stats (theory) question

[AlwaysWrong]

So I've been doing pretty well the last month, coming in a decent clip above 3/100. A friend of mine goes off on me about being weak-tight when we discuss a hand (unimportant). I mention that my wtsd and showdowns won % are in accepted 2+2 parameters and he doesn't watch me play, so it's bs to call me weak-tight. A while later I go to review my stats and it turns out my went to showdown has gone down a couple points recently, but my won $ at showdown has gone up a couple points. And I thought I was playing good! Hmm..

One guy posts his stats here and they are:

went to showdown %: 35%
won $ at sd: 55%

Seem about right?

another guy posts:

went to showdown %: 33%
won $ at showdown: 57%

(If this still seems ok to you, then 32/58? 31/59?)

We say he isn't getting to enough showdowns.

But does this make any sense at all?

If so, why?

Edit: was pointed out that you can't trade % 1 for 1, these numbers aren't linked as simply as I made out above, but they are linked.

[danzasmack]

100% of hands exist

35% of time went to showdown. 55% of time won $ at showdown.
19.25% won money at a showdown.

33% went to SD. 57% won $
18.81% won money at a showdown.

Also

you are seeing showdown 5.71% less often. Winning 3.5% more often.

EDIT: didn't really think about that 2nd part.

[AlwaysWrong]

Ok, sort of makes sense.

Let's see if this works.

See flop 20 times.

(1) sd: 0.35*20 = 7 w$asd: 7*0.55 = 3.85

(2) sd: 0.33*20 = 6.6 w$asd: 6.6*0.57 = 3.76

[what would w$asd have to be to get 3.85? 3.85/6.6 = 58.3]

Ok, so there isn't a 1:1 correspondence, makes sense. But there is a correspondence. Say someone posts who has a 60% w$asd. What would their went to showdown % have to be for you not to question their play, if it's possible?

[einbert]

Before analysing these numbers, it would be very helpful to know the sample sizes and limits involved.

[AlwaysWrong]

they don't exist.. neither of these are my stats.. I made them up.

10/20 6-max
50,000 hands

(I'm 34/58)

[einbert]

My inital estimate is that both of you are folding a good deal too much after the flop.

A long term W$@SD of 56% is way too high, IMO.

[AlwaysWrong]

ok, fair enough.

Propose a good w$asd number and a good wtsd number and tell me why a lower wtsd and a higher w$asd isn't better.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
ok, fair enough.

Propose a good w$asd number and a good wtsd number and tell me why a lower wtsd and a higher w$asd isn't better.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason why a lower wtsd and a higher w$sd isn't better is because you are folding the best hand, or folding when it is profitable to draw too much. For example, I could have a W$SD of 100% if i only played the stone nuts and folded everything else, but I would be losing quite a bit of money very quickly.

[AlwaysWrong]

Yeah, it's pretty clear that in practical terms you can't get too much above 50% without folding the best hand a ton. You just can't have that good of a read on people. But if you could somehow see your opponent's cards you would have a w$asd of around 90% say (you'd bet as a bluff sometimes and get called) and be killing the game like it's never been killed.

But in practical terms there has to be a tradeoff here. Going to showdown 45% of the time is too much, going to showdown 30% is too little. The less you go, the more you should be winning.

Why are whatever numbers you think are right, actually right? How do you convince a skeptic that these are the best numbers?

[AlwaysWrong]

Einbert: give me your numbers, I'll give you some other numbers back, and you tell me why those other numbers wouldn't be better (or tell me that they aren't practically possible).