|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: When will poker no longer be broadcast as prime time television? | |||
| Never |
   
|
33 | 21.85% |
| 10 or more years |
  
|
9 | 5.96% |
| 5 to 10 years |
  
|
18 | 11.92% |
| 3 to 5 years |
  
|
58 | 38.41% |
| 1 to 2 years |
  
|
33 | 21.85% |
| Voters: 151. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#13
11-22-2005, 11:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
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. 
|
|
#14
11-22-2005, 11:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#17
11-22-2005, 01:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#18
11-22-2005, 01:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#19
11-22-2005, 01:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
|
#20
11-22-2005, 01:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.)
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
