This is what I read online:

The WWSF% show how hard a player fight for the pot postflop. He say than with less than 42 it's unlikely the player is a winning player.

He say that a that a winning reg should be around 45. From that he add that people with a low WWSF% don't fight enough for the pot we should bluff them more often but if they show interest in the pot we should just get out of away (they don't bluff often or they would win more when sow flop).

My WWSF% is 50.46%. And that is after playing in the $55 Sunday Marathon.

What is everyone elses'?

W$WSF is a useful cash game stat for large sample sizes and obviously extremely dependent on the type of game you play.

Easy example: 45% is probably not a very good number in a heads-up game, unless your opponent has a massive leak you are exploiting. 30% would already be an absurdly high number in a 10 handed bomb pot game where all 10 players see the flop by default.

Unfortunately, your number from one single tournament is totally meaningless.

I've got a pretty low WWSF for 6-max cash of 44.2%, with an EV winrate of 5bb/100 and actual winrate of 3bb/100.
There are players with a higher WWSF than me that actually lose money. In cash games in particular, it's not how many pots you win that's important, it's how much money.
It's usually the case that people with a WWSF of >50 are either ubernits (so they only see the flop with very narrow/strong ranges), or they are aggrotards with great redlines and terrible bluelines.
As madlex pointed out, a stat from one tournament is completely meaningless. I played a couple of tourneys last week where I think I probably won 80% of the pots where I saw a flop.

Interestingly my WWSF is 44.3% playing similar games with similar EV. Clearly we have solved micro zoom.

There's probably a seat waiting for OP if he wants to play 3- or 4-handed with Red Baron and Linus at 10,000 NL.
These are reportedly the stats of the best player in the world (LLinusLLove), who is known for his aggression:

Someone has to win the pot even when only two, three or four players sit at the table..

where did you get the stats from?

Most stats are no good In a vacuum, consider the other stats that impact wwsf. Like pfr and vpip

Well, yeah, obviously. I was trying to make the point that even the best player in the world wins less than half the time when he sees the flop. I'm sure Linus's number is slightly over 50% in heads up pots, but it's really hard to win the majority of post-flop pots in multi-player games. So OP's 50.46% is an anomaly.
Linus's numbers are on the front page of statname.net
I haven't signed up, so I don't know who else's figures they've datamined.

You’re totally right. The point I was trying to make is that the number is absolutely meaningless without normalizing it for number of players.

For example with full ring players, the same style of play might lead to significantly different numbers just because one player is a frequent table starter and the other one isn’t. So the only way to really compare W$WSF is with Zoom game numbers.

This stats aren't 6max only, right?

Indeed. And in full ring games, there are more multiway pots post-flop, which brings down the WWSF number even more. My WWSF number for full ring tourneys is way down in the 30s, because I tend to play freerolls, where some pots have 5 or 6 players seeing a flop. I'm obviously not going to win 50% of the time if I'm seeing the flop with 5 other players.
There's a HEM stat called WWSF Rating which is useful though, as it shows whether you're winning your "fair share" of pots, after accounting for how many of them are multiway. My number is just below 1.0, whereas aggro players can have a figure as high as 1.10.

EDIT: My positional numbers show that I win least often when I see a flop in the BB, but I don't think it's a major problem, because I get better pot odds there, so don't have to win the majority of the time in the long run, unlike in other positions.


They are from 6-max tables, but at the nosebleed level, games are often 3- or 4-handed, which is why his VPIP/PFR numbers are much higher than he'd have if there were 6 players dealt into every hand.
I'm convinced that if 6 players are dealt in, VPIP should not be higher than 30%, even in a game with negligible rake.
Snowie plays something like 24/17/8 at 6-max 100NL for example, and with microstakes rake the theoretically optimal stats will be tighter still (something like 22/16/7). (Exploitatively, you might make more money playing tighter or looser, however. There are people beating micros with wildly different strats).

Yeah that's what I thought.