Pacific Results
 

I've spent a little time at Pacific and two thing are clear. The games are possible the weakest I've seen online and the software is unquestionably the worst on the web. The thing that bugs me is my results there. I just don't make a lot of earn given the fishy nature of the games. How do you do?

Re: Pacific Results
 

It's pretty clear why your results aren't as good as you think they should be. Since you can only play one table, assuming 50 hands an hour, you would need to log like 1000 hours to get a decent measure of your winrate. Variance is a bitch.

Re: Pacific Results
 

worst software ever

Re: Pacific Results
 

I couldn't find an option for, the games will get tougher everytime a poll is made pointing all the 20,000 bottom feeders that lurk on 2+2 there.

Mack

Re: Pacific Results
 

They just upped the rake too.

Re: Pacific Results
 

[ QUOTE ]
I couldn't find an option for, the games will get tougher everytime a poll is made pointing all the 20,000 bottom feeders that lurk on 2+2 there.

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect. Real players can't stand to play there.

Re: Pacific Results
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I couldn't find an option for, the games will get tougher everytime a poll is made pointing all the 20,000 bottom feeders that lurk on 2+2 there.

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect. Real players can't stand to play there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay that's fine, I like to practice table selection, that involves 1 table on Pacific at all times when I play.

Mack

Re: Pacific Results
 

[ QUOTE ]
The thing that bugs me is my results there. I just don't make a lot of earn given the fishy nature of the games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty soon you will dub it rigged, correct?

Re: Pacific Results
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I couldn't find an option for, the games will get tougher everytime a poll is made pointing all the 20,000 bottom feeders that lurk on 2+2 there.

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect. Real players can't stand to play there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay that's fine, I like to practice table selection, that involves 1 table on Pacific at all times when I play.

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just being tounge in cheek. But seriously, this is no secret.

Re: Pacific Results
 

Sorry man, I'm a bit slow today. I think though if they allowed 4 tabling it would get very bad, very fast.

Mack

Re: Pacific Results
 

I'm looking at the poll results and they halfway confirm my opinion. I'm done with them. Rigged or not, if my earn and many others is below par then there's no reason to beat my head against the wall.

Re: Pacific Results
 

I'm one of the few that can two or three table at Pacific and I've put in the hours to smoothe out some bumps. My win rate is rock bottom.

Poll Analysis
 

73% feel that Pac games are superior (top two choices) with a whopping 61% rating Pac as the easiest games anywhere. That's quite a consensus. I concur.

52% had average or below average results. That's troubling but not impossible to square. It's possible that folks are not playing correctly in these uniquely fishy games. There's also random factors to consider. Assume Pac is the easiest game anywhere. 50 players all playing correctly will have scattered results over shorter time periods. Does this square with the data? Who knows. Also consider the validity of the data set. It's marginal.

On the other hand, players with poor results will be tempted to rate Pac's games as somewhat worse since it's difficult to admit one's own shortcomings.

All things considered, the poll is almost exactly what I expected to see and I will follow through with my plan to avoid Pacific in the future.

Re: Poll Analysis
 

I'm troubled, why exactly are you avoiding Pacific? Am I being slow again here? Now you've helped establish they are the softest games in this or any other universe, you plan to avoid them.

Mack

Re: Poll Analysis
 

"I'm troubled, why exactly are you avoiding Pacific?"

I win very little there. Looks like others are seeing similar results. Good looking games will not keep my business, I need to book winners as well.

Re: Poll Analysis
 

Started my poker career there. Left after I worked my roll up to $500 so I could abuse the Party skins. Haven't been back.

Re: Poll Analysis
 

I think you may be interpreting your poll results incorrectly, due to wording of the second question in a way that may have a different meaning to some readers than to you. You think you've found that while most agree Pac is fishier, most are getting "average" results. But, you don't define in the second question what you mean by average - average for the fishiest site or average for all poker sites? By the way you interpret the results, you seem to have meant "average for all sites", but when I was reading the poll I thought you meant "average for the fishiest site out there". (Even with that confusing wording, you still got 44% who say they do above average versus 27% who say below average, or 63% better than a neutral expectation.)

