Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local

Whats the deal with SHARKSCOPE.COM?? - READ EMAIL FROM SHARKSCOPE AT BOTTOM OF THREAD!!!

Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 21 2
  1. -aaakk- -aaakk- is offline

    Posts: 143
    Joined: Apr 06

    Apr 14th, 2006 (4/14/2006 2:47am)

    I only ever use it for pokerstars so those are the only ones I ever check - unless I've been mislead about the sngo success of certain top tier players up until now it seems that some players who are supposed absolutely OWN at s'ngos have very little or no profit(sometimes even negative profit) - but then on the other hand it has my own personal stats down to a tee(within $200 with 950 games played and average game stake of $190) Seems the only ones who i personally know who say its BS are the ones who have little or negative profit even though i KNOW they are losing players.. so whats the deal?
  2. haleike haleike is offline

    Posts: 1,749
    Joined: Jul 05

    Apr 14th, 2006 (4/14/2006 3:03am) in reply to -aaakk-

    I don't play that many sngs on stars, but my stats are seem correct.
  3. mattg1983 mattg1983 is offline buying action

    Round Rock, TX
    United States

    Posts: 8,001
    Joined: Feb 05

    Apr 14th, 2006 (4/14/2006 3:08am) in reply to -aaakk-

    basically some players with big reps have smaller game
     12
  4. truesyalose truesyalose is offline

    United States

    Posts: 6,031
    Joined: Mar 05

    Apr 14th, 2006 (4/14/2006 3:10am) in reply to -aaakk-

    mine look right. including the little shark symbol. watch out now...
    1
  5. mattg1983 mattg1983 is offline buying action

    Round Rock, TX
    United States

    Posts: 8,001
    Joined: Feb 05

    Apr 14th, 2006 (4/14/2006 3:12am) in reply to truesyalose

    hey i got a shark too ahahahahaa
     12
  6. ActionJeff ActionJeff is offline

    Boston, MA
    United States

    Posts: 3,943
    Joined: Oct 05

    Apr 14th, 2006 (4/14/2006 3:34am) in reply to mattg1983

    mine are way off.

    I requested a complete tournament report from pokerstars a few months ago and have updated every sng since then. I am up a little over $2K in about 100 stars normal SNGS, and about $30K in HU sngs. Almost all of the HU were on ActionJeff, maybe 1/3 of the other sngs were on different accounts.

    So, either they are missing a lot of data or I am not understanding something, because there is no way THAT:

    <TABLE class=sortTable id=t1><TBODY id=tablerows><TR class=sortTable id=ActionJeff#pokerstars&><TD class=sortTable align=middle>ActionJeff </TD><TD class=sortTable align=middle>111</TD><TD class=sortTable align=middle>$124</TD><TD class=sortTable align=middle>$337</TD><TD class=sortTable align=middle>-11%</TD><TD class=sortTable align=middle>$12039</TD><TD class=sortTable align=middle>Tilt</TD><TD class=sortTable align=middle>pokerstars</TD><TD class=sortTable>x</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

    is even close to correct...

    GIFAFI

    Jeff

    p.s. here are my actual stats for Stars for $100 plus SNGS....

    Count: 27 | Total Win: $96,440 - Total Rake: $1,366 - Total Buyin: $65,120 = Total Profit: $29,954

    ROI: 45.05% | Expectation: $1,109.41 | ITM: 59.26%

    thats HU, and here is normal:

    Count: 94 | Total Win: $46,078 - Total Rake: $2,427 - Total Buyin: $41,585 = Total Profit: $2,066

    ROI: 4.69% | Expectation: $21.98 | ITM: 34.04%

    now for the normal sngs this includes some on other screennames, and this is only $100 plus sngs SO my results might be a little off, but obviously not even close to THAT much off.

    "f sharkscope?"
    1
  7. basix basix is offline

    Beijing
    China

    Posts: 84
    Joined: Jan 06

    Apr 14th, 2006 (4/14/2006 3:42am) in reply to ActionJeff

    Look up elky's stats, down 42K lol,

    Hey atleast he was the first to get to supernova, even if it cost him $40,000
  8. -aaakk- -aaakk- is offline

    Posts: 143
    Joined: Apr 06

    Apr 14th, 2006 (4/14/2006 4:05am) in reply to basix

    Well AJ Im pretty sure I can believe you.. and i appreciate your contribution - I just dont understand why some ppl's stats are dead on while others arent even remotely close..

