Stats check.

[imported_anacardo]

Note especially the went to showdown and won at showdown figures, which seem weird as hell to me.

Sorry about the size. ImageShack made this huge as hell for some reason.

[excession]

Why blank out the PTBB/100? Isn't that the most important stat? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

If I was Vp$iP<20% I'd want to see a higher WtSD% than 16% and a better W$SD% than 49%. I suspect that you are weak-tight.

For comparison, my $50 NL figures over maybe 50k hands (PTBB/100 about 11) are Vp$iP 28%, WtSD 25%, W$SD 52% - I am also a bit more aggressive.

[kongo_totte]

Went to SD, seems fine. Maybe, a slightly bit low, but not disastrous. Won $t SD also seem a bit low.

What strikes me the most is your post-flop agg. numbers which are quite low if I'm not mistaking. On all streets really, except pre-flop.

[dtbog]

[ QUOTE ]
For comparison, my $50 NL figures over maybe 50k hands (PTBB/100 about 11) are Vp$iP 28%, WtSD 25%, W$SD 52% - I am also a bit more aggressive.

[/ QUOTE ]

28% VPIP at full ring?

To the OP - PFR% seems a little bit low?

[kongo_totte]

[ QUOTE ]



To the OP - PFR% seems a little bit low?

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. In my experience, you don't have to make these "mix up" raises with SC:s and small PP:s so much at these stakes. They are likely to get you in to trouble and the players generally do not pay attention anyway. Of course, you should make them once in a while, but not nearly as often as in higher limits. Therefore, I think the PFR% is fine.

Please correct me if I'm way off here.

[ChipWrecked]

Looks to me like OP is doing a lot of check/folding post flop.

My pfr is around 8.5, just on theory that if I have a good hand, I'm getting the money in. Also, my raises with monsters get action.

[imported_anacardo]

My real question, I guess, is how I can have
A) a WSD% on the low side of normal and
B) a W$SD% below 50%.

I have two competing theories on this:
1) Waaaaaaaaah booooo hoooooo running baaaaaaad baaaaaad beeeeeats.

In all seriousness, I'm heavily influenced by Doyle Brunson (and fim, I guess) in that I favor playing strong draws fast. Looking over my PT stats, I see that my suited connectors are heavily in the red - and that I'm blanking more than my share of coinflips with the best of it.

Two days later, I remain shaken up by the following four-stacking sequence:
1)Lost 53/47 coinflip
2)Lost 45/55 coinflip
3)Lost to three-outer
4)Lost to one-outer.

This is, of course, nothing but pure frustration whining and is exactly what I want to hear.

2) There's something endemic in my style of betting or hand selection that causes me to tend to get action with the worst of it.

I don't see how I can be showing down any more hands. Quite the opposite, I think I should be tightening my turn and river calls.


[ QUOTE ]
Looks to me like OP is doing a lot of check/folding post flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should I not be doing a lot of check-folding post flop? I can't see how it's to my advantage to, say, bet a drawless king-high into a four-way pot, or, worse,check and call a ~potsized bet with a drawless king-high.

Three things I think I could start doing:

Attempting to steal more pots with position raises, holding nothing or next to nothing. That would seem to run counter to board wisdom on "what these guys will call with."

Bet-folding rather than give up when scare cards hit the turn or river. But, again - when you pot the flop and get two callers, how often will one of them not have that flush draw? I may be being robbed blind here by overestimating my hand-reading ability.

Learning how to get others to bet my hand for me. This is a style entirely counter to the one that Doyle & Co. have taught me. Generally speaking, I want control of the betting or I don't want to be in the hand, which seems like the right idea. Generally speaking, I will give specifically loose-aggressive players a chance to bluff me on the river where I can; otherwise it's bet-bet-bet.

Also: I do little checkraising. I've opined on this topic in other posts, but to me a check-raise is what you do with a hand you like, but not well enough to show down. Its scariness is precisely what makes it a sign of weakness. Obviously this applies to my own bets and not those of my opponents, who feel that checkraises rule the school. I'm either betting with the intention of getting it all in the middle, bet-folding, check-folding, and occasionally check-calling or bet-calling under the right circumstances.



I cop to being somewhat baffled here. My knowledge of NL theory is not extensive; my poker education has come at the hands of 2+2. I'd kill a man for an advance copy of "Theory and Practice of No-Limit Poker."

Anyway, get my winrate to the 8+ PTBB/100, world. $50-NL is supposed to be easy.

Anacardo:

I pretty much agree with you on the c/r as a bit of a sign of weakness; that's a line right out of supersystem. However, the next line is that you still have to do it frquently, otherwise folks will know that your check is a genuine sign of weakness.

As for your stats, they are very similar to mine. My play has greatly improved postflop since taking to heart the frequent advice here to bet the river. My river numbers looked very similar until I began betting the river, and they have since started to climb.

You should be concerned that your w$wsd% is <50; this indicates that you are pushing marginal hands (just a little bit) harder than you ought. This figure, in my case, represented bad flop decisions more than bad river decisions, such as chasing marginal draws (then you hit a pair on the river and bet it or something...)

I'd write more, but we seem to be playing each other on PP right now. See ya at the table.

[punter11235]

This stats looks perfect in my opinion. Dont worry about won at SD one. I had sth similair there few weeks ago. Its because when you are aggressive and your opponents are passive many hands when you give up your bluffs/semibluffs go to showdown without future betting.
VPIP is little low, if you are multitabling its ok. But surely you can add more profitable hands at this level; one/two suited gappers in 2last position being the most obvious.

Best wishes