Thinking out loud - Sharkscope.

Tikay10

In Response to Re: Thinking out loud - Sharkscope.:

I use ss like most but it's mainly just to check my own progress but agree with rancid-ban the lot of em!!! On another note, if sharkscope get this data from sky (and the rest) and then sell this information and the statistics they derive and it's less than 100% accurate, why don't sky (and the rest) gather their own 100% accurate data/statistics and sell it to their own punters? Something seems morally more wrong with this but it is essentially the same thing!
Posted by jdsallstar

They do not & would not (any or all Online Sites) because it would be against their better interests so to do.

Imagine a HUGE net loser, a so-called whale, & the site they play on readily sells or makes available that one of their Clients is a huge loser? He'd not stay long, would he?

Gaming sites often say, or advertise "Mr So & So won £100,000 last night", just as the football pools people used to if you did not tick the "no publicity" box. I can't imagine any Gaming Site would wilfully say "one of our players, Mr So & So, lost £100,000 last night"!

That's just how the gaming world goes round, whether we like it or not.

Jac35

In Response to Re: Thinking out loud - Sharkscope.:

In Response to Re: Thinking out loud - Sharkscope. : Well whatever happens, if anything does, I hope you & others remain at Sky Poker, that's a given.   But..... No business can stand still, all businesses have to change, evolve, do new or different things. Every single time these things are done, a few souls abandon ship, or are lost overboard, but new players come on board. The key is to get a net gain, or reduce a net loss. A good example is the new software. Some don't like it, some won't use it, & a few will be, sadly, lost to the site. But that is not a reason not to have new software. If the business logic of ANY decison results in a net gain, then they have to do it, even though some pain will be enccountered.   Interesting you stopped playing on 888 because of their Sharkscope stance. 888 have been one of the big "gainers" in Online Poker in the last few years. Why? Because they have taken a very strong line to protect their recreational player base.
Posted by Tikay10

"We play different"

With my lack of patience, I struggle with that line every time I hear it.

Clever angle they've used with their advertising I think.

The sports star, rather than the 'pro' that may only really be known to very keen poker players, to advertise the brand.

Pokerstars, as quick as ever with these sort of things, now seem to mix it up. Covering both sides, I guess.

Celebrities to encourage the recs. Top pros, to appeal to the regs.

BorinLoner

In Response to Re: Thinking out loud - Sharkscope.:

In Response to Re: Thinking out loud - Sharkscope. : Even if Sharkscope were not permitted to collate publish players results (unless opted in) it would make NO difference to how we all see the Tourney Lobbies & results now. Any action would be by enforcement, maybe legal, "stop doing it", but certainly not by software tweaks.  
Posted by Tikay10

I must admit my knowledge of copyright law is a little shaky, however as far as I'm aware, only intellectually or artistically creative works can be copyrighted.

That would mean that Sharkscope doesn't need permission to reproduce information in the public domain, as long as it doesn't reveal any of the various poker sites' software or similar things. The opt-out in place for other sites would therefore not be enforceable in legal terms. Presumably scope only complies with these requests to avoid the expenses it would incur in having to defend a legal case. I doubt very much that the poker sites could possibly win such a case.

Publishing tournament results in this way is little different to the Telegraph publishing a table of the Premier League on a Monday morning. The information of who won, who lost, etc., is publically available. The Premier League has no ability to prevent people discussing the results of it's matches. The result is not the property of the premier league, even though footage of the game is. The same is true of poker sites.

Tikay10

In Response to Re: Thinking out loud - Sharkscope.:

In Response to Re: Thinking out loud - Sharkscope. :

In Response to Re: Thinking out loud - Sharkscope. : Yup, fair comment - but they SELL that information! PS - You CAN hide it, as some other Online sites already have stopped Sharkscope doing so unless the player chooses to opt in, or that is as I understand it.   "It's OK as long as people know when they sign up they are being tracked". But they don't. Do you think a poker newbie KNOWS that? There is nothing in Sky Poker's T & C's which says "another site may publish your Sky Poker results unless you specifically opt out". Sky poker do not knowingly allow it, it just happens.  For the record, yeah, I like Sharkscope, too, but that's hardly the point.    Posted by Tikay10[/QUOYE sharkscope should be banned why should the average player have his/her results shown too all and sundry? if people want too know how good/bad u are they should play you and build up they,re own knowledge of you.not look for advantages on other players through third party sites.which sky doe,s not condone..whatever way you look at it it is cheating and defeats the purpose of skys refusal too allow huds and other poker helpers..this is what makes the average player wonder if online poker reallty is fair and random! why should players who play the game for fun have they,re results published on a site that openly supports allsorts of different ways too basically cheat the average every day player?the so called better players should not need these sites if they are so good anyway.i remember not so long ago when sky did the rake the rake promotion and all the so called top players of sky where up in arms at the fact these players where going too receive the the same privileges that they had and where worried about if they would be able too win as often as they had been. the reason i like many others play on sky is the fact they don,t support these sites. But as i have asked before why has sky not tried too stop sites like these publishing results from skys games/tournaments. as if sky want too keep the trust they have from normal recreational players they must keep it fair and unhindered as it is supposed to be on sky...as the way it is it seems like sky is happy too allow 3rd partys too publish sky players results even although sky doe,s not support 3rd party interference....or so they claim..i also note it is the so called better players that are all for sharkscope! i wonder why that is?if you are as good as you think you are the only info you should have on a player is the info you have gained by playing your opponent not using what is basically a tool for stalking opponents? thats just my opinion....p.s if other sites can make sharkscope have too have players opt in before they can publish results why has sky not done the same?after all sky prides itself on having a level playing field!and not allowing 3rd party software too run alongside its own software?
Posted by churchy18

I don't believe it is something they have ever previously considered, or addressed. It would, however, be consistent with their line on 3rd party software & the like.

I can only explain how things are, & I don't know what view the Business has, or what it may or may not do, I'm not part of any decision-making process, I just fetch the tea & bikkies.

I do believe the thread, though, which WAS my idea, because I get so many PM's from people being uppity about various aspects of  Sharskscope, has been good for all of us. Excellent, in fact. I'll send myself a memo in the morning.  

Tikay10

In Response to Re: Thinking out loud - Sharkscope.:

In Response to Re: Thinking out loud - Sharkscope. : I must admit my knowledge of copyright law is a little shaky, however as far as I'm aware, only intellectually or artistically creative works can be copyrighted. That would mean that Sharkscope doesn't need permission to reproduce information in the public domain, as long as it doesn't reveal any of the various poker sites' software or similar things. The opt-out in place for other sites would therefore not be enforceable in legal terms. Presumably scope only complies with these requests to avoid the expenses it would incur in having to defend a legal case. I doubt very much that the poker sites could possibly win such a case. Publishing tournament results in this way is little different to the Telegraph publishing a table of the Premier League on a Monday morning. The information of who won, who lost, etc., is publically available. The Premier League has no ability to prevent people discussing the results of it's matches. The result is not the property of the premier league, even though footage of the game is. The same is true of poker sites.
Posted by BorinLoner

I don't have a clue as to the legalities of the matter, but it matters not. The issue of "Copyright" is not really germaine.  

If an Online Site wants to stop Sharkscope publishing their info, they can. We know that, because at least 3 sites already do, & I know of several others considering the same stance. I'm not sure the legal detail is relevant. If a site wants it to stop, I assume they can make it happen. The "how" is of no interest to me, because it is not relevant, imo.     

Tikay10

All done for now, I think.

I'll answer any further, new, or relevant questions tomorrow, as I'm working tomorrow night, so I'll be in the Office from mid-afternoon.

Now, I got to update my DYM thread - BADDD news today - & as today is the last day of the month, go try & reach 4,000 Reward Points. PLO8 DYM, anyone? Jeez, I got proper beat up yesterday, ugh.

Enjoy your weekend.  

gerardirl

In Response to Re: Thinking out loud - Sharkscope.:

In Response to Re: Thinking out loud - Sharkscope. : Well whatever happens, if anything does, I hope you & others remain at Sky Poker, that's a given.   But..... No business can stand still, all businesses have to change, evolve, do new or different things. Every single time these things are done, a few souls abandon ship, or are lost overboard, but new players come on board. The key is to get a net gain, or reduce a net loss. A good example is the new software. Some don't like it, some won't use it, & a few will be, sadly, lost to the site. But that is not a reason not to have new software. If the business logic of ANY decison results in a net gain, then they have to do it, even though some pain will be enccountered.   Interesting you stopped playing on 888 because of their Sharkscope stance. 888 have been one of the big "gainers" in Online Poker in the last few years. Why? Because they have taken a very strong line to protect their recreational player base.
Posted by Tikay10

My poker motivations have changed over the years and for me the goal I enjoy most is competing on leaderboards in sharkscope.  I subscribe with sharkscope yet 888 removed everything without notice or any care for its customers that signed up for sharkscope. If sky do choose to remove their stats from sharkscope I hope they give good notice to its customers that have paid for sharkcope to see their sky poker stats.

Ger

VickiPKR

In Response to Re: Thinking out loud - Sharkscope.:

In Response to Re: Thinking out loud - Sharkscope. : My poker motivations have changed over the years and for me the goal I enjoy most is competing on leaderboards in sharkscope.  I subscribe with sharkscope yet 888 removed everything without notice or any care for its customers that signed up for sharkscope. If sky do choose to remove their stats from sharkscope I hope they give good notice to its customers that have paid for sharkcope to see their sky poker stats. Ger
Posted by gerardirl

I think Sky will just make it so you have to Opt in.

DoubleAAA

Sharkscope is available for free (5 free searches a day) to everyone.  If a person does not know about it, that is not the fault of the other person who has used it to gain some useful info.  It's like some people know about 2+2 and the poker clinic here and if they read often there, then their game will improve, as opposed to those who do not, or some people know of a good mtt book that will naturally help improve their game, as opposed to someone who does not know about this book.

Sharkscope in my opinion does not give an unfair advantage, as a good player should already be able to recognise a bad player, good player etc.  All it tells you is if someone is a losing player or not, it will not help you play 'optimally' vs the said player as it teaches us nothing about the way the player plays, however reading posted hands in the clinic might give us an advantage upon how a person thinks and plays his/her hands and enable us to have an advantage.

GaryQQQ

Sigh, very disappointed.

Just saw this typed in a tournament chatbox by somebody who regularly posts on this forum;

**********: surprise surprise scope fish

a00rock

In Response to Re: Thinking out loud - Sharkscope.:

Sigh, very disappointed. Just saw this typed in a tournament chatbox by somebody who regularly posts on this forum; ********** : surprise surprise scope fish
Posted by GaryQQQ

It really does make you wonder Gary about its use currently and justifies some peoples comments that are not in favour of it. It also totally highlights the need for this debate, well done Tikay.

CHILLIE

In Response to Re: Thinking out loud - Sharkscope.:

Sigh, very disappointed. Just saw this typed in a tournament chatbox by somebody who regularly posts on this forum; ********** : surprise surprise scope fish
Posted by GaryQQQ

You sound surprised m8

DOHHHHHHH

In Response to Re: Thinking out loud - Sharkscope.:

Sigh, very disappointed. Just saw this typed in a tournament chatbox by somebody who regularly posts on this forum; ********** : surprise surprise scope fish
Posted by GaryQQQ

Surely a legit time to name n shame?

If we're trying to stamp this stuff out, as a community, then why not?

He/she isn't breaking any rules, I dnt believe u wud be either by naming?

DoubleAAA

In Response to Re: Thinking out loud - Sharkscope.:

In Response to Re: Thinking out loud - Sharkscope. : Surely a legit time to name n shame? If we're trying to stamp this stuff out, as a community, then why not? He/she isn't breaking any rules, I dnt believe u wud be either by naming?
Posted by DOHHHHHHH

Agreed!  If people feel as though they can abuse someone in the public domain (table chat) then I see no reason as to why someone should not be allowed to re-post the comments here in the forum.  Perhaps a name and shame thread would be a good idea?

churchy18

In Response to Re: Thinking out loud - Sharkscope.:

In Response to Re: Thinking out loud - Sharkscope. : Agreed!  If people feel as though they can abuse someone in the public domain (table chat) then I see no reason as to why someone should not be allowed to re-post the comments here in the forum.  Perhaps a name and shame thread would be a good idea?
Posted by DoubleAAA

Agreed i posted on here a few weeks ago about a certain player who had said he wished my wife and kids died after losing a hand

sky covered his name...but i think they also gave out they,re own punishment for the incident.

LARSON7

Nice result yesterday Churchy, left it a bit late tho!

churchy18

In Response to Re: Thinking out loud - Sharkscope.:

Nice result yesterday Churchy, left it a bit late tho!
Posted by LARSON7

thanks larson ..how do you think youselfs wil get on today?

good luck in your games

Tikay10

In Response to Re: Thinking out loud - Sharkscope.:

In Response to Re: Thinking out loud - Sharkscope. : Agreed!  If people feel as though they can abuse someone in the public domain (table chat) then I see no reason as to why someone should not be allowed to re-post the comments here in the forum.  Perhaps a name and shame thread would be a good idea?
Posted by DoubleAAA

Deep down, yes, we'd all like that, but no, it would not be a good idea, as we would not see the whole exchange in context. A player could provoke another player deliberately, then Post one side of the convo, without the context.

It's also possible that the "accused" does not use this Forum, so would have no right of reply, which is very wrong. Accusing someone who cannot defend him or herself is intrinsically wrong, imo.

Best way is to report it to CC, & they will get it sorted, as Churchy alluded to. 

DoubleAAA

In Response to Re: Thinking out loud - Sharkscope.:

In Response to Re: Thinking out loud - Sharkscope. : Deep down, yes, we'd all like that, but no, it would not be a good idea, as we would not see the whole exchange in context. A player could provoke another player deliberately, then Post one side of the convo, without the context. It's also possible that the "accused" does not use this Forum, so would have no right of reply, which is very wrong. Accusing someone who cannot defend him or herself is intrinsically wrong, imo. Best way is to report it to CC, & they will get it sorted, as Churchy alluded to.  
Posted by Tikay10

Yes I didn't think of it like that.  Perhaps sky can give them a choice if found guilty of either having a chat ban or being exposed and keeping their chat privilages?

SomersetJo

First, I'm a VERY occasional on-line player, I