    I definitely think mattg might have a point though(once again I'm not questioning your personal stats AJeff - I definitely believe you when you say you keep good records ).. just some other players Ive played quite often in some of the higher stakes 9person sngos on stars that supposedly OWN ALL but I personally dont find them that good at all and often their sharkscopes back up my point..
    Thread Starter
  9. mudwhistle mudwhistle is offline

    Posts: 134
    Joined: Apr 06

    Apr 14th, 2006 (4/14/2006 4:08am) in reply to -aaakk-

    <table id="t1"><tbody id="tablerows"><tr id="mattg1983#ongame&"><td align="center">mattg1983 </td><td align="center">5</td><td align="center">$-150</td><td align="center">$150</td><td align="center">-100%</td><td align="center">$-805</td><td align="center">Tilt</td><td align="center">ongame</td></tr></tbody></table>
    is that right too ?
  10. ActionJeff ActionJeff is offline

    Boston, MA
    United States

    Posts: 3,943
    Joined: Oct 05

    Apr 14th, 2006 (4/14/2006 4:08am) in reply to -aaakk-

    no I see where you are coming from, it doesn't really make sense.

    Does anyone know if this includes HU sngs? Or what time frame/buy ins it is tracking?

    FYI-

    if you ever want to see your exact stats or want them for a database, you can email stars and very nicely ask for a complete report on your MTT, sng, and HU sng play. They will send them in a spreadsheet with ROI and all of those other good stats already calculated. AND, this includes exact amounts spent on rebuys!

    Stars OWNs,

    Jeff
    1
  11. Aranjuez Aranjuez is offline

    Las Vegas, NV
    United States

    Posts: 2,669
    Joined: Sep 05

    Apr 14th, 2006 (4/14/2006 4:20am) in reply to -aaakk-

    <LI>Which games are tracked? All Sit N' Go MTTs and STTs on pokerstars and All Holdem STTs on CryptoLogic. Currently scheduled tournaments are not tracked.

    <LI>How large is the database? We currently have over 7.5 million game results dating back to Nov 2004 for CryptoLogic and Feb 2005 for Pokerstars.

    <LI>Why didn't some of my results get captured? Unfortunately no result capture system is perfect and some results will occasionally get missed, especially at peak times. Normally however we have a >95% capture rate. We are constantly working to improve the efficiency of the result capturing and believe we are far superior to other alternatives on the market. Please note that the tracking rate has improved over time, so the further back you go, the more likley there may be some missing player results.

    <LI>Which games are tracked? All Sit N' Go MTTs and STTs on Pokerstars and All Holdem STTs on CryptoLogic. Currently scheduled tournaments are not tracked.

    </LI>
  12. -aaakk- -aaakk- is offline

    Posts: 143
    Joined: Apr 06

    Apr 14th, 2006 (4/14/2006 4:43am) in reply to Aranjuez

    "Normally however we have a >95% capture rate."

    Key statement.. but its not all that should be taken into account - Even if a player who supposedly dominates have only 50% of their sngo's captured, many still have counts of 400+ ... id say this sample size is still large enough to use the stats to get an idea of ones skill level..
    i guess this means that they are not only missing many sngos but also just butchering some of the data alltogether.
    Thread Starter
  13. -aaakk- -aaakk- is offline

    Posts: 143
    Joined: Apr 06

    Apr 14th, 2006 (4/14/2006 4:48am) in reply to mudwhistle

    mudwhistle why not post his pokerstars stats also? thats a 5 count sample from an unknown site! VERY MISLEADING and even if it is right - whats you point? he lost 5 sngos on a site he obv hates playing sngos on .... not a big deal
    Thread Starter
  14. mudwhistle mudwhistle is offline

    Posts: 134
    Joined: Apr 06

    Apr 14th, 2006 (4/14/2006 4:48am) in reply to -aaakk-

    " id say this sample size is still large enough to use the stats to get an idea of ones skill level.. "

    i couldnt disagree more, -aaakk-

    <table id="t1"><tbody id="tablerows"><tr id="shaniac#pokerstars&"><td align="center">shaniac </td><td align="center">432</td><td align="center">$-22</td><td align="center">$327</td><td align="center">-17%</td><td align="center">$-17458</td><td align="center">Super Tilt</td><td align="center">pokerstars</td></tr></tbody></table>

    does that really give u a good idea of ones skill level ? HALE NAW

    edit - if i used this to determine how im going to play a certain player, i would be totally fucked.
  15. Aranjuez Aranjuez is offline

