![]() |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
187 hands, 3.04%
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Party 15/30
288 hands VPIP 7.95 Party 30/60 414 hands VPIP 9.90 Amazing considering that the games are often 6 or 7 handed with all the sitting out. Tuco. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
5.13 over 117 hands at PP 1/2.
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
301 hands, 6.64 VP$IP, 4.65 PFR, overall loser at 2/4.
The super tighties with 100+ hands are almost universally down money in my PT database. Martin |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In regards to these players some of this would be due to small sample size and selecting out routine tight players say 12% VPIP who are having a 100 hand run of unplayable cards. This would also explain their tendency to be losing players in your databases.
Granted this is not the likely explanation of some of the extreme examples with more hands. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
104 hands, 5.77 VPIP, down $40
99 hands, 8.08 VPIP, down $17 189 hands, 8.99 VPIP, up $38 100 hands, 10.00 VPIP, down $34.50 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
With 111 hands one guy is at 4.2 yes, that was 4.2
My next lowest jumps to 9.16 |
![]() |
|
|