I think what that must mean is:
Players 1, 2, and 3 have the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd best hand, respectively.
During betting, player 1 folds. Neither player 2 nor 3 fold and eventually show their hands.
Thus player 2 wins not by having the best hand, but by getting the player with the best hand to fold AND winning the showdown.
I imagine that means that often, someone who would have won folded to a raise pre-flop, or on the flop, etc.
Later their flush (or whatever) came in, but they weren't in the hand any longer.
Two players showed down, but they were the player who won the pot and some third guy.
85.2% of hands were decided without players showing their own cards, certainly many of those hands had flops.
In the case of 'almost half' of 14.8 percent where the best hand folded, other people stayed in besides the winner and the best hand.
Just because the player with the band hand folds before showdown doesn't preclude other players from staying in, forcing a show of hands.
Yes, but only a show of hands of those still in, not of the player who folded. So how would they be able to analyze that he had the better hand?
Re:Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky
by GeneralMayhem on Wednesday May 21, 2014 @04:11PM
(#7780489)
It's online poker; there's almost certainly a record of every card dealt.
Re:Good Poker Players Aren't Lucky
by steven2012 on Wednesday May 21, 2014 @05:06PM
(#7780784)
85.2% of hands were won without a showdown, ie. getting to the river and everyone remaining showing their hands. This sounds exactly right, and I play a lot of poker. If someone induces someone to fold their hand without showing their hand, it means they were able to out-bet the person, which is skill-based.
Isn't inducing the player with the best hand to fold before showdown the same as a hand decided without a show of cards? Or do they mean that 85.2% of hands were decided without seeing the flop? Both don't sound right.