|
|
#11
11-09-2007, 08:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: SNG Planet 2007 Sit N Go Survey
That startracker site is WAY off.
I had pokertracker go weird on me when requesting tourney histories so I accidentally entered the tourney number into the "request last XX tourneys" box and I got an email that said, "You've requested your last 6,334,204 tourneys but you've only played 5,772. Here are the results for your last 5772 tourneys." I'd say less than 100 are MTTs so I have about 5700 SnGs on stars. Sharkscope shows 4600 and StarTracker shows a pitiful 1216. 
|
|
#13
11-09-2007, 09:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: SNG Planet 2007 Sit N Go Survey
Is there a sampling bias? I remember Prophecy screwing up because of the way it recorded tournaments and making everyone's win rates too high. Sharkscope very occasionally misses things (like less than 1% if at all), but those misses seem to be random.
|
|
#14
11-09-2007, 10:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: SNG Planet 2007 Sit N Go Survey
[ QUOTE ]
That startracker site is WAY off. I had pokertracker go weird on me when requesting tourney histories so I accidentally entered the tourney number into the "request last XX tourneys" box and I got an email that said, "You've requested your last 6,334,204 tourneys but you've only played 5,772. Here are the results for your last 5772 tourneys." I'd say less than 100 are MTTs so I have about 5700 SnGs on stars. Sharkscope shows 4600 and StarTracker shows a pitiful 1216. [/ QUOTE ] Was this during the survey period (Dec2006 to July2007)? If so, then pity the survey is not more comprehensive. However, 1216 is a pretty good sample. Do you have any idea how close their sample results were to your actual results?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
