W$SD
 

Does anyone else monitor this stat closely? I have been consistently around 56% over 35,000 hands. And I can't decide if I should want a higher number or a lower one.

Obviously, the higher it is, the less big showdowns I'll be losing and the more I'd be winning.

On the other hand, I feel like anything that much over 50% is telling me that there's a positive % chance of me winning some portion of showdowns I don't see. IE if I'm only seeing showdowns when I have, on average, a 56% chance of winning... I should be able to add some subset of showdowns to my total in which I have a lower chance of winning (let's say 53% for example)... but these are still +EV since I'm winning more than I'm losing.

Anyone have stats on W$SD? And what do you strive for? Again, I'm at 56% in 10-player games, and 59% in 6-player games (though that's a sample of only 3000 hands).

Re: W$SD
 

Anything above 50% is fine.

Re: W$SD
 

There's another interesting stat i sort of made up. When you go into PTs misc stats it gives you a total dollar amount for all your final hands. If you check 'show only hands that were not folded', you get a significantly larger number. My ratio between these two amounts is 5.2, and I was wondering if that number can be used to find out if you get involved in a lot of hands but fold before the river or showdown, leaving a lot of money behind. is this useful? Is it a mark of becoming a wuss or keeping your balls as a hand progresses? My nerd sense is tingling...
sox

Re: W$SD
 

I just took the avg of the 15 biggest winners in my database and it was 58.55%

Mine is 68.25%, which probably means that I fold the best hand a bit too much, but my win rate is very good and my variance is very low so Im happy with my game.

Re: W$SD
 

[ QUOTE ]
There's another interesting stat i sort of made up. When you go into PTs misc stats it gives you a total dollar amount for all your final hands. If you check 'show only hands that were not folded', you get a significantly larger number. My ratio between these two amounts is 5.2, and I was wondering if that number can be used to find out if you get involved in a lot of hands but fold before the river or showdown, leaving a lot of money behind. is this useful? Is it a mark of becoming a wuss or keeping your balls as a hand progresses? My nerd sense is tingling...
sox

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying 5:2 (5 to 2 AKA 2.5 to 1) or 5.2 to 1?

This sounds like a similar stat to WtSD (Went-to-showdown) more than anything else. Though, since it is in dollars in that tab, it is weighted by how much money you committed. I'd think as your ratio gets smaller, it would indicate to me that you're paying more for draws. The higher your ration, it would seem like you manage to stay in until the showdown pretty cheaply in hopes of hitting a draw.

Re: W$SD
 

Hypothetically, I've been wondering if you could successfully win with only 35% W$SH because assumming you are generally calling or betting a pot sized bet on the end you are getting 2:1 on your money which means it would be profitable to win anything > 33% ( considering the river as an independent event). In general though I don't hold much stock in the statistic b/c a hand that is checked around is equally weighted to the huge all-in overbet on the end. Win the big hands. Lose the small ones.

Re: W$SD
 

I meant 5.2 to 1, sorry...
It seems to make sense that the ratio is sort of a paying for draws thing... any of you mathematicians wanna take a shot at giving some sort of target number or improving our thinking? (i know you're out there)
sox

::my showdown win is only 50.5% but the winningest players in my DB are about 58-59%.

Re: W$SD
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hypothetically, I've been wondering if you could successfully win with only 35% W$SH because assumming you are generally calling or betting a pot sized bet on the end you are getting 2:1 on your money which means it would be profitable to win anything > 33% ( considering the river as an independent event). In general though I don't hold much stock in the statistic b/c a hand that is checked around is equally weighted to the huge all-in overbet on the end. Win the big hands. Lose the small ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sort of faulty logic here. Let's assume you only play heads up. Even if you're getting 2:1 on a river call... after you make that call, you've still put exactly 50% of the money into the pot. So if you don't win at least 50% of the time, you're losing money on these hands. This is not to say it is a bad play to call. It's more saying that you, at some point, put in some money that was -EV in the hand.

You can be an overall winner with a 35% W$SD because of multiway pots, of course. You can also be a winner at 35% if you make up for the losing there by picking up a lot of small pots that don't go to showdown (think Doyle's ridiculous old Super System strategy).

But you make a good point that I was thinking about too, which is that even if you're only winning 35% of pots, as long as you're winning more of the big ones and losing more small ones, you can still be doing OK.

