$22 - Blocking Sharkscope

[kevkev60614]

[ QUOTE ]
As of the 21st May 2006 we have a new data removal policy. You may click here or email support@sharkscope.com stating the username(s)/network(s) you wish to be removed and your data will be made inaccessible to all free users. Paying subscribers will still be able to see your number of games played, along with your ROI data and form. All other statistics including average profit, average stake and total profit will be inaccessible, along with all the remaining graphs. Hence, once blocked in this manner, no one will be able to calculate your total amount won or lost. All usernames blocked prior to this policy change will remain completely blocked from all users.


[/ QUOTE ]
Couldn't find whether this has been discussed before. From the point of view of a $22er...

Also, if you've blocked your name from sharscope, why'd you do it?

[bones]

Given that it says 33% of all players are winners, I wouldn't care either way. It's obviously worthless and anybody who relies on it in any way is a total moron.

[Knight Vision]

I think the 33% thing we heard the other day was less than scientific. It's accurate for me and I don't think many people have debated its accuracy of their stats (I could easily be wrong though).

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
Given that it says 33% of all players are winners, I wouldn't care either way. It's obviously worthless and anybody who relies on it in any way is a total moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the other hand, I think the people who play at Stars have commented in the past that it seems pretty accurate. I haven't seen it miss very many of my games or give incorrect results when it does find those games.

I also wonder if the 33% comment was based on the percentage of people who had positive ROIs under their old system of calculating, which neglected the rake.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Given that it says 33% of all players are winners, I wouldn't care either way. It's obviously worthless and anybody who relies on it in any way is a total moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the other hand, I think the people who play at Stars have commented in the past that it seems pretty accurate. I haven't seen it miss very many of my games or give incorrect results when it does find those games.

I also wonder if the 33% comment was based on the percentage of people who had positive ROIs under their old system of calculating, which neglected the rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

It includes rake now? Wow, I am behind the times, but it does seem accurate.

I love sharkscope, and I think it helps a lot. Here's an example, I raise preflop and and get called, and then I am a facing a raise and I say, "wow, you'd have to be an idiot to call here with anything that connected to that flop." So I request time, go on sharkscope, and see the guy is down $3K, yep, he's dumb enough to have hit the flop and fold.

[billxo1b]

I think that their stats/charts are helpful. I would play differently if my opponent is 15% ROI over >1000 games(e.g., amazingervin) vs. someone who lost 10k in 2000 games.

BTW, I think their stats are very accurate, at least for the recent games.

[djames]

Off the cuff, I thought 33% winners sounded super high. Then I messed around in Excel. So is it still super high?

(Note, the buyin here is irrelevant.)

Pick 9 ROI's of your choice & see if there's enough money to go around. I actually picked 1 ROI of 15% for the first guy. Then I asked Excel's "Solver" to tell me what constant reduction in ROI would I need so that the total dollars passed back the $450 available. It was about 6% & this results in 33% winning players.

buyin ROI E[cash]
55 0.150 63.250
55 0.090 59.938
55 0.030 56.625
55 -0.031 53.313
55 -0.091 50.000
55 -0.151 46.688
55 -0.211 43.375
55 -0.272 40.063
55 -0.332 36.750
sum 450
% winners 0.333

Now, this probably is a joke since surely there aren't players that are so bad that they earn a -33% ROI, right? I mean they wouldn't keep playing. But, what if a constant decrement isn't right? Are there enough -18% ROI players to make this true?

buyin ROI E[cash]
55 0.150 63.250
55 0.090 59.938
55 0.030 56.625
55 -0.181 45.031
55 -0.181 45.031
55 -0.181 45.031
55 -0.181 45.031
55 -0.181 45.031
55 -0.181 45.031

sum 449.999999

% winners 0.333


Anyway .. obviously there are a ton of combinations of ROI's that satisfy the above logic. Maybe 33% is reasonable, maybe it isn't. I think it's more believable to me than before this thread.

[curtains]

It seems very accurate to me, or at least accurate enough. I wouldn't block myself, whats the point.

[sng-sam]

IMHO....

1. It's pretty damn accurate.
2. It's fairly useless below $55+5 for me as a player.
3. I know that "I" try to stear clear of SMT's (solid multitablers) as defined as players with 1000+ tournaments with 10% or greater ROI. It also allows me to put them on a better range when deciding to call a push.
4. I think it's possible that others stay out of my way becuase I have a SMT type stats. For this reason (advertising) I don't block my stats. I suppose that once I get up into the higher buy ins I may feel diffently. But until I'm playing the 109s..I'm fine with not being blocked.

5. There are without a shadow of a doubt players with -33% ROI's...try this exercise..go to a 10 $55+5's and run everyone through the engine. If can't find "AT LEAST" 5 players (roughly 10%) who have lost OVER 7k (I've seen as high as <font color="red"> -27k</font> )playing sng's I will be shocked out of my mind. Even at the $55+5's where supposedly play improves...there are TON's of donks.

As I said...this is my opinion they are like belly buttons...er or some other body part though.

Straight Flushes,

SAM

[Confused1]

I use sharkscope when I'm playing few, higher tables. At the $100+ level, people break pretty wide into three camps - winners (constant upward trend, at least lately), 'break-eveners'(they know to push, but call too much probably), and HUGE losers - some I've played with are stuck $50K+ at average $100 stakes. Those guys might call you if you open push the first hand UTG with KQ.

I think it's very informative to see whose who quickly. Then when you are assigning ranges, they're a lot closer to reality.

When someone 'hides', I assume they are huge losers until proven otherwise. Any paying subscriber can still see # games and avg ROI - and it's either big negative or a nice positive - you still can put them in the right 'camp'.

I wouldn't hide. I doubt anyone at the $22's is using it effectively anyway.