optimal stats for solid play

im not shooting for particular numbers here but won without showdown pots 40% borderline give or take right? how about folding bb or sb to steal, any good tested ballpark ranges for solid winning players? thanks

<insert sarcastic response>

"optimal stats for solid play"

this dosnt make sence

solid winning players arn't robots they mix up their play

<style>
body{
color:white;
background:white;
}
</style>

On October 09 2008 18:47 TalentedTom wrote: "optimal stats for solid play" this dosnt make sence solid winning players arn't robots they mix up their play

the wise one has spoken

if u rephrase it he just want to know what a winning players stats looks like for the more uncommon stats over a large sample

i only know the basics like ur vpip and pfr ideally shld very close with less than 3 points of difference
tag is 18/16ish lag is 26/24ish and atms are < 50/x

curious to know what the rest look like

i keep getting owned with these responses of zen-like magnitude. my head will explode now.

Different players make different stats work for them. For example Midian has ridiculous stats which would be sick unprofitable for me to try but works for him because he knows how to play like that.

edit*

nvm

i just wanna know if my blinds are getting raped somehow...ill ask in another forum coz i dont get straight answers here mostly thanks.

On October 09 2008 19:13 KwarK wrote: Different players make different stats work for them. For example CTS has ridiculous stats which would be sick unprofitable for anyone to try but works for him because he knows how to play like that.

On October 09 2008 19:23 whamm! wrote: i just wanna know if my blinds are getting raped somehow...ill ask in another forum coz i dont get straight answers here mostly thanks.

Your not getting straight answers cause it was a dumb question.

Since when was poker about loading up a HUD, and trying to match your stats. Just focus on Position/Reading skills, and stop worrying about stats.

I love beefcake

On October 09 2008 18:47 TalentedTom wrote: "optimal stats for solid play" this dosnt make sence solid winning players arn't robots they mix up their play

Still, after they mix up their play for 1 million hands, theyll have some stats right.

Trade secret though, sorry..

On October 09 2008 19:07 whamm! wrote: i keep getting owned with these responses of zen-like magnitude. my head will explode now.

wax on wax off whamm san

12 - 8 - 3

On October 09 2008 21:38 Rhaegar wrote: Show nested quote + On October 09 2008 18:47 TalentedTom wrote: "optimal stats for solid play" this dosnt make sence solid winning players arn't robots they mix up their play Still, after they mix up their play for 1 million hands, theyll have some stats right. Trade secret though, sorry..

that's precisely my point, mix it up, can't possibly be a long term winner with 25% won pots without showdown, that's why i feel that i made a very simple question.

stop playing so many tables and learn how to actually play, then you wont ask these questions

The game-theoretic unexploitable strategy (in wich you can reveal your strategy to your opponent and he cannot exploit you and at best expect to breakeven by mirroring your strategy) is very very tight, maybe 16/14 in a 6max table. But against non-optimal opponents (wich is the case in the real world), you can exploit them (and thus be succeptible to exploitation yourself) bo playing looser than the game-theoretic equilibrium to exploit weak predictable players, that dont trap or bluff alot. However, there may be situations against very specific opponents in wich the most profitable way to exploit their strategy is to play even tighter than equilibrium stats (wich I assume is 16/14ish for VPIP/PFR stats). You can also read Mathmatics of Poker by Bill Chen for more information.

On October 10 2008 00:48 r3v wrote: The game-theoretic unexploitable strategy (in wich you can reveal your strategy to your opponent and he cannot exploit you and at best expect to breakeven by mirroring your strategy) is very very tight, maybe 16/14 in a 6max table. But against non-optimal opponents (wich is the case in the real world), you can exploit them (and thus be succeptible to exploitation yourself) bo playing looser than the game-theoretic equilibrium to exploit weak predictable players, that dont trap or bluff alot. However, there may be situations against very specific opponents in wich the most profitable way to exploit their strategy is to play even tighter than equilibrium stats (wich I assume is 16/14ish for VPIP/PFR stats). You can also read Mathmatics of Poker by Bill Chen for more information.

Calling you out for BS on this one. Nobody knows what the game optimal startegy is but we can be fairly certain it's not 16/14 at 6max. None of the high stakes winning players play this tight. The problem with playing this tight is you won't steal the blinds enough and when you do raise, you hand range is very narrow which allows you opponents to make good decisions against you more easily.

