|
|
#12
12-26-2006, 02:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 60$ vs 109$ SnGs?
O RLY?
well first off I have played close to 5k 60s so I think I have some experience at that level. Second of all a 15% ROI for the 60s turbos equals to $9 per sng played and if you look at the sharkscope leaderboard for average profit at the 36-100 lvl, there is ONLY 5 ppl that have this 15% ROI or better AND their sample is ONLY 500 which is a SMALL sample. The term "longterm" should be 10k+ sngs atleast. Sure not everybody on the 36-100 leaderboard play the 60s but most of them do. Your simply out of your mind if you tell me that somebody can achieve a 15% ROI at the 60s for 10k+ sngs when playing 4+ tables (even 1-tabling would be hard). BB John who I think is one of the best sng grinders only has a 7% ROI at the 60s! So you think some guy can get 15% over 10k+ sngs. Right I think this should prove my point. P.S. sry if this sounded like an arrogant post but I felt your question was too [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] 
|
|
#13
12-26-2006, 02:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 60$ vs 109$ SnGs?
My post sounded arrogant? You claimed that something was impossible providing no evidence. Of course someone is going to question it.
Also, your post seems to claim that Horror is lying about running at 18% over 2K SNGs.
|
|
#14
12-26-2006, 03:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 60$ vs 109$ SnGs?
[ QUOTE ]
My post sounded arrogant? You claimed that something was impossible providing no evidence. Of course someone is going to question it. Also, your post seems to claim that Horror is lying about running at 18% over 2K SNGs. [/ QUOTE ] I apparently misinterpreted your post. For some reason I thought you meant the top 5 players only had samples of 500, not that sharkscope only did the last 500.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