FWIW, my "ratio" is 5.13

Re: W$SD
 

I was thinking of the river as a completely independent event. Obviously each player heads-up has contributed half the money. You're right about Doyle's strategy if you can pick up alot of pots before the showdown to compensate for winning less than half at showdown. You should theoritically to be able to be profitable.

Re: W$SD
 

[ QUOTE ]
I was thinking of the river as a completely independent event. Obviously each player heads-up has contributed half the money. You're right about Doyle's strategy if you can pick up alot of pots before the showdown to compensate for winning less than half at showdown. You should theoritically to be able to be profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not pick up alot of pots before showdown AND have a high W$SD rate? My W$SD is 68.25% and my WSF is 40%

Re: W$SD
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was thinking of the river as a completely independent event. Obviously each player heads-up has contributed half the money. You're right about Doyle's strategy if you can pick up alot of pots before the showdown to compensate for winning less than half at showdown. You should theoritically to be able to be profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not pick up alot of pots before showdown AND have a high W$SD rate? My W$SD is 68.25% and my WSF is 40%

[/ QUOTE ]

From these numbers, I'd imagine you take a stab at a lot of pots but fold to resistance? What happens if you see a flop heads up, and someone check-calls your flop bet... let's say you have AcQc overcards on a Js-9s-4d. No draw, not too scary of a board, but you've got nothing as well. As said, you were checked to and bet out, and were called. Checked to on the turn as well. Your move...?

Re: W$SD
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was thinking of the river as a completely independent event. Obviously each player heads-up has contributed half the money. You're right about Doyle's strategy if you can pick up alot of pots before the showdown to compensate for winning less than half at showdown. You should theoritically to be able to be profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not pick up alot of pots before showdown AND have a high W$SD rate? My W$SD is 68.25% and my WSF is 40%

[/ QUOTE ]

From these numbers, I'd imagine you take a stab at a lot of pots but fold to resistance? What happens if you see a flop heads up, and someone check-calls your flop bet... let's say you have AcQc overcards on a Js-9s-4d. No draw, not too scary of a board, but you've got nothing as well. As said, you were checked to and bet out, and were called. Checked to on the turn as well. Your move...?

[/ QUOTE ]

Youre correct. I bet ALOT of flops with absolutley nothing if nobody else wants it, but if called I give up alot of the time.

I have QJ on the button. Flop A53...it gets checked to me...I bet pot every time. There are alot of these type hands in any given session. Since youre betting pot, you only have to take the pot uncontested 50% of the time for it to be a break even play but I take it down around 75% of the time with a pot sized bet.

At one time, I actually kept a little tally sheet besised my computer to track how much I won and/or lost while betting with nothing. When I say nothing, I mean no pair, no draw, no nothing. It worked well enough that I started betting even more flops. You would think people would start check raising me, but they rarely do and if they do I fold obviously.

I also bet the same way when I have a set or big draw or whatever.

In your hand I most likely wouldve raised preflop. Whether or not I continue in this pot would be player dependant. Most likely not. I rarely continue with an uniproved AK/AQ hand if called but I might in this one if Im playing a chronic flush chaser.

Re: W$SD
 

W$DS includes hands where you bet the river.

Re: W$SD
 

The W$SD is affected by how your opponents play. It dosn't seem real useful without more info. Seperating it into more numbers, depending on who is betting and how large the bets are might be useful. Something like wins showdown when calling a pot sized bet (W#SWCPSB). Should be > 1/3.
When you bet the river, your number depends on how much your opp. folds as much as what you bet with. Also who is folding more on other betting rounds. It is complicated if the river is multiway, too (more of an issue in limit he).

Re: W$SD
 

[ QUOTE ]
Youre correct. I bet ALOT of flops with absolutley nothing if nobody else wants it, but if called I give up alot of the time.

At one time, I actually kept a little tally sheet besised my computer to track how much I won and/or lost while betting with nothing. When I say nothing, I mean no pair, no draw, no nothing. It worked well enough that I started betting even more flops. You would think people would start check raising me, but they rarely do and if they do I fold obviously.


[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, I used to do the exact same thing, until after a hundred or so times when I started realizing it was definitely +EV to do so.