On October 10 2008 00:31 Siro wrote: stop playing so many tables and learn how to actually play, then you wont ask these questions

but i like these many tables, yes?

revs post was pretty accurate i think. you fail at calling people out lazyfish, its like you didnt even read his post just skimmed through it and saw 16/14 in a thread entitled "optimal stats"

that 16/14 you talking about is extremely exploitable by good players

On October 10 2008 00:48 r3v wrote: The game-theoretic unexploitable strategy (in wich you can reveal your strategy to your opponent and he cannot exploit you and at best expect to breakeven by mirroring your strategy) is very very tight, maybe 16/14 in a 6max table. But against non-optimal opponents (wich is the case in the real world), you can exploit them (and thus be succeptible to exploitation yourself) bo playing looser than the game-theoretic equilibrium to exploit weak predictable players, that dont trap or bluff alot. However, there may be situations against very specific opponents in wich the most profitable way to exploit their strategy is to play even tighter than equilibrium stats (wich I assume is 16/14ish for VPIP/PFR stats). You can also read Mathmatics of Poker by Bill Chen for more information.

is this 'unexploitable strategy' even applicable to a game as complex as NL holdem, or plo? isn't this theory more for limit games?

On October 10 2008 01:20 Ket wrote: revs post was pretty accurate i think. you fail at calling people out lazyfish, its like you didnt even read his post just skimmed through it and saw 16/14 in a thread entitled "optimal stats"

I read his post ket. So if you were playing at a table with 5 other very good players you would play 16/14 to stop them exploiting you?

On October 10 2008 01:38 LazyFisH wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 01:20 Ket wrote: revs post was pretty accurate i think. you fail at calling people out lazyfish, its like you didnt even read his post just skimmed through it and saw 16/14 in a thread entitled "optimal stats" I read his post ket. So if you were playing at a table with 5 other very good players you would play 16/14 to stop them exploiting you?

yes for image purposes maybe?

also if everyone at the table is playing the super unexploitable strategy, i'd go all in every hand! GADDAMAAARRTT!!

On October 10 2008 01:38 LazyFisH wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 01:20 Ket wrote: revs post was pretty accurate i think. you fail at calling people out lazyfish, its like you didnt even read his post just skimmed through it and saw 16/14 in a thread entitled "optimal stats" I read his post ket. So if you were playing at a table with 5 other very good players you would play 16/14 to stop them exploiting you?

i would quit and find another table. or keep trying to play exploitive 20+++++ vpip against better players, and get owned

On October 10 2008 01:39 tokeweed wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 01:38 LazyFisH wrote:   On October 10 2008 01:20 Ket wrote: revs post was pretty accurate i think. you fail at calling people out lazyfish, its like you didnt even read his post just skimmed through it and saw 16/14 in a thread entitled "optimal stats" I read his post ket. So if you were playing at a table with 5 other very good players you would play 16/14 to stop them exploiting you? yes for image purposes maybe?

playing unexploitable has nothing to do with image or metagame or reads or history or flow or anything like that

On October 10 2008 01:59 Ket wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 01:39 tokeweed wrote:   On October 10 2008 01:38 LazyFisH wrote:   On October 10 2008 01:20 Ket wrote: revs post was pretty accurate i think. you fail at calling people out lazyfish, its like you didnt even read his post just skimmed through it and saw 16/14 in a thread entitled "optimal stats" I read his post ket. So if you were playing at a table with 5 other very good players you would play 16/14 to stop them exploiting you? yes for image purposes maybe? playing unexploitable has nothing to do with image or metagame or reads or history or flow or anything like that

one question tho... is this 'unexploitable strategy' even applicable to a game as complex as NL holdem, or plo?

99/35

Think win without showdown at 6-max should be at least 40%, and shooting for 50%.

I just got Hold'Em Manager and this is a graph from yesterday:



With these stats:



Usually my W$WSF is around 50%. I think if you're at 25% you're way too low and you're not making enough moves on people their CB or you are not CBetting enough and you're getting run over when your CB gets raised and you fold. Try 3betting once in a while if you think they're FOS. Stuff like that can get that number up a lot.

Although I'm curious; this is the first time I use these kind of graphs and I see everyone with their non SD winnings being around breakeven or losing, while their showdown winnings are up a whole lot. Could this just be this session or is this a leak in my game? I go to showdown too often with shithands? Making too many dumb allin moves?

