High card win %

[Wynton]

I'm finally getting around to voting in this. My percentage was 18.57%. But I really have no idea what it means if a person is on low or high end of the spectrum.

Are we "supposed" to be winning with high card a certain amount of time?

[j_c_frost]

Kross,
that is phenomenal!! I voted 13% and have found a significant leak in my game ( I think ). My went to showndown numbers have always been low and this was one way i was trying to improve on that. However, I have lost about 75 BB with this idea over 50K hands. Time to rethink it. I think part of my problem is I'm too tight preflop and push a little too hard post flop. Maybe I should loosen up a little and calm down a bit post flop.

[deception5]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm finally getting around to voting in this. My percentage was 18.57%. But I really have no idea what it means if a person is on low or high end of the spectrum.

Are we "supposed" to be winning with high card a certain amount of time?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are on the low end of the spectrum, there's a good chance you call down with high cards too much. If you're on the high end, it's possible you throw away too many winners or push people off of payoff hands too often. It's possible that in this case you should be checking behind on the turn planning to call a river bet more often.

Coach said it should be around 15-18%.

[Wynton]

This is interesting because I've always suspected that I don't check behind on the turn enough, planning to call the river.

Yet, I can't help wonder how your coach arrived at 15-18% as the preferable range. Is this based strictly on the numbers he and other good players have generated?

Also, is it possible that a number on either extreme end might reveal a certain style of play that has advantages we can't detect just by looking at this number?

For example, perhaps my number does, indeed, indicate I don't check the turn enough, planning to call the river. But could that also mean that my continuous betting on the turn is even more profitable, as it would presumably lead to me getting better hands to fold on the turn?

One other thought. If there really is a preferable range for this stat, I suspect that the range would differ from one limit to the next. My guess is that at higher limits one should showdown with A high more than at the lower limits.

[deception5]

[ QUOTE ]
This is interesting because I've always suspected that I don't check behind on the turn enough, planning to call the river.

Yet, I can't help wonder how your coach arrived at 15-18% as the preferable range. Is this based strictly on the numbers he and other good players have generated?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe so, but it wasn't specified.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, is it possible that a number on either extreme end might reveal a certain style of play that has advantages we can't detect just by looking at this number?

For example, perhaps my number does, indeed, indicate I don't check the turn enough, planning to call the river. But could that also mean that my continuous betting on the turn is even more profitable, as it would presumably lead to me getting better hands to fold on the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is possible, but if we go under the assumption that these numbers were generated by querying better players that they would also be betting in these situation where it was more profitable and thus their numbers would reflect it as well.

[ QUOTE ]
One other thought. If there really is a preferable range for this stat, I suspect that the range would differ from one limit to the next. My guess is that at higher limits one should showdown with A high more than at the lower limits.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree with this point. There's also an interesting sample size question - I noticed that over 10k hands I only have 84 hands which qualify for "High Card". Such a small number of hands could easily result in my stat being a few points away from my true %. Putting all of our stats together like this should give a reasonable "goal" (unless it varies drastically by limits).