    Las Vegas, NV
    United States

    Posts: 2,669
    Joined: Sep 05

    Apr 14th, 2006 (4/14/2006 4:50am) in reply to mudwhistle

    No, it doesn't. However, none us know how much shaniac has made. He said himself that despite his wins in the $100 + R he was barely even in them for the year.
  16. -aaakk- -aaakk- is offline

    Posts: 143
    Joined: Apr 06

    Apr 14th, 2006 (4/14/2006 4:54am) in reply to mudwhistle

    before you dissagree read ENTIRE posts...

    i think i might have said something along the lines of - "i guess this means that they are not only missing many sngos but also just butchering some of the data alltogether. "

    and also how are we to know FORSURE that shaniac didnt lose 6 5k hu's in a row one day after a huge mtt score and took a 30k downswing that turned him into a netloser for sngos? Obv this is probably not realistic... but still very possible!
    Thread Starter
  17. mudwhistle mudwhistle is offline

    Posts: 134
    Joined: Apr 06

    Apr 14th, 2006 (4/14/2006 4:56am) in reply to -aaakk-

    sorry.
    ;-)
  18. Cashweekly Cashweekly is offline

    United States

    Posts: 2,427
    Joined: Aug 05

    Apr 14th, 2006 (4/14/2006 5:04am) in reply to -aaakk-

    well my 79% ROI (according to sharkscope) on pokerroom, and 83% on Hollywood seem a little suspicious, but both are small samples.

    I wonder why i dont get a little fin for 26% on stars?
  19. avarice avarice is offline

    Saskatoon
    Canada

    Posts: 653
    Joined: Mar 06

    Apr 14th, 2006 (4/14/2006 11:16am) in reply to Cashweekly

    sharkscope is missing info, I find that if I multitable and finish SNG's close together it misses some of the results.
  20. DaRussian13 DaRussian13 is offline

    Roslindale, MA
    United States

    Posts: 48
    Joined: Jul 05

    Apr 14th, 2006 (4/14/2006 12:10pm) in reply to haleike

    Mine look about right.

    <TABLE class=sortTable id=t1><TBODY id=tablerows><TR class=sortTable id=DaRussian13#pokerstars&><TD class=sortTable align=middle>DaRussian13</TD><TD class=sortTable align=middle>217</TD><TD class=sortTable align=middle>$10</TD><TD class=sortTable align=middle>$17</TD><TD class=sortTable align=middle>61%</TD><TD class=sortTable align=middle>$1750</TD><TD class=sortTable align=middle>Hot</TD><TD class=sortTable align=middle>pokerstars</TD><TD class=sortTable>x</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
  21. jemenz jemenz is offline

    Elk Grove, CA
    United States

    Posts: 602
    Joined: May 05

    Apr 14th, 2006 (4/14/2006 12:31pm) in reply to avarice

    The count is huge, if the sample size is over 1000, you'll see a lot more profits, I've seen a lot of well known players in the red, but the samples sizes all tend to be 200-300 or less.
  22. -aaakk- -aaakk- is offline

    Posts: 143
    Joined: Apr 06

    Apr 14th, 2006 (4/14/2006 1:57pm) in reply to jemenz

    300 sngos isnt a large enough sample size? I'm prett sure that if I played 200-300 sngos and was a losing player after those sngos I would quit playing them.. Someone saying they are missing 10k from their sharkschope stats is one things.... but the supposed great players who have very little or negative profit after any count over 200 is just ridiculous.. either they have gotten owned or sharkscope cant even properly display the sngos that they do catch...

    my point is that a dominant player should be earning at approximately the same rate after 200 counts as they would after 500 counts - Its funny that all the dominant players that I have played with in mid-high stakes games on stars that do seriously own and earn regularly(Premier, Bax, HoldemPhil, thaaj, stevesbets and obv many more) have sharkscope stats that back up my observations.. its one thing for someone to say they are missing 20k from their stats because of untracked sngos(I can believe that most of the time) but its another thing when someguys who are making sick dough off teaching sngo strategy only have something like 2k in profit with a 700 count.. like wtf?
    Thread Starter
  23. smokeyads smokeyads is offline

    Schmargendorf
    Germany

    Posts: 66
    Joined: Feb 06

    Apr 14th, 2006 (4/14/2006 2:13pm) in reply to -aaakk-

    My stats are weird:

    <TABLE class=sortTable id=t1><TBODY id=tablerows><TR class=sortTable id=DarcyTyler#pokerstars&><TD class=sortTable align=middle>DarcyTyler </TD><TD class=sortTable align=middle>1770</TD><TD class=sortTable align=middle>$2</TD><TD class=sortTable align=middle>$11</TD><TD class=sortTable align=middle>20%</TD><TD class=sortTable align=middle>$1687</TD><TD class=sortTable align=middle>-</TD><TD class=sortTable align=middle>pokerstars</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
    Yet - i know for a fact that since December - i'm actually up around $2400 from sngs?

    Still pretty close though.
  24. DoubleLucky DoubleLucky is offline

    Las Vegas, NV
    United States

    Posts: 656
    Joined: Jan 05

    Apr 14th, 2006 (4/14/2006 4:02pm) in reply to mudwhistle

    I just contacted Sharkscope support to ask if they tracked rebuys. Here's their answer:

    "Thank you for your email. Sharkscope does not cover rebuy tournaments or
    freerolls, we simply ignore them beacuse as you say there is simply no way
    that we can track them effectively."

    There is no way Sharkscope or PocketFives or anyone else can judge the results of rebuys and that, in effect, means there is no way to judge the results of the players who play predominately rebuys.

    They could be losing more money, net, than Elky and the only way anyone would know is if they admit it -- something no rebuy junky would ever do.
    1
  25. -aaakk- -aaakk- is offline

    Posts: 143
    Joined: Apr 06

    Apr 14th, 2006 (4/14/2006 4:09pm) in reply to DoubleLucky

    Dlucky this is an SNGO tracker.. no mtt's are tracked.
    Thread Starter
  26. jsbyun jsbyun is offline

    Pleasanton, CA
    United States

    Posts: 1,849
    Joined: Feb 05

    Apr 14th, 2006 (4/14/2006 4:16pm) in reply to smokeyads

    I think there is a combination of factors here, but it's a well-known FACT that many poker players exaggerate how much money they make. Many who say or think they are winners are actually long-term losers. I'm not referring to anyone specifically, but just in general.

    I can't tell you how many times I've seen players win a lot of money regularly, brag about how much money they make, and then one day ask me for a loan. In B&M's, it's very common to find out that a player who many regard as a 'winning player' is actually a net loser and is BUSTO!

    I keep careful records, so I know exactly how much I make, but whenever I try to estimate my profits in my head, it's almost always more than my actual profit. It's just human nature.
  27. DoubleLucky DoubleLucky is offline

    Las Vegas, NV
    United States

    Posts: 656
    Joined: Jan 05

    Apr 14th, 2006 (4/14/2006 4:17pm) in reply to -aaakk-

    So the MTTs the site refers to are sit-n-gos only?

    Are you sure about that?
    1
  28. DoubleLucky DoubleLucky is offline

    Las Vegas, NV
    United States

    Posts: 656
    Joined: Jan 05

    Apr 14th, 2006 (4/14/2006 4:21pm) in reply to DoubleLucky

    OK, I see. I think I put a comma between "sit-n-go" and "MTT" that wasn't really there when I read the FAQ.

    My mistake.

    Nevermind (unless someone starts sit-n-go rebuys) ;]
    1
  29. -aaakk- -aaakk- is offline

    Posts: 143
    Joined: Apr 06

    Apr 14th, 2006 (4/14/2006 4:27pm) in reply to DoubleLucky

    lol .. I seriously want to see sngo rebuys soon(on atleast 1 site) - I personally think its a sick idea .... do any sites currently offer them?
    Thread Starter
  30. servitup servitup is offline

    Chapel Hill, NC
    United States

    Posts: 461
    Joined: Feb 05

    Apr 14th, 2006 (4/14/2006 5:02pm) in reply to jsbyun

    my stats are missing over 100 SNGs and $400 dollars. I have kept everything in PT since i rejoined stars in jan. and sharkscope is quite a bit off for me. It reports me at around $650 profit I think but I am actually over $1000.
Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 21 2

Similar Threads