Will you keep your Sharkscope stats public?

[Klinzmann]

After Sharkscope has to stop displaying winnings and ROI, will you go through the trouble of transfering $0.03 back and forth to keep all your stats public?

If you don't know what I'm talking about, read this thread from MTTc. http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rt=all&vc=1

[Quetzo]

I'm paying for Sharkscope now and I would continue to pay for it if it remained the same, but when Stars makes this happen I won't pay for Sharkscope and I will not opt in.

[Jimmy James]

Nope...took them down a long time ago, and will still opt out. Too many people look you up and won't play hands with you if you're a good player.

[Klinzmann]

[ QUOTE ]
Too many people look you up and won't play hands with you if you're a good player.

[/ QUOTE ]

They will also assume you are a nit and therefor shove wider into you [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[hiho]

So are all stats being deleted or just some of them?

[mutigers5591]

yes just to brag

[sixfour]

Play on Tilt so I don't really care

[Luisgallo]

I have been paying for it and I find it a very useful tool especially for buy ins between 16s and 60s to a certain extent I consider it a ROI maximizer.

Actually although most of the players here seem being neutral to it I would like to remind of how many times reads are expressed in the form of "unknown winning player", "regular losing player", "unknown who was winning at lower buy in".

Those reads come from sharkscope and have been part of discussions and certainly part of the decision process for a specific move.

I am not entering into PS decision to stop providing datas, this is another subject, what I believe is that whoever (at the buy ins mentioned before) in this forum did not use it left apart a big benefit to his game.

I make an example: yestrday I was 12 tabling 60s and on 7 tables I had a guy, what would it be your standard read on the guy? REGULAR; how would you adapt your game? shoving tighter and calling wider right? WRONG! I sharkscoped him and he was yes a regular, but a regular losing player who lost 6k in 2k games.

Now would somebody tell me how in the future would you differ a winning regular to a losing one?

Bottom line: I will stop paying for sharkscope because it will be useless and I did not decide yet whether I will opt in or out, I am pretty sure I like people folding to my raises.

[Sober]

Sigh. I guess I'm switching sites again.

[Albert Silver]

[ QUOTE ]
I have been paying for it and I find it a very useful tool especially for buy ins between 16s and 60s to a certain extent I consider it a ROI maximizer.

Actually although most of the players here seem being neutral to it I would like to remind of how many times reads are expressed in the form of "unknown winning player", "regular losing player", "unknown who was winning at lower buy in".

Those reads come from sharkscope and have been part of discussions and certainly part of the decision process for a specific move.

I am not entering into PS decision to stop providing datas, this is another subject, what I believe is that whoever (at the buy ins mentioned before) in this forum did not use it left apart a big benefit to his game.

I make an example: yestrday I was 12 tabling 60s and on 7 tables I had a guy, what would it be your standard read on the guy? REGULAR; how would you adapt your game? shoving tighter and calling wider right? WRONG! I sharkscoped him and he was yes a regular, but a regular losing player who lost 6k in 2k games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I'm intrigued. I wrote a post berating Lee Jones for an article he wrote, that supposedly influenced this decision, mostly because I failed to see the serious playing benefit from using Sharkscope and co. other than noting who the winners are (avoiding their tables if they scare you).

I use the stats PokerOffice compiles mostly when it comes to playing decisions. ROI info is more for table selection. The reason (perhaps flawed) is that telling me a guy has a -5% ROI, tells me he is losing, but not where his main leaks are.

ex: Is he too loose PF? Too loose Post-flop? Does he suffer from bad bubble decisions? Crappy blind defense? etc.

If I've missed something obvious, please tell me. If so, I have no doubt I will be called idiot by many, but that's a small price to learn something useful.

Albert