What a value is worth
There is no such thing as a good VPIP in general. What a number is worth depends on the pool it was made in, so every figure below belongs to one room, one stake and one format — pick another and they all change.
5,542 winning players in this pool.
| Stat | Winnersmedian | Middle half25th–75th | Poolmedian | Bandhow close is close enough | Hands to comparebefore this player’s number is worth comparing | Impactin this pool | What it costs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VPIP | 25.9% | 22.9–31.9 | 28.6% | ±1.50% | 1,200 | decisive | |
| PFRboth ways | 18.5% | 15.7–20.8 | 18.0% | ±0.75% | 3,600 | matters | |
| Limp | 0.6% | 0.2–2.3 | 1.1% | ±1.25% | 280 | decisive | |
| 3Betboth ways | 8.0% | 5.5–9.7 | 7.4% | ±0.50% | 10,600 | matters | |
| Fold vs 3Bet | 50.0% | 35.6–57.9 | 42.9% | ±2.75% | 13,700 | decisive | |
| 4Betboth ways | 11.4% | 6.7–14.7 | 10.7% | ±1.00% | 47,000 | matters | |
| Stealboth ways | 35.5% | 29.6–39.3 | 33.8% | ±1.50% | 5,600 | matters | |
| Fold vs Steal | 68.3% | 60.0–72.3 | 65.0% | ±1.75% | 8,100 | decisive | |
| Cold Call | 8.6% | 3.1–19.2 | 16.0% | ±1.75% | 2,700 | decisive | |
| CBet flopboth ways | 62.3% | 55.1–70.5 | 62.2% | ±1.75% | 15,200 | flat | |
| Fold vs CBetboth ways | 43.2% | 37.5–48.3 | 42.3% | ±1.75% | 23,200 | matters | |
| WTSD | 29.6% | 27.2–32.1 | 30.2% | ±0.80% | 23,800 | matters | |
| W$SD | 53.6% | 48.5–57.1 | 52.3% | ±1.50% | 25,500 | decisive | |
| WWSF | 47.2% | 44.3–50.0 | 46.9% | ±0.80% | 27,800 | matters | |
| AFqboth ways | 50.0% | 45.8–53.7 | 49.2% | ±1.00% | 7,800 | flat |
How to read this
Aim at what winners do, not at the cheapest point on the curve. The curve measures the whole pool, and where most people lose, its cheapest bin often just describes who loses least.
Fold vs 3Bet
50.0 winners
58.7 cheapest bin
“Winners” is the middle winner, and the range beside it is the middle half. Read the spread as how much winners disagree.
Fold vs 3Bet
50.0 median
35.6–57.9 middle half
Illustration, not this pool’s shape.
How close a figure has to land before it is worth quoting. It belongs to the statistic, so it does not move with the room. How these were derived.
A reference value is no use against a number that is still mostly noise. The last column is how many hands it takes before a player’s own figure on that statistic is measured closely enough to quote — the same three-in-four mark the bar under every stat on a player’s profile fills to. Rare spots take longest: one that comes up twice per hundred hands needs about fifty times the hands of one that comes up every hand. How many hands is enough does this against your own sample.
fastest / slowest
Limp 280 hands
4Bet 47,000
Impact is how far apart a statistic puts people in this pool, between its best and worst values. It compares groups of players; it does not promise that moving your own number pays the difference.
widest / flattest
VPIPdecisive
CBet flopflat
Ten bins, a tenth of the players each. The numbers under the curve are the middle of the lowest and the highest tenth.
VPIP, ten bins
20.4 lowest tenth
62.4 highest
The curve is what missing costs you, in big blinds per 100 hands. A flat one means the statistic barely separates anybody here; a steep one means it does. Where the cheapest value sits in the middle rather than at an end the row is marked “both ways”: too much and too little each cost, and only closer is better.
PFR
19 cheapest
4 and 28 both worse
There is no theoretical answer for most of these. Minimum defence frequency sets a ceiling for folding to a bet, and winners here fold well above it. For everything else no theoretical value exists, and any “correct range” you read elsewhere was somebody’s opinion about a different population. See Methodology for how the winner baseline is selected.