Re: OT: 81,000 players on party
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i never thought that it counted me twice if I was on two tables.

I still don't believe this is correct...not sure why so many people think this in the past few weeks (because I don't remember anyone saying that until recently).


If you were on Party and Empire at the same time obviously you were counted twice.


Also - if you are logged-on but playing on zero tables you are still counted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Repeat after me, Bob: tables. That's a hard number. If it says, "81,423 players on 10,057 tables", there are 10,057 tables of poker being played at that time.

Also, according to my datamining, the average table VPIP's have been decreasing over the past few weeks, while the number of "players" has been increasing. What does that tell you?

[/ QUOTE ]

wtf.. there are 10 people per table! no way they count you twice when you consider how many people have th eclient open but are not playing.

Re: OT: 81,000 players on party
 

Well when the number of tables starts exceeding the number of players we'll know the TAGs have really taken over.

Re: OT: 81,000 players on party
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well when the number of tables starts exceeding the number of players we'll know the TAGs have really taken over.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know why this is so hard for you guys to understand. When it says 80,000 "players", that's the number of "seats" that are being filled at the tables. If I'm playing 6 tables, then I'm occupying 6 seats, and I show up as 6 players in the count.

To make it as simple as possible, if there were 3 tables with 24 individual players each only playing one game, it would say "24 players on 3 tables". If those same 3 tables had 3 players playing 8 games each, it would still say "24 players on 3 tables".

tables = tables
players = occupied seats

Re: OT: 81,000 players on party
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well when the number of tables starts exceeding the number of players we'll know the TAGs have really taken over.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know why this is so hard for you guys to understand. When it says 80,000 "players", that's the number of "seats" that are being filled at the tables. If I'm playing 6 tables, then I'm occupying 6 seats, and I show up as 6 players in the count.

To make it as simple as possible, if there were 3 tables with 24 individual players each only playing one game, it would say "24 players on 3 tables". If those same 3 tables had 3 players playing 8 games each, it would still say "24 players on 3 tables".

tables = tables
players = occupied seats

[/ QUOTE ]

they understand what you are saying, and they are disagreeing with it. Nothing is going over anyone's head here, so your post read kind of funny.

If you have a link to where it shows how party counts players and tables, that would be great. Otherwise, what you are saying is just hearsay for now.

Re: OT: 81,000 players on party
 

[ QUOTE ]
You really think that party could have signed up more then 10% extra new players in a week?

[/ QUOTE ]

because they went from 70k to80k in a week doesnt mean anything. Just because someone has a party account doesnt mean that they play every night. Assuming that those numbers are logins and not multitablers, u have to remember that there are always more accounts out there than there are being represented online in a given night. This could easily account for fluctuations as well in online players on any given night.

As a previous poster said before the party split, anyone that wanted to play 8 tables or more could easily do so with the skins.

Re: OT: 81,000 players on party
 

thing you're missing is, you're assuming that beating the average 2+2'er is "hard." That's not the case at all. Beating the average 2+2'er at NL 400 to NL 1K is actually quite easy.

Re: OT: 81,000 players on party
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also - if you are logged-on but playing on zero tables you are still counted.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe this to be the case. If you can prove it to me otherwise, I'll change my mind, but it is my understanding that you have to be a "seated" player to be counted in those totals.

Re: OT: 81,000 players on party
 

[ QUOTE ]
they won't be the ones using the new software; the tag's will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could always do >4 tables ma'am.

Fish could possibly try going for more than 4.

I don't see how this is hurting anything.