Much in the same spirit as TWP's thread on Running bad calcs. I would like to see folk's thoughts on winning w/o showdown. I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and I believe winning without showdown is another pointless stat.

If you are playing against calling station fish, of course you are going to win with showdown and lose without it.

If you value bet poorly on the river, you will show a larger profit without showdown. For an extreme example, say you are over shoving instead of making small value bets.

If you two barrel with top pair in spots that would show a better profit via chk turn, vb river line... you will show more profit without showdown.

It appears to me that winning without showdown is a useless stat when attempting to find leaks in your game. Basically, I am looking for thoughts on the other side here. Why should a player view positive winnings without showdown as a "good" thing? What makes this useful at all? How can you be confident that the aspect of your game winning you money without showdown is not losing you money overall?

It's not completely pointless, but in the end, it's all about overall winrate. Who cares if you lose a lot w/o showdown if you're winning at 5 PTBB/100 overall? How much you win at showdown vs. w/o showdown is so dependent on the types of games you play in and the type of style you play. Also, the two are somewhat related, so if you try to win more w/o showdown your showdown winnings are likely to fall. There is some value in trying to pick-up some extra pots that you normally give up on, but over obsessing about it is likely to make you a spewtard and cause your overall WR to drop.

You don't feel it is completely useless. Where do you find value in viewing money won with and without showdown? What do you use it for when analyzing your play?