Meta-Analysis Reminder/Update

[bennies]

Thanks for taking the trouble to do this, I'm eager to see the results! (I would have participated myself but I didn't qualify when you started soliciting.)

[downtown]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for taking the trouble to do this, I'm eager to see the results! (I would have participated myself but I didn't qualify when you started soliciting.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in the same boat as a 10-tabler. Also eager to see the results. I think leaving out 55s and below 10-tabling may be an oversight, as after extensively doing both, playing 8 & playing 10 are not that different in the 55s (the overwhelming bulk of my play).

In the 109s, I think there is a difference between 8 & 10 though, but that's anecdotal experience and I don't think I will try 10 enough to find out.

[skipperbob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for taking the trouble to do this, I'm eager to see the results! (I would have participated myself but I didn't qualify when you started soliciting.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in the same boat as a 10-tabler. Also eager to see the results. I think leaving out 55s and below 10-tabling may be an oversight, as after extensively doing both, playing 8 & playing 10 are not that different in the 55s (the overwhelming bulk of my play).

In the 109s, I think there is a difference between 8 & 10 though, but that's anecdotal experience and I don't think I will try 10 enough to find out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I missing something?....Irieguy's request for participants made no mention of either of your criteria?

[downtown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for taking the trouble to do this, I'm eager to see the results! (I would have participated myself but I didn't qualify when you started soliciting.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in the same boat as a 10-tabler. Also eager to see the results. I think leaving out 55s and below 10-tabling may be an oversight, as after extensively doing both, playing 8 & playing 10 are not that different in the 55s (the overwhelming bulk of my play).

In the 109s, I think there is a difference between 8 & 10 though, but that's anecdotal experience and I don't think I will try 10 enough to find out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I missing something?....Irieguy's request for participants made no mention of either of your criteria?

[/ QUOTE ]

From Irie's Original Post:

[ QUOTE ]
4. You play at least 4, and no more than 8 SNG tables at once when you play.


[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]

10+ tablers make up too small a percentage of SNG players.

Irieguy


[/ QUOTE ]



[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Why does this matter? They're still playing SnGs and there's no significant difference between how they play and how 8-tablers play.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That is totally untrue in my experience.


[/ QUOTE ]


Edit: My point was that there may well indeed be a difference between 8 & 10 tabling at the 109s+, but I do not believe this to be the case at the 55s + below. Alas, it is not my project, so I respect his decision to run it the way he will, though I am excluded since my primary game is 10-tabling the 55s.

[skipperbob]

My Bad [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]