wimming % > 50 (and certainly > 60) would indicate bad play. My % is 43.55.
So I looked in my database and was very surprised. I filtered for players with at least 750
ring hands in the database. Below is the top 5 and bottom 5 sorted by win rate.

hands flops win showdowns
played seen (%) rate(BB/hand) won (%)

891 40.4 .1177 61.54
1152 27.43 .091 55.77
759 21.87 .075 54.72
1733 26.43 .0603 61.33
891 33.2 .044 48.51




822 66.82 -.1323 34.01
839 28.72 -.0796 45.12
751 23.83 -.0686 55.81
824 31.31 -.0631 41.33
892 45.63 -.0633 40.51

Most of the best are > 50% and most of the worst < 50%. Does this indicate that knowing
where you are on the river is more important than I believed. Or I think it is more likely
that 750 hands is just too small of a sample size. I'm seeing luck dominating the results.
So I then looked at the five players with the most hands in the database (I'm the second in
this table).


23003 28.27 -.0003 51.08
17594 26.75 .0032 43.55
6507 25.43 -.0021 50.48
5626 42.09 .0195 46.13
4825 20.92 -.0008 55.79

I definitely stand out here with worst %. But I also have the second best win rate. It is
interesting to look at how the rake effects results; all five of us would be very positive
except for the rake. I guess
that shows that it is tough to beat the rake. I find it strange that the best player in the
last table is significantly looser than the rest of us. Maybe even 5000 hands is not statically
significant. Also the tightest is a very small loser. So how important are % flops seen and % of showdowns won?


Rick

PS I apologize if the tables are hard to read. They look fine in the edit window, but the actual display appartantly removes extra spaces ( I try to use tabs instead but they didn't work either). Any advice for creating tables in these forums?

[pudley4]

I think you can use the CODE function for tables:

<pre><font class="small">code:</font><hr>
23003 28.27 -.0003 51.08
17594 26.75 .0032 43.55
6507 25.43 -.0021 50.48
5626 42.09 .0195 46.13
4825 20.92 -.0008 55.79
</pre><hr>

Yep /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[rkiray]

I'm sorry I must be an idiot. I tried to edit the post, select the area of text that is a table and then hit the code button. Very bad things happened (lots of text disappeard). Could you explain how to use it?

Rick

[pudley4]

When you click on the CODE link, it inserts the following text:

(code) (/code)

It actually uses the [] brackets instead of ()

The (code) symbol signifies the start of the table. Anything that follows will show up in the table. The (/code) symbol signifies the end of the table.

[rkiray]

Thanks Pudley, I figured it out this time. The time window for editing was closed, so I am reposting a more readable copy. Isn't anyone but me interested in a what a good number for % of showdowns won is? I'd love to hear opinions, you don't have to have statistical data.

A post on the internet forum got me thinking about important stats. Specifically how important
are % of flops seen and showdown win %. I have a data base with over 64,000 ring hands in it
from Paradise Poker (also over 30k tourney hands, but this post is ring hands only). I thought
that the best players played about 20-25% of their hands and an optimal showdown % would be
between 40-50%. I thought this because I had read many times that the most common mistakes
most players make is to call or bet too many hands pre-flop and on the flop and to fold too
much on the
river especially when its only one bet. Combine this with not all showdowns being heads-up, I
thought a wimming % &gt; 50 (and certainly &gt; 60) would indicate bad play. My % is 43.55.
So I looked in my database and was very surprised. I filtered for players with at least 750
ring hands in the database. Below is the top 5 and bottom 5 sorted by win rate.
<pre><font class="small">code:</font><hr>
hands flops win showdowns
played seen (%) rate(BB/hand) won (%)

891 40.4 .1177 61.54
1152 27.43 .091 55.77
759 21.87 .075 54.72
1733 26.43 .0603 61.33
891 33.2 .044 48.51



822 66.82 -.1323 34.01
839 28.72 -.0796 45.12
751 23.83 -.0686 55.81
824 31.31 -.0631 41.33
892 45.63 -.0633 40.51
</pre><hr>
Most of the best are &gt; 50% and most of the worst &lt; 50%. Does this indicate that knowing
where you are on the river is more important than I believed. Or I think it is more likely
that 750 hands is just too small of a sample size. I'm seeing luck dominating the results.
So I then looked at the five players with the most hands in the database (I'm the second in
this table).

<pre><font class="small">code:</font><hr>
23003 28.27 -.0003 51.08
17594 26.75 .0032 43.55
6507 25.43 -.0021 50.48
5626 42.09 .0195 46.13
4825 20.92 -.0008 55.79
</pre><hr>
I definitely stand out here with worst %. But I also have the second best win rate. It is
interesting to look at how the rake effects results; all five of us would be very positive
except for the rake. I guess
that shows that it is tough to beat the rake. I find it strange that the best player in the
last table is significantly looser than the rest of us. Maybe even 5000 hands is not statically
significant. Also the tightest is a very small loser. Comments?

Rick

[DannyP]

I don't know the details of the database you have, but I suspect the data might need to be filtered further to have any statistical credibility. Two refinements that might be helpful (if they arent done already) are to look only at a particular stakes level and the number of starting players in each hand.

Stakes level would just be a proxy for tightness, assuming that the higher stakes are tighter. Just as your play would vary based on the loosenes/tightness of your opponents, so would the statistics. Number of players starting the hand is significant especially for the flop call %. If the vast majority of tables are full maybe this is an unnecessary refinement, although at the higher stakes I would think there are a decent number of empty seats.

[rkiray]

Thank you for your comments. The program I'm using is called Pokerstat and it is very easy to use. The vast majority of the database is in games between 1/2 and 5/10 with over 1/2 the database being 2/4 or 3/6. There are a few higher stake games up to 20/40 and a few more lower stake games. It is very easy to filter by number of players. most of the games are close to full. I just used one of the default filters for full table (8-10) and that really didn't effect the result in any significant way. I think the real problem is the sample sizes are just too small.

Rick

[SoBeDude]

I too look at the stastics for my play on paradise and wonder how to use it to judge my play.

Just looking at my current session:
Session games: 124
Games won: 14%
Flops seen 23%
showdowns won 62%
win % if flop seen 48%

where you fold...
preflop 81%
flop 4%
turn 1%
river 1%
no fold 13%

I have written to paradise for an explanation on how some of these numbers are calculated, but their answer was not helpful. (how can I fold preflop 81% but see 23% of the flops? thats 104%)

Oh By the way, this is a losing session for me. Its a 5-10 table and I was down $150 but as of current stats are back up to only down $48.

Looking at my stats you'd think I was having a good session.
62% of showdowns won has gotta be sweet, right?

One thing, I did lose 3 expensive hands where I lost most of my money. twice KK pockets got creamed, then QQ with flopping a set of queens got raped by AA flopping a set of aces. (cap, cap, cap goes the bets)

I am trying to play with proper tightness. how does seeing 22% of flops sound?

What about that "games won" stat. I've always read that the guy who rakes the most pots is usually the first to go bust. I think there is truth to that. It would seem that you'd want a fairly low number here, but not too low. Anyone have an idea what a good range is?

One areaI think stats could help - if we have guidelines to go by - is in calling/betting/raising/reraising percentages.

For example my stats:
check 11%
call 12%
bet 8%
raise 5%
re-raise 3%

Maybe this means I call to much and don't raise enough? (am I a calling station!!??)

Any idea what good numbers are?

gee, my stats are dropping, time to pay attention again!

-Scott

[rkiray]

I agree with you that the % of hands won is meaningless (or perhaps even negatively correlated to success). They way to maximize it is to bet/raise every time and never fold. Probable not a good strategy /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

I think 22% of flops seen is about optimal. But you do look to be slightly tight passive to me. Probably should bet/raise a little more.

Rick

[SoBeDude]

I agree with you that the % of hands won is meaningless (or perhaps even negatively correlated to success). They way to maximize it is to bet/raise every time and never fold. Probable not a good strategy

I'd probably agree (on the tight-passive). I have a hard time re-raising unless I've a monster. Part of it is knowing when to do it, which is something I struggle with.

Perhaps I tend to overestimate my opponents hands, and as a result I intimidate myself?

updated stats: session games: 243
BACK TO BREAK EVEN! yes! (I was down $200) $5-$10 game
Games Won 11%
Flops seen: 26%
showdowns won: 63%
win % if flop seen: 39%

-Scott

[davidross]

Dude,

If you maintained those stats over a long period you would be a significant winner. For you to be down in that situation means you have won a lot of small pots (probably blinds only) and lost one or two big pots. 14% is not possible to maintain in a 10 handed game even if you saw every flop. I hope to win 10-11% (since I think we probably average 9 players per hand 11% would be average) while maintaining a flop % slightly less than the average for your game. Nights where I win 13% usually mean the deck is hitting me in the face and I will be a significant winner.

The where you fold stat only includes the hands that you folded. In your current stats you are not seeing the flop (Not necessarily folding, if you raise and everyone folds you didn’t see the flop) 77% (100-23). But of all the hands you played, you folded pre-flop 81%.

[davidross]

Rick,

If you take anything away from this it should be that the stats can’t tell the whole story. Use them as a barometer for your game. Obviously the guy that sees 65% of the flops and only wins 35% of his showdowns is going to be a major contributor to your games. Find him every chance you get.

Different people have different styles. The player you showed with the higher win % that saw 42% of the flops must be a very good player post-flop and must have good game selection. If he regularly finds games where the average is 35% he’s not as loose as if he plays in the 20% games.

Your question seemed to be particularly about the showdown won percentage. I think this number correlates to your hand reading skills. If you can bring that number higher than 50% I think you will see your win rate go up as well. That doesn’t mean the big decision is on the river however. Quite often the decision we make on the turn determines whether we are going to the showdown. Obviously it’s a worse mistake to fold incorrectly on the river and lose an 8 BB pot than it is to call for 1 BB.

Your observation about the rake is an interesting one. Imagine how hard it is to overcome the rake in a live game where the rake can be twice as much or more than what it is online.

[rkiray]

Thanks David for a very well written response to my post. I'm glad someone has finally addressed the question I asked. I guess you arn't too angry at the play I tried to make against you last night. I think the 42% was just on a roll, but I may be wrong.

You are right about the turn. I think I may play agressively and need to fold more earlier. I'm fairly tight (the last 3 months I'm down to 24% of the flops which is tighter than most on-line players). But I may get out of line after the flop.

The rake is terrible live, plus you generally need to tip. Live games could be tough to beat, but the saving grace it there are many more terrible players live. On-line has been getting tough. I think it was much easier to beat a PP 3/6 game a year ago than today. The 2/4 is now tougher than the 3/6 was a year ago. IMHO.

Rick