poker-edge figures

I've just checked up on poker-edge what my figures are and got the report e-mailed to me.

Now I'm probably going to get berated but I've nevfer owned any poker software like HUD and don't really understand what they mean. I can play up to 24 tables @100nl FR without needing it so figured it's not worth it.

So I'd like to know what these figures represent and maybe some suggestions about what subtle changes could be made.

My pokerstars figures are,

VP$IP - 14.6
Preflop raise % - 7.7
Postflop aggression - 2.9
Cold call % - 6.9
Blind steal attempt% - 26.3
Fold small blind to steal % - 71.4
Fold big blind to steal % - 88
Went to showdown if flop seen % - 21.9
Showdown win % - 50.9


My Ongame figures are,

VP$IP - 14.7
Preflop raise % - 7.4
Postflop aggression - 3.3
Cold call % - 4.9
Blind steal attempt% - 31.6
Fold small blind to steal % - 100
Fold big blind to steal % - 75
Went to showdown if flop seen % - 25
Showdown win % - 55.6

Apart from the obvious fold to small blind% at ongame is there anything which stands out?

I dont use these tracker things, someone who knows more about them will reply soon enough but ill throw my opinion in there...

Your VP$IP (This is the amount you play when not forced to by blinds) is very low, as I understand it a tight player will have a figure around 19-22%.

seem very solid stats to me tho

Don't flat so much. If you want to be profitable with a VPIP of 15 you're going to need a PFR of about 13. 15 is pretty tight for a VPIP anyway, but the main thing that leaps out is your PFR being extremely low. It makes it far too easy for people to put you on a hand. Try never limping in an unopened pot.

And defend your blind more. 88% FTS is massive. You're being priced in, so take that.

Does that fact it's full ring make any difference?

You are playing way too tight. Just like James said, your VPIP shows that it seems like you are only playing premium hands and folding just about everything else, including just about any aggression into your blinds. You need to loosen your starting requirements up a little bit and maybe limp into a couple more pots, because people are running all over you because they know you are going to fold so many different hands, and if you call or raise back at them, they know you have your hand so they will probably just fold and you won't make jack on that pot. Playing as tight as you are it is kind of hard to see how it could be that successful playing 24 tables at 100nl, but I guess everyone gets lucky. One good thing is that I am sure a lot of your opponents have book/stats on you, so if you go in there and completely switch it up, they won't know what's going on, especially if you have been playing with a lot of the same regulars numerous times. GL

Like absoluthamm said, I would raise lots of your blinds if your never calling. I would almost never give you action when you raise in early position with weaker hands. Try some different things like limping with low pockets or suited connectors to try switch your game up a little.

If you go over to the 2+2 Forums, there is a thread where you can post your stats and people will evaluate them for you, it was extremely helpful in my development.

Isn't that just what he did here???

I think he would have gotten more of a response had he put it in the Strategy Section or even possibly Learning Poker.

Plus, one thing about 2+2...they tend to berate anyone who doesn't have like 1000+ posts and pretty much call you a donk for everything(No this has not happened to me, I have just read a lot on 2+2). So whereas here I feel like it is constructive criticism(in most cases that is, you still always get the occasional jackass), on there it is more destructive...

Ok thanks for the advice guys I've recently bought the 2 harrington on holdem cash game books and there's a section going over starting hand requirements there which I'll adopt.

It's because 100nl players really aren't very good at poker

I think that the figures you have mentioned are quite solid. However I never use trackers. And so I may be wrong.