Channel
@Pingpongpicks
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Polls · Citations · Cite this entry
50subscribers
-2 since we began measuring on 8 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.
| Telegram ID | -1002770301017 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @Pingpongpicks |
| Created | Between 1 June 2025 and 30 September 2025— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 10 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 22 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 3 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 22 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/Pingpongpicks |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 22 Aug 2026, 17:13 | 50 | -2 |
| 10 Aug 2026, 10:02 | 52 | no change |
| 8 Aug 2026, 00:02 | 52 | first reading |
20 posts held, back to 29 April 2026 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 1 pageof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
Nothing published in the last 30 days. ERR and ER are rolling 30-day measures, so there is nothing to compute — we hold 20 posts for this entry, the most recent from 2 June 2026. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.
9 reactions across 5 posts, in 4 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 44.4% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 💩 | 4 | 44.4% | |
| ❤ | 2 | 22.2% | |
| 👎 | 2 | 22.2% | |
| 🔥 | 1 | 11.1% |
No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.
Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.
Coverage. Reactions were read on 6 of the 20 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 9reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 20 most recent posts we hold, published 29 April 2026 to 2 June 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.
Zika vs Sedlacek – Liga Pro | 18:30 Over 75.5 points Reasoning: This match is crucial for qualification to the final, which often leads to a more focused and competitive approach from both players. In these situations, players tend to value each point more and avoid forcing unnecessary risks. Zika and Sedlacek are capable of keeping sets close when the stakes are high, and that usually translates into scores that …
💩4
React if you got it!
"Zika vs Cabis – Liga Pro | 16:30" Over 75.5 points Reasoning: Zika and Cabis are the kind of players who often keep matches competitive from start to finish. Even when one player gains momentum, the other usually finds a way to stay in the set, which helps keep scores close. This matchup has the potential to produce several tight sets, where neither side creates a significant gap. When sets remain competitive, th…
👎2
Kowalczyk vs Wnek - TT Elite Series | 20:45 Under 75.5 points Reasoning: This matchup has the potential to become more about momentum than long balanced exchanges. When one of these players gains confidence inside a set, the score can separate pretty quickly instead of staying point by point. That’s important for a total like 75.5, because a couple of sets ending with comfortable margins already take away a lot of…
Huk vs Ruzicka – Liga Pro | 13:00 Over 75.5 points Reasoning: Huk and Ruzicka have styles that can easily keep the match competitive from set to set. Huk usually prefers controlled play and tries to stay consistent during rallies, while Ruzicka often keeps pressure on the opponent without taking too many unnecessary risks. That balance can create sets where the score stays close for most of the time instead of end…
"Prokupek vs Cermak – Liga Pro | 12:00" Over 75.5 points Reasoning: This matchup looks more balanced than the line suggests. Prokupek usually plays at a steady pace and doesn’t give away many easy points, while Cermak is the kind of player who stays involved in sets even after difficult starts. Because of that, sets can easily become competitive without needing spectacular rallies. The important part here is that …
❤1
Zika vs Revay – Liga Pro | 20:00 Over 75.5 points Reasoning: Zika and Revay usually match up quite well in terms of intensity, and that often creates sets where neither player fully takes control. Revay tends to stay aggressive but can also allow opponents back into sets, while Zika usually keeps a stable rhythm and competes well on longer exchanges. Because of that, this matchup feels more likely to produce tight…
Barta vs Nguyen – Liga Pro | 16:00 Over 75.5 points Reasoning: Barta usually plays with a controlled rhythm, while Nguyen is the type of player who can stay competitive throughout the match even after losing momentum. That combination often leads to sets where the gap stays small for a long time. Rather than quick finishes, this matchup looks more suited for close scoring phases, especially if both players settle …
❤1
React if you got it
Barta vs Kostal – Liga Pro | 12:00 Over 75.5 points Reasoning: Barta and Kostal are the kind of players who usually keep sets competitive even when momentum changes during the match. Neither of them consistently closes sets quickly, which often leads to scores staying close deep into the set. Kostal tends to stay aggressive on important points, while Barta usually responds well in longer exchanges instead of forci…
For those who voted for the TT Elite Series Poland, please message me in chat with the name of your bookmaker so I can check the over/under lines they're offering
Cherednichenko vs Abdunazarov – Masters Russia League C Over 108.5 points Odd: 1.8 Starts in about 40 minutes, after Kataev vs Tkachenko Reasoning: Cherednichenko usually plays with a steady tempo, while Abdunazarov tends to stay competitive even when he’s under pressure. This often creates matches where the balance doesn’t break easily. Instead of one player running away, you often get sets that stay open for mo…
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @Pingpongpicks. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
The poll we hold for this entry, as Telegram rendered it when we read the post. A poll’s figures keep moving after that, so each one is dated.
Guys, let me know which tournament you prefer for your bets
The shares total 163%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.
Percentages only — there are no per-option vote counts here, because Telegram publishes none.The public post preview gives each option’s share and a single voter total, and nothing else. Multiplying one by the other would produce a per-option tally that looks measured and is not: the shares are rounded to whole numbers before we ever see them. We print what was published and leave the column that does not exist empty.
The shares need not add up to 100.Rounding alone puts many polls at 99 or 101. A poll that allows more than one answer per voter runs well past 100 by design, and several here do. The bars are drawn against a fixed 100% track at each option’s own percentage rather than normalised to the total, so a poll that exceeds it shows that it does instead of being quietly rescaled.
Read from the 20 most recent posts we hold, published 29 April 2026 to 2 June 2026. Telegram labels each poll by kind — an anonymous poll, a quiz, a closed set of final results — and that label is reproduced rather than paraphrased.
Citation-graph rank — 1,391,717 of 1,583,249entries in the measured graph. A weighted position computed from the forward and mention edges below — republished posts weigh more than named mentions — and recomputed periodically, over the whole graph. Published only as this ordinal position, never as a score: a position is a fact, and a score printed beside one channel’s name would read as a verdict this register does not make. The two counts beneath stay separate for the same reason mentions are never summed with forwards anywhere else on this page — a named-by count costs nothing to manufacture. The top 100 by this measure, or how it is computed.
Named by 1 registered channel — every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched — that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it.
Named by
Channels on the register whose posts name this channel's handle.
A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 22 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Ping Pong Pickss” (@Pingpongpicks), 50 subscribers as measured 22 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/Pingpongpicks.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.