The 1k sngs....an interetsing observation?

[curtains]

fortunately for us sharkscope is extremely accurate.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
quote from bigjoe:[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]

IMO, the stars sngs are so incredibly soft its ridiculous. It sucks that me, mario, good2cu, and z32fanatic are playing in every game, but besides us everyone is horrible. The Stars "regulars" will all be horribly busto soon. I think long term roi's of 10% are very attainable at the 530s and 1k sngs and 15% roi is attainable at the 225s


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
...what a tool

[/ QUOTE ]


lolol yea right 10% ROI at the 1ks, thats like the [censored] dumbest thing Ive ever heard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude believe me I'm not defending bigjoe here but it's not totally impossible with good table selection. The key is that there have to be some fish floating around. Pros trying to outplay each other is silly, but if there is even one huge donator (see that Nemo234 guy in [censored] thread) then the best pros can get close to this number. One "perfect donator" would get everyone up to 7% (remember the rake is only 5%), not sure if they are counting rakeback but that adds another 1.3% so you are at 8%, if some of the pros aren't quite up to snuff then 10% is possible.

But like I said this all hinges on a couple of fish floating around, nobody (except Nemo) is going to be close to a "perfect" donator so you need a couple.

If it's 8 top-notch pros and two pretty solid amateurs well then it's kind of silly.

[curtains]

Im pretty sure thats not what bigjoe is talking about. I think hes talking about playing every single tourney, as he generally does.

[citanul]

curtains,

sharkscope was already off by 35% from my results on my computer (and stars cashier), after only 200 sngs.

citanul

[curtains]

If sharkscope misses 10-20% of tourneys it is practically irrelevant. For me its almost exactly accurate, unfortunately so since Im having my worst session ever right now.


But plenty of people are going to come saying how its off by a few bucks here or there. Obviously it might miss a tourney here or there. That doesn't mean that it isnt extremely accurate for the most part.

[nuggetz87]

that's interesting because it's exactly accurate for me as far as i can tell over about 4500 SNGs.

[curtains]

it includes headsup stuff which might confuse some people? But yeah Im pretty positive its very very accurate.

[ALReturnsLOL]

[ QUOTE ]
If sharkscope misses 10-20% of tourneys it is practically irrelevant. For me its almost exactly accurate, unfortunately so since Im having my worst session ever right now.

[/ QUOTE ]


Curtains, less than a week ago weren't you on the hottest streak of your career? I know this must me a bad slide b/c I have never heard you say anything like that about varience before. Gl I know you'll pull it out soon.

[curtains]

Hey, yes I had best run ever, but this session is bad. By session I mean last 2-3 hours. Was like 1/20 ITM at some point with my only money finish being 3rd place. Anyway never really had any disastrous session where I lose a huge number of buyins, however this might be the one [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


btw Al, not really sure what your comments about how you never heard me say something about variance means. Did I even say anything really other than that Im getting murdered in last few hours?

[microbet]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey, yes I had best run ever, but this session is bad. By session I mean last 2-3 hours. Was like 1/20 ITM at some point with my only money finish being 3rd place. Anyway never really had any disastrous session where I lose a huge number of buyins, however this might be the one [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


btw Al, not really sure what your comments about how you never heard me say something about variance means. Did I even say anything really other than that Im getting murdered in last few hours?

[/ QUOTE ]

He means you aren't whiney or at least you didn't use to be. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]