Win rate at showdown too high

[DarkForceRising]

What are the common causes for this? If anything, I feel as though I should be folding more.

Giving up in and around the blinds too easily, perhaps? Not peeling enough? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Low limit full ring, BTW.

[jba]

# of hands?

what is your WTSD%?

are you pushing people off of second best hands too much?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

usually when your win rate at showdown is too high, you aren't value betting the river often enough.

What % would constitute being too high of a win rate at showdown? I'd like to know if I have this problem too.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Higher than, say, 65%

[DarkForceRising]

[ QUOTE ]
# of hands?

what is your WTSD%?

are you pushing people off of second best hands too much?

[/ QUOTE ]

About 62% W$SD and 30% WTSD over about 13,000 hands. I don't slowplay much if that's what you mean.

Small sample size but, from what I recall of my lost previous database, that seems par for the course- maybe a bit higher W$SD and lower WTSD.

Thanks for the help. I have been using Poker Office but finally got on board with PT. Just kind of trying to figure out where I am at and where I am going.

[DarkForceRising]

[ QUOTE ]
usually when your win rate at showdown is too high, you aren't value betting the river often enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you give me a couple examples of this? Properly value betting the riv is a situation that has always confused me. I am getting better at not checking down solid hands out of gratitude for not being run down and for fear of being raised. However, I am sure there is plenty I am missing.

[ohnonotthat]

That'll do it.

Another way to assure an obscenely high WR at the showdown is to toss too many hands on the end - especially heads-up.

If you fold everything but the nuts when your opponent bets you'll lose out on alot of earn but you'll NEVER lose a showdown.

*

The part about raising out too many 2nd best hands may also be true. If the pot isn't too big it's often worth it to allow someone to try hit a miracle card; just don't forget to charge him for the privelege of drawing.

[ohnonotthat]

Have I been stumbling through life applying an incorrect definition to a showdown ?

If I bet, you call and I lose that is certainly a loss at the showdown.

What if I bet, you call and I win - is this a showdown win for me ? (Your cards were not rolled unless you chose to roll them and this could be considered not to be a showdown).

How about if there are 3 (or at the lower limits, 5 or 6 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ) players active after the turn but all check the river ? I checked a missed draw and passed on the option to bluff out multiple players but had no actual interest in the pot; I may not have even been able to beat the board but my cards still get rolled if I'm anything other than last to act.

- If this last hand is a showdown then all missed draws are showdowns unless I [sucessfully] bluff.

*

If all of the above are showdowns a 65% win rate is insanely high at low-limit ring games.

I'm not sure what a good number might be but anything above 50% in these games would at the very least be worth looking into.

*

It might be worth noting that even if 65% is outrageously high the OP might not be losing out on any earn; if he's missing barely profitable bluffs or value bets he's costing himself very little.

More importantly, be especially careful to NOT aim for some arbitrary %age even if we can agree on what an optimal percentage may be in order to avoid scenarios such as the following . . .

"My win rate with A-A is below 25%. This is way too low; most agree that 33-50 percent is optimal depending on the game. Therefore I will NEVER muck them prior to the showdown which will, of course maximize my chances of winning with them. I'll get my %age up to 33% if it costs me my last dime".



"Obscenity ? I can't define it but I know it when I see it".

[DarkForceRising]

One thing I have suspected for some time is that the "raise, raise and reraise" mentality of some ultra-aggro players, who seem to forget "donks" can sometimes flop sets or have them out kicked, contributes to a lower W$SD. Nevertheless, when they do catch someone who is light, it sufficiently compensates for the losses.

I guess what I am positing is whether or not a more conservative, yet still aggressive, approach can garner the same results as the laggy method- hence resulting in a somewhat higher than theoretically proper W$SD.