To correct that problem, you should probably ask people to state their win rate at Pac and at all other sites they play, and to name those sites. True, many people won't have that info, but that's the only way to make the 2nd question concrete and measurable.

Also, if your thesis is correct, what do you think the reason is? Unless there is a valid reason, then any deviation from average has to be simple variance in poll-taking. There are only 2 possibilities that I can think of: (1) it's rigged, or (2) playing against ultra-fish is not as profitable as one would think. Well, you probably know what everybody here thinks of the #1 option. As for #2, it may true and is an interesting find, but it is not a reason for not playing at Pac. Even if it's not as profitable as you would think, it still has to be more profitable than playing aginst stronger players.

So, I don't think your poll results are a valid reason not to play at pacific. The software, however, IS a valid reason not to play there.

Re: Poll Analysis
 

"So, I don't think your poll results are a valid reason not to play at pacific. The software, however, IS a valid reason not to play there. "

You are correct that the second poll question might be somewhat ambiguous. The fact remains that these Pac players are playing unsound poker in the extreme and it's not trickling down to my BR. They why of it is not important.

I have a similar B&M analog. This card room was action-packed with quite a lot of live players but my win rate never got much above 1 SB/hr at 10-20. After careful analysis I found my strategy lacking for the game AND the fish were not nearly as fishy as I first thought. There were a lot of smart LAGs and I was unsued to their game.

This is not the case at low limit Pac Poker. They are awful, loose morons playing junk, cold calling 3 bets and stumbling their way to the river. And they aren't dumping their chips to me.

Re: Pacific Results
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm one of the few that can two or three table at Pacific and I've put in the hours to smoothe out some bumps. My win rate is rock bottom.

[/ QUOTE ]


How do you manage to do that?

Re: Pacific Results
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm looking at the poll results and they halfway confirm my opinion. I'm done with them. Rigged or not, if my earn and many others is below par then there's no reason to beat my head against the wall.

[/ QUOTE ]

Adjust your stats to something like 32/ 1/ 2.2 for games like on Pacific ( the pfr is 1% rather than 0% because for every 10th round you might actually be 1st to act on the button haha.)

Re: Poll Analysis
 

[ QUOTE ]
The fact remains that these Pac players are playing unsound poker in the extreme and it's not trickling down to my BR. The why of it is not important.

I have a similar B&M analog. This card room was action-packed with quite a lot of live players but my win rate never got much above 1 SB/hr at 10-20. After careful analysis I found my strategy lacking for the game AND the fish were not nearly as fishy as I first thought. There were a lot of smart LAGs and I was unsued to their game.

This is not the case at low limit Pac Poker. They are awful, loose morons playing junk, cold calling 3 bets and stumbling their way to the river. And they aren't dumping their chips to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, certainly, if it's not profitable for you, then you shouldn't play it. And even if it is theoretically beatable, maybe it doesn't pay enough to change your style just for that game if it might interfere with your other play.

But I think "the why of it" IS important, at least for others of us who are reading your post and trying to draw conclusions for ourselves. The reason I think the why is important is that we've all found cases where stats can be distorted, even over 10K or 20K or more hands, especially when the stat we're looking at is win rate. If there aren't valid reasons to support a win rate observation, then I would be very cautious about drawing conclusions from it.

The way you describe the game - "...at low limit Pac Poker...They are awful, loose morons playing junk, cold calling 3 bets and stumbling their way to the river..." - sure sounds like it should be beatable with solid, conservative TAG play. Variance is going to be high with that kind of play, so again I wouldn't put too much faith in any short- or medium-term win rate figures, but just the nature of the play sounds like an opportunity.

I had actually quit playing Pac about 6 months ago because I thought their software was contributing to crash problems I was having. But I've bought a new computer since then, so for myself, I think I'll go back to including one Pac game to my play.

Re: Poll Analysis
 

[ QUOTE ]
Good looking games will not keep my business, I need to book winners as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try a new game then.

Re: Pacific Results
 

it's a terrible site and shouldn't be anyone's "home" but i have to say that the 10K/15K/50K MTT's there are so soft that i don't know how you couldn't play them. i keep some money there just to play the 10K and 15K offered all day long and the 50K on sunday, not saying they have the best MTT structure around but i like them enough to keep a little money there to play sometimes.