Meh could be just this session now that I think of it, I lost J9 against 89 on a J92 flop to a runner runner straight and I made one dumb allin move that I remembered running into the nuts. Question answered I guess.

On October 10 2008 00:31 Siro wrote: stop playing so many tables and learn how to actually play, then you wont ask these questions

10/4 FR gg

Only play AA/KK and small pps to hit a set then go all in on flop, i heard that's what Ferguson advised to be a solid winning player

limpcall any PP other than AA and if u hit set, shove flop, if not,fold it.

nice sample size there

On October 10 2008 01:22 napalm wrote: that 16/14 you talking about is extremely exploitable by good players

No, I think you are used to seeing only heads up games in wich a very good player is against each other...
In a 6 max game that has no fish, and everyone is playing to win money, the game will become VERY tight, and from my
experience as a pro 6max player I can estimate that it is around 16/14 stats..

Of course all the biggest winners in the 6game are looser than that, but I never said OPTIMAL meant winning the most money...
In game theory, the term "optimal" means you play in a defensive way in wich your opponent cannot exploit you even if he is the
best player in the world... If you play against exploitable opponents, it will be more lucrative to play looser than the equilibrium of course,
hence regulars at 6max usually are about 21/19, but if you take away the fish and put only thinking players who play the optimal defensive
strategy, you cannot improve your winnings by loosening up. Sorry if I cant elaborate more on the subject... read Mathmatics of poker and talk with
David Sklansky on 2p2 he seems to be very good at the theoretical perspective of the game.

On October 10 2008 13:38 Baal wrote: nice sample size there

if your 1 tabling thats 8 months worth of hands

On October 10 2008 23:24 r3v wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 01:22 napalm wrote: that 16/14 you talking about is extremely exploitable by good players No, I think you are used to seeing only heads up games in wich a very good player is against each other... In a 6 max game that has no fish, and everyone is playing to win money, the game will become VERY tight, and from my experience as a pro 6max player I can estimate that it is around 16/14 stats.. Of course all the biggest winners in the 6game are looser than that, but I never said OPTIMAL meant winning the most money... In game theory, the term "optimal" means you play in a defensive way in wich your opponent cannot exploit you even if he is the best player in the world... If you play against exploitable opponents, it will be more lucrative to play looser than the equilibrium of course, hence regulars at 6max usually are about 21/19, but if you take away the fish and put only thinking players who play the optimal defensive strategy, you cannot improve your winnings by loosening up. Sorry if I cant elaborate more on the subject... read Mathmatics of poker and talk with David Sklansky on 2p2 he seems to be very good at the theoretical perspective of the game.

ok say you play a tighter-optimal-defensive strategy. you'd still be c-betting some flops even if you don't hit right? then check/folding most turns, that is still exploitable as your opponents can float. then let's say you stop c-betting flops you don't hit, this is still exploitable as your opponents can bet bet bet when you check.

i think the only way this can be optimal is when all the other players at the table are playing the same way but more passive than you.

how about bb sb folds %? what should i be shooting for here?

around 80ish for both, i already told you irl, wtf.

On October 11 2008 00:16 tokeweed wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 23:24 r3v wrote:   On October 10 2008 01:22 napalm wrote: that 16/14 you talking about is extremely exploitable by good players No, I think you are used to seeing only heads up games in wich a very good player is against each other... In a 6 max game that has no fish, and everyone is playing to win money, the game will become VERY tight, and from my experience as a pro 6max player I can estimate that it is around 16/14 stats.. Of course all the biggest winners in the 6game are looser than that, but I never said OPTIMAL meant winning the most money... In game theory, the term "optimal" means you play in a defensive way in wich your opponent cannot exploit you even if he is the best player in the world... If you play against exploitable opponents, it will be more lucrative to play looser than the equilibrium of course, hence regulars at 6max usually are about 21/19, but if you take away the fish and put only thinking players who play the optimal defensive strategy, you cannot improve your winnings by loosening up. Sorry if I cant elaborate more on the subject... read Mathmatics of poker and talk with David Sklansky on 2p2 he seems to be very good at the theoretical perspective of the game. ok say you play a tighter-optimal-defensive strategy. you'd still be c-betting some flops even if you don't hit right? then check/folding most turns, that is still exploitable as your opponents can float. then let's say you stop c-betting flops you don't hit, this is still exploitable as your opponents can bet bet bet when you check. i think the only way this can be optimal is when all the other players at the table are playing the same way but more passive than you.

