I post this her in order to entice discussion about desirable stats, comparations with one's own stats, comparations with common advice, etc. Player's names are fititious.

First is John , beating NL10 by 22 bb/100 over 19.000 hands:



Next is michael, beating nl10 by 11 bb/100 over 20.000 hands:



Lastly, Peter, 20 bb/100 over 11.000 hands



What do you think abot these stats? How do they differ from expected?

John's stats seem pretty standard, except for cold calling way too much.

Michael is too tight PFR-wise, especially from the BU. Is too loose from the SB. Also you should c-bet more IP than OOP, which Michael doesn't do. Michael also folds to c-bets too much. If playing against Michael I would over-fold to button steal, and c-bet wider than optimal

Peter c-bets way way way too much. Also that raise vs. c-bet stat when IP is wayyyy too high.

But I wouldn't read too much into the "these people are beating the stake the most, therefore I should try to play like them." It's only 10k hands, so it's pretty likely the 3 biggest winners are just people who are running hot.

cbet stats from Peter and John are very bad:
Peter: 93/61/31
John : 74/43/32

small samples, doesn't mean anything and has 0 relevance.

Peter is a baller, 40% raise vs OOP cbet lol.
I would also add that John calls too much vs 3bets.

contrary to popular micros beliefs, I think Peter is going to be doing the best out of the 3 in these games if he's not in fact a whale on a heater and terrible postflop

Why is that?

John:



Baller!