PT: Good Win % at showdown

[UATrewqaz]

What's a decent to good win % at showdown in PT? I haven't heard this discussed. Thanks.

[7ontheline]

Depends in large part on your Went To Showdown %. There was a thread a while back suggesting that the product of the two statistics meant more - i.e. if you go to showdown a lot you will win a lower percent but more pots - if you showdown less you should be winning a higher percentage of those pots. It also depends on what level you're playing at - numbers will be different from SH to full ring, 1/2 to 15/30.

[UATrewqaz]

Well can some of the good/better players post these numbers of theirs so I can get a rough idea? thanks.

[jtr]

Very roughly, something below 50 is bad and something above 60 means you're folding too much on the end. NL you probably want high 50s or even low 60s. Limit, a lot of winning players have a number around 54.

(People who know more about this should feel free to correct these approximations.)

[memphis57]

I'm more of an average player than good, and FWIW mine is 51.1. However, I agree that it doesn't mean much in isolation, but if you just want to see a sampling it so happens I can easily show you the stats for about 20 pretty good players. I use it in conjuction with the "fold to river bet" and aggression ratios to help judge how to deal with opponents on the river. Here are the stats for a number of fairly good players I face a lot (from my cheat sheet on them - note, some sample sizes are small).

Notice how much the WSD varies, from 33 to 87, while these are all +2-3 BB/100 players.

WSD FRB Aggr F/T/R
54.8 52.6 2.0/1.7/1.6
75.0
62.5 36.4 1.6/1.6/1.0
56.1 42.9 2.1/2.8/1.4
47.5 73.9 1.4/1.4/3.2
65.4 47.6 2.6/2.4/2.4
48.3 33.3 1.9/1.4/1.1
58.8 66.7 3.0/5.0/2.3
44.4 54.6 3.4/2.1/1.4
51.7 64.5 2.4/2.0/2.4
33.3
50.0 53.3 1.7/2.0/1.5
58.3 71.4 3.0/1.6/4.0
53.9 50.0 7.0/7.0/1.7
38.9 50.0 5.3/3.3/1.5
87.5 66.7 1.5/8.0/9.0
64.0 47.1 3.0/2.1/1.5
52.4 55.6 3.4/3.4/2.8
52.2 60.0 2.1/3.5/2.8
25.0
46.2 28.6 1.2/3.0/1.6
73.7 81.8 1.9/3.4/2.8
42.4 47.1 1.1/1.6/1.7
50.0
68.2 90.0 2.0/1.4/5.3
55.6 37.5 1.8/0.6/0.6
60.0 42.1 4.1/2.1/1.1
62.5 88.9 3.8/6.2/3.6
76.7 50.0 1.5/3.5/1.5

[AncientPC]

[ QUOTE ]
Very roughly, something below 50 is bad and something above 60 means you're folding too much on the end. NL you probably want high 50s or even low 60s. Limit, a lot of winning players have a number around 54.

(People who know more about this should feel free to correct these approximations.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Your numbers are too strict for NL. It's different than limit where pot sizes average out a bit more, but in NL you can lose a hundred $2 pots but still win one $500 one.

For instance, over the course of my last 5k hands I'm only 44% W$SD but my PTBB/100 is through the roof.

It also has to do with your playing style (basically depending on how high of WTSD%). Actually having too high of a W$SD% means you're folding a lot of marginal hands that could've been winners.

However in general as a rule of thumb I consider 45-55% as average. Anyone above that is too tight-weak, anyone below that is a calling station.

[stoxtrader]

generally speaking, your # will be lower the lower your limit because more players go to the river. At higher limits, so many pots are HU, your number will be higher.

I run at about 53.5 at limits 15/30 and higher. my Wtsd is a bit under 32.

[La Brujita]

FWIW mine is 54.46 at 15/30 and the one thing to add is I think generally these numbers may also be reflective of game selection within a certain level. In other words, if you follow a VPIP 70% around and often get to showdown against him, it will have to skew the stats for at least the went to SD numbers.

Just my two cents and the PT gurus can correct me if I am wrong.

[jtr]

[ QUOTE ]
Your numbers are too strict for NL. It's different than limit where pot sizes average out a bit more, but in NL you can lose a hundred $2 pots but still win one $500 one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, Ancient, for the clarification. I'm sure you're right. I tried to give the guy some approximate numbers based on my own sad nut-peddling NL history, and thereby underestimated the lower end of the sensible range.

Cheers,
--JTR.