A question of style...

Based on the following statistics for a ring game, varying number of player between 2 and 9, which style would you say is closest to the style of this player. If you wouldn't mind, could you please explain your reasoning.


Hands Played: 60 Hands
Won: 38%
Showdowns Won: 62%
Flops seen: 73%
Win % if flop seen: 52%

Actions
Fold: 14%
Check: 19%
Call: 27%
Bet: 36%
Raise: 4%
Reraise: 0%

Folds
Pre flop: 76%
Flop: 3%
Turn: 7%
River: 8%
No fold: 55%

I would say, there is too little info to determine. Number of players at table and Buy-in amount/table limits might be helpful. All of your statistics run into each other there, so who knows.

These numbers do not make any sense.

I chose Tight Agressive Player (TAP)
Reason why is because I play like this and the # look very similar to mine, except in MTT play since I do not play Ring Table...but Freerolls have a similar variance with as many as 5/9 sitters

Tight due to 0% re-raise
4% Raise and Win% at Showdown and Calls with good Draw hands that have Good Implied Odds and see alot of flops based on good starting hands and Folds garbage 76% PF
and the agressive factor is Bets 36% when has the Best hand and folds when is re-raised or does not improve the hand, (say flush scare or paired board on the turn)

Clearly a calling station. Rarely raises. Never reraises. Calls more than bets and not folding over 50% of the time.

And a calling station that's gotten pretty lucky over the past 60 hands, based on the win numbers

The statistics are a bit wonky on Bodog. If I saw 73% of the flops, shouldn't my "No Fold" be 73% and the percentages of when I fold should equal 100%. Oh well.

I am thinking that this is more of a LPP play. Of the actions 60% are passive actions (fold, check, call) and 40% are Aggressive actions (Bet, Raise reraise) with no reraising at all.

Seeing 73% of the flops would make me a fairly loose player in this situation.

And if I saw 73% of the flops on 60 hands, (humm, more bad stats...) that means I saw 43.8 hands and folded 27% (or 16.2 hands)

Of those 16.2 hands, according to the stats, 12.312 were preflop, 0.486 were folded before the turn, 1.134 after the turn, and 1.296 on the river.

humm, well at least I learned that the stats aren't correct on Bodog.

Thanks for your feed back, i am working on identifying preliminary styles with little data.

Donkey (LAG)--- I don't think you understand what "LAG" is if you think it's a donkey.

Stone Killer (TAP)-- typically "Stone Killer" would be a TAG, not a TAP; i.e., tight-aggressive. TAP is "P"assive post flop.

Again a misunderstanding of these lables: "tight" has nothing to do with how often you raise: it's how often you are involved (usually as denoted by "voluntarily put money in pot" stat). In this case we only have the "saw flop" stat, which is less accurate. Even taking out 15% for blind play, 76% is HUGE. This player is extremely loose, not tight. Also, the low very low raise percentage, and just slightly more (9%) likely to bet than call means they are also passive. This is the ideal opponent: the classic fish. So I really hope that your stats are not similar!

t1riel and aliengenius FTW!

60 hands is hardly a big enough sample, but calling station; not donkey, sheep would be more apt.

What I was thinking, but I can really choose between "average joe" or calling station. Maybe calling station is a style, but I'm not so sure joe or donkey is. I'd have to say this person is probably an average joe/calling/station/donkey with a bit of luck on his side because of the small amount of hands played, also mentioned above. And, I'd have to agree with Aliengenius and say you're a bit confused on what is a style, what the prototypical style label implies, etc...

[quote=aliengenius;625255]Donkey (LAG)--- I don't think you understand what "LAG" is if you think it's a donkey.

Stone Killer (TAP)-- typically "Stone Killer" would be a TAG, not a TAP; i.e., tight-aggressive. TAP is "P"assive post flop.



My bad. I should have typed LAP for donkey. Isn't LAG a loose agressive game?

Got TAP from The book The Psychology of Poker by Alan N. Schoonmaker Ph.D. with Sklansky as the technical collaborator. They use it when referenceing a tight agressive player.

I learned something. Thanks That's probably the reason the stats are wonky.

Sorry for asking this but what is FTW?

"For the win", unless I'm much mistaken

for the optimist: for the win, aka is the best.
for the pessimist: well, F the world