Online player struggling live in home game

[Obfuscation]

[ 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.

[sixfour]

[ 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.

[eof]

or be pulling numbers out of his arse

[inyourface]

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

[Gonso]

[ 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.

[Nairb]

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.

[inyourface]

SCREENAME SCUMBAG FOR PROOF

[Gonso]

[ 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.

[K21]

nh with 78% cash in 2500 tournaments you dont play the $6.5 [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Zetack]

[ 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.