Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleFly
What I find amusing about making fun of other regs is that everyone here has a win rate between 1.5 and 3.5 (ie a very narrow range). It's really splitting hairs to say someone "sucks". :-)
Esp since a few changes in anyone's game or a change in the overall play of the games can cause one to move from the bottom to the top of the range and vice versa. And we've all seen plenty of examples of both.
Anyway, carry on! :-)
I take offense to this as my winrate at 400nl so far is an extremely pedestrian .65
.
In all seriousness, the 'suck' discussion is interesting because it is all relative. Does a 2 ptbb/100 winner at 400nl 'suck' compared to a 4 ptbb/100 winner at 2000nl? Sure, but it doent mean the former is a bad player. Given that the vast majority of players (some say up to 90%) are losers, just to be able to beat a mid-stakes game implies a certain degree of competence, and to beat it at a decent clip like 2-4 ptbb/100 means even more. Are these types of winners the 'best' or most creative players? Maybe not, but to say they suck seems a bit unfair.
Last night I went to an AHL game (hockey's top minor league - the equivalent to Triple A baseball), and was commenting that the players, compared to the overwhelming majority of hockey players across the planet, are amazing. I mean, these guys are terrific players. However, compared to the guys at the NHL they don't look very good at all. Harkening back to the previous discussion, do they 'suck'? Not at all. The only context in which they suck is when you compare them to the people at the next level up.
Hope this makes some sense. I'm breathing chlorine vapor at the inddor pool of our hotel and might have a seizure soon.