|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Who is the worst team in the NFL? | |||
| Tampa Bay |
   
|
0 | 0% |
| Arizona |
  
|
2 | 1.13% |
| Cleveland |
  
|
0 | 0% |
| Tennessee |
  
|
8 | 4.52% |
| Houston |
  
|
4 | 2.26% |
| Oakland |
  
|
146 | 82.49% |
| Detroit |
|
14 | 7.91% |
| Miami |
|
2 | 1.13% |
| Green Bay |
|
1 | 0.56% |
| Voters: 177. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#11
09-14-2007, 01:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: fast tables only
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand the problem between connection and fast cash game table if you have a network problem you are sitout until you come back ... [/ QUOTE ] there is no "all in protection" therefore if you have problems after the cards are dealt you will be check/folded. This is extremely irritating when you hold AA, there is some wild betting before u and then u time out and fold.... 
|
|
#12
09-14-2007, 02:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: fast tables only
[ QUOTE ]
in my highly scientifical observations on a busy night. these numbers are typical of an avg lineup of NL100 PS normal tables avg= 60 hands/hr PS Fast tables avg= 100 hands/hr FTP Tables avg= 75 hands/hr for some reason people take longer at NL200, so lower all numbers by about 12-15%. but there are more fast tables anyways at nl200. I would not move all tables to fast. I think the way its setup now is fast and efficient. If someone wants to only play fast tables then they have that option. [/ QUOTE ] that's totally wrong, your numbers for fast tables are way off.
|
|
#13
09-14-2007, 02:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: fast tables only
Have you ever noticed that the fast tables play significantly tighter than the regular ones? Getting rid of the "slow" tables is -EV.
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
