OT: Shark Leaderboards and Full Tilt?

[Jimmy James]

Any reason there is like no one on the Sharkscope leader boards from Full Tilt Poker? Seem likes just about everyone is from Pokerstars with a few Cryptologic players throw in. I think I've only ran across one person who was from Full Tilt that was on a leader board.

Does Sharkscope not pull Full Tilt stats effectively, or do all the SNG players on Full Tilt just suck compared to Pokerstars' players?

[johnnyknish]

my guess is the pros like pokerstars better...just a hunch. pokerstars offers better reweards for regulars. and i believe has softer competition.

[TheNoodleMan]

I dont know what criteria you are using, but using: Hold em 9-10 seat Turbo, last 12 months (total profit), any stakes, I see 15 stars players and 5 FT.

[Al P]

I switched to FTP and played some $5 and $10 SnGs. I was able to keep up in the top 20 of the leaderboard (that's the FTP leaderboard not the Sharkscope leaderboard) and I was only playing 20 games per day. So obviously the overall volume is pretty low since you can play $24 buy-ins for the same leaderboard.

However I ran pretty bad and stopped at 600 games with my -40% ROI lololol. My first 200 $5 games had a -65% ROI lolol - I couldn't do that bad if I tried. Over 4,000 games on stars with an overall 13% ROI at $5/$10/$20 buyins.

[Jimmy James]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont know what criteria you are using, but using: Hold em 9-10 seat Turbo, last 12 months (total profit), any stakes, I see 15 stars players and 5 FT.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was searching $6-15 Holdem 9-10 Seated Turbo (no Full Tilt people), $6-15 Holdem 9-10 Seated (no Full Tilt people), $6-15 5-6 seated Turbo (no Full Tilt people) and $6-15 any game 5-6 seated (one Full Tilt person).

I did find a few in the $16-35 leader boards for 9-10 mans (none for 5-6 mans). Never looked at these because I don't play those stakes.

Just seems really odd since Full Tilt has a ton of SNG's going all the time. Seems like they would be represented more on the leader boards than the obscure Cryptologic or Ongame sites...

[TheNoodleMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont know what criteria you are using, but using: Hold em 9-10 seat Turbo, last 12 months (total profit), any stakes, I see 15 stars players and 5 FT.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was searching $6-15 Holdem 9-10 Seated Turbo (no Full Tilt people), $6-15 Holdem 9-10 Seated (no Full Tilt people), $6-15 5-6 seated Turbo (no Full Tilt people) and $6-15 any game 5-6 seated (one Full Tilt person).

I did find a few in the $16-35 leader boards for 9-10 mans (none for 5-6 mans). Never looked at these because I don't play those stakes.

Just seems really odd since Full Tilt has a ton of SNG's going all the time. Seems like they would be represented more on the leader boards than the obscure Cryptologic or Ongame sites...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to guess that at the low levels you are running into the spacegravy syndrome. The top total profit winners at low level stars SNGs are likely to be the 30 tablers, something that isn't allowed on FT. Once you get to the 27s, they become less of a factor.

[Al P]

Very good point - didn't even think about 12 vs. unlimited tables affecting the SS leaderboards.