Sharkscope NLTRN

[XxPenguinxX]

This is my first post for a while - I used to be one of the few regulars on this forum when it was really quiet, and have just got back from a bit of a poker break.

I've been reading posts here for a few days, and have developed a bit of a bugbear. Many posts analyse decisions in the context of "villain is a losing player on Sharkscope" - how can this possibly be relevant?

It is definitely -EV to base any decision other than whether or not to sit down on Sharkscope, and I'm curious to know why people do it.

[Deewhizzle]

If you use the advance search engine on player you can tell how they have been playing LATELY. also i dont see how its -ev to wabt to play a loosing player rather than a winning player. while im positive its not 100% accurate,i am sure that it is a good example of how goos a player might be. i mean its common sense, would you rather sit at a table with a player who is +$5k total profit over 1500 games with an average stake of $50, & a roi of say...10% or a player , who is -$5k total profit over 1500 games withea $50 av. stake, and an roi of -10%? its simple. its +ev to play loosing players period. you may run into a few players who played poorly for a few years then got good, that still show poor stats,but thats why you use the advance search. it obv, doesnt garauntee a win but it gives you an edge on the plyer by knowing that they suck, and it can help you avoid players that are consistant winners at your level

[PrimordialAA]

Ok, wait, I don't believe that it's irrelevant at ALL. If you filter for turbo HU S&Gs, and see someone who has played 2k games at a -11% ROI, to possibly be that bad they have to be doing something extroidinarily wrong, either WAYYYYYYYYYYY too tight (doubtful), or somehow crazy, usually you can find out what it is they do in the first 5 min, and exploit it, for instance they may 3bet wayyy too light, etc., but I dont think playing games with losing players is a bad idea by any means... how is it not relevant?

[Deewhizzle]

[ QUOTE ]
... how is it not relevant?

[/ QUOTE ]

[TNixon]

To quote the original poster:

[ QUOTE ]
It is definitely -EV to base any decision other than whether or not to sit down on Sharkscope

[/ QUOTE ]

My read on this is that he believes the decision to play the person or not is an appropriate use of Sharkscope data, but is saying that's the *ONLY* decision that can be based on whether somebody's a loser on SS or not.

Bad players are bad in many different ways, and SS only tells you they're bad, not how. So the fact that they're a loser on sharkscope really has no bearing whatsoever on the analysis of a particular hand.

It certainly can't be the entire basis for a "read" on a player, and is definitely not a substitute for match history, but it seems a lot of people try to use it that way when posting hands.

In fact, it could be argued that if you even post the fact that the player is a loser on SS when posting a hand, that you already are putting too much importance on that stat, which is basically meaningless in that context.

How'd I do in your defense, Penguin? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[PrimordialAA]

OK, so just curious, let's say your playing 3 different opponents with 3 different hands all in the same scenario:

Opp 1: 5,000 -17% -30,000
Opp 2: 5,000 15% +28,000
Opp 3: 7 -1% -208

Hand 1: AKs
Hand 2: JJ
Hand 3: 77

Situation, the VERY FIRST hand, your in the BB, they make it 60, you 3bet to 200, they shove

personally this plays a bit differently for me, but let me know if you play these exactly the same (all permutations of hands / opponents)

[PrimordialAA]

P.s., all stats are filtered for heads up turbo S&Gs [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Indiana]

i often sit first and use sharkscope to help me know how to play the opponent. against winning players certain plays will work that won't work against donkeys. I feel like pretty much anybody at the 55s/115s is going to be a dog to me (i have an ego) so I just use SS to figure out how to play them best.

Obviously sitting with fish is going to help your ROI a little over the long run BUT I think that people really misuse the statistics a lot. I mean, in the words of Lennox Lewis, "styles make fights." I do better agaisnt some of the sharks than I do against some of the fish. Basically, my style does poorly against a fair number of the fish. But yes, SS will give you a slightly better ROI over say, 1000 games or so.

Indy

[PrimordialAA]

haha, im the opposite however, I feel that alot of plays will work on winning players and against the donks you can't make plays, just gotta go ABC most of the time, but I guess it depends on their style of weirdness ;p

[Indiana]

[ QUOTE ]
haha, im the opposite however, I feel that alot of plays will work on winning players and against the donks you can't make plays, just gotta go ABC most of the time, but I guess it depends on their style of weirdness ;p

[/ QUOTE ]

that's what im saying.