#161
|
|||
|
|||
Re: FTP Regs Thread
Just out of curiousity...looking at that graph.
Count Scoopula played 42k hands, 477 hours...is taht 88 hands per hour? Most of these are somewhere around that..however its obvious that everyone multitables..so shouldnt the hands per hour be higher? |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
Re: FTP Regs Thread
[ QUOTE ]
Just out of curiousity...looking at that graph. Count Scoopula played 42k hands, 477 hours...is taht 88 hands per hour? Most of these are somewhere around that..however its obvious that everyone multitables..so shouldnt the hands per hour be higher? [/ QUOTE ] I'm pretty sure that is Total Table Hours. I know for a fact I haven't played 473 hours in 4 months. Yikes. Wife would kill me. :P |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
Re: FTP Regs Thread
im pretty sure its in table hours, and doesnt account for multitabling.
|
#164
|
|||
|
|||
Re: FTP Regs Thread
hes not always mining all the tables that the guy is playing at though
|
#165
|
|||
|
|||
Re: FTP Regs Thread
well, since it seems people don't mind screen shots...here is a screen shot of a 200nl database w/2.5 million hands since 06/01. Even though i outed my screen name in this thread, my stats are not included
|
#166
|
|||
|
|||
Re: FTP Regs Thread
Can you post the August summary?
I'm interested because the regulars shift from level to level a lot. |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
Re: FTP Regs Thread
[ QUOTE ]
Can you post the August summary? I'm interested because the regulars shift from level to level a lot. [/ QUOTE ] I have not been mining as much 200nl in august, but still have a decent sample. here it is: (must make you feel good bro) |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
Re: FTP Regs Thread
Amazing that you dont see any 30% lags in that mix.....so what is considered LAG now? 22% ?
|
#169
|
|||
|
|||
Re: FTP Regs Thread
Interesting pic. Highest ptbb/100 = 4.88. Most people are under 2!
Wasn't there a huge discussion in the cheese thread a few days back saying "that it is super easy playing 6 ptbb/100 at 200NL. You can make $200,000 a year!" lol |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
Re: FTP Regs Thread
let me just say the coverage on these databases are not even close to 100%...if i had to guess, I'd say the coverage is well below 50%.
|
|
|