#11
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Online player struggling live in home game
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I play mainly online and am a winning player, cashing in 78% of my last 2500 tourneys, mainly 3 to 5 table SNG, with over a 40% first place finishes. [/ QUOTE ] I dont really play tournaments, but isnt this like insane over 2500 tournaments? nobody has mentioned it yet, but 78% cash and 40% WIN? i have a hard time fathoming that is accurate. I have no real reason to doubt you, but that seems reaaaaaallly good. [/ QUOTE ] I'd say it's near impossible. Name for Sharkscope proof. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Online player struggling live in home game
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I play mainly online and am a winning player, cashing in 78% of my last 2500 tourneys, mainly 3 to 5 table SNG, with over a 40% first place finishes. [/ QUOTE ] I dont really play tournaments, but isnt this like insane over 2500 tournaments? nobody has mentioned it yet, but 78% cash and 40% WIN? i have a hard time fathoming that is accurate. I have no real reason to doubt you, but that seems reaaaaaallly good. [/ QUOTE ] I'd say it's near impossible. [/ QUOTE ] Depends, OP could be playing on Absolute. Or have a pattern mapper. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Online player struggling live in home game
or be pulling numbers out of his arse
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Online player struggling live in home game
Those stats are near unachievable, so in answer to your question - you aren't as good as you think and have yet to realise $3.25 donkabouts are a tad easier than $100 buyin live MTT's
Jeez did it really need all those replies before someone got to the point |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Online player struggling live in home game
[ QUOTE ]
cashing in 78% of my last 2500 tourneys, mainly 3 to 5 table SNG, with over a 40% first place finishes. [/ QUOTE ] Claims like this insult the intelligence of just about every poster on 2+2. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Online player struggling live in home game
Thak you to those that provided quality advice as I split the win 3 ways and took down the side pot for $610 over my buy in. Had to loosen up.
Oh, anyone who thinks it is impossible to finish in the top 7 out of 45 in a Stars 3.25 or 6.50 45 man SNG close to 8 out of 10 times is just mistaken. I posted this to get help with my live play, not to brag about online results. I was simply showing the disparity between the two. Call me a nit or whatever you want but it is fairly easy to pick your spots in these and cash a high percentage of the time. It is how I built my roll and now play almost all 25 and 50 NL, which is much more profitable than SNGs. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Online player struggling live in home game
SCREENAME SCUMBAG FOR PROOF
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Online player struggling live in home game
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, anyone who thinks it is impossible to finish in the top 7 out of 45 in a Stars 3.25 or 6.50 45 man SNG close to 8 out of 10 times is just mistaken [/ QUOTE ] No, I'm not mistaken, 78% cash is just isn't happening over a 2,500 sample size. But more than that, the notion that you take first place over 40% of the time (!) is beyond absurd, I don't care if it's play money. No MTT or SNG player with a significant sample size is anywhere remotely close to that and never will be. It's not even close to feasible. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Online player struggling live in home game
nh with 78% cash in 2500 tournaments you dont play the $6.5 [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Online player struggling live in home game
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Oh, anyone who thinks it is impossible to finish in the top 7 out of 45 in a Stars 3.25 or 6.50 45 man SNG close to 8 out of 10 times is just mistaken [/ QUOTE ] No, I'm not mistaken, 78% cash is just isn't happening over a 2,500 sample size. But more than that, the notion that you take first place over 40% of the time (!) is beyond absurd, I don't care if it's play money. No MTT or SNG player with a significant sample size is anywhere remotely close to that and never will be. It's not even close to feasible. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think you could win 40% of a mix of 18 and 45 player tourneys, if every other player at every other table simply made random decisions on every hand, without ever looking at their cards. I don't think you could do it if you were guaranteed to be playing the 44 worst players on pokerstars in every single tournment. If OP is legit, I appologize, but I think the claim is so primae facie unlikely as to deserve an assumption of untruth. |
|
|