youre not understanding it at all. your example is not GTO (game theory optimal) play. all your ranges for all your actions would be perfectly balanced between various value hands and bluffs so that you cannot be exploited in any spot. you are cbetting just enough flops with bluffs to balance all the good hands you cbet so that they cannot profitably bluffraise you (i.e. they cant show profit because you dont have too many bluffs). also you also sometimes check flop and trap with good hands just enough so that they cannot profitably go bet-bet-bet when you check. it would be exploitable and not GTO for you to only check flops you miss. you would sometimes second barrel turn with big hands and just enough bluffs so its balanced and unexploitable. and you sometimes check fold turn with hands youre giving up with and you check enough good hands so its balanced so that they cannot exploit you by auto-betting turn when you cbet flop check turn. etc etc etc the examples go on, but with perfect GTO play the point is your range and frequencies are perfectly balanced for every single action so that your play cannot be exploited.

also in response to your question earlier, no there is no existing perfect GTO strategy for nlh and plo because the problem is way too complex. If there was, poker would be called a solved game. Poker is not a solved game and neither are games like chess or go. Examples of solved games are tic tac toe and connect 4. But that's not to say you can't come up with some approximations of unexploitable play in nlh (i.e. solutions to simplified abstracted models of the full problem). Infact a friend of mine whos a very good player constantly works super hard and puts countless hours into working on theory to come up with an approximation of GTO 6max nlhe play

just read or flick through bill chen's book if you wanna know more

ok, got it. thanks for explaining it well.

hmm so w%@showdown should be like 52-58 and mine is like 49-50 hmmm and i'm still running with 11bb/100 over 40k hands playing 28/22/4? is that low % because of me making too many and too marginal thin valuebets and bluffs? can some ppl with experience talk about this or at least share their won at showdown % here

Your optimal VPIP and Preflop raise should be somewhere around 35/30. Why is it so high? Because in an optimal world you're sitting with 5 60/1 players.

On October 11 2008 09:04 ChromaX wrote: hmm so w%@showdown should be like 52-58 and mine is like 49-50 hmmm and i'm still running with 11bb/100 over 40k hands playing 28/22/4? is that low % because of me making too many and too marginal thin valuebets and bluffs? can some ppl with experience talk about this or at least share their won at showdown % here

win at showdown around 50 is fine.

yeah only a super tight straightforward player at fullring would have won at showdown close to as high as 58. i think my won at showdown % is like 48 for this year, but i am not having a very good year at all. low 50s is pretty standard i think

Well said Ket.

i am

50~ vpip
40~ pfr

=o with a decent winning rate 4-7 ptbb average

On October 11 2008 00:16 tokeweed wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2008 23:24 r3v wrote:   On October 10 2008 01:22 napalm wrote: that 16/14 you talking about is extremely exploitable by good players No, I think you are used to seeing only heads up games in wich a very good player is against each other... In a 6 max game that has no fish, and everyone is playing to win money, the game will become VERY tight, and from my experience as a pro 6max player I can estimate that it is around 16/14 stats.. Of course all the biggest winners in the 6game are looser than that, but I never said OPTIMAL meant winning the most money... In game theory, the term "optimal" means you play in a defensive way in wich your opponent cannot exploit you even if he is the best player in the world... If you play against exploitable opponents, it will be more lucrative to play looser than the equilibrium of course, hence regulars at 6max usually are about 21/19, but if you take away the fish and put only thinking players who play the optimal defensive strategy, you cannot improve your winnings by loosening up. Sorry if I cant elaborate more on the subject... read Mathmatics of poker and talk with David Sklansky on 2p2 he seems to be very good at the theoretical perspective of the game. ok say you play a tighter-optimal-defensive strategy. you'd still be c-betting some flops even if you don't hit right? then check/folding most turns, that is still exploitable as your opponents can float. then let's say you stop c-betting flops you don't hit, this is still exploitable as your opponents can bet bet bet when you check. i think the only way this can be optimal is when all the other players at the table are playing the same way but more passive than you.

why would you be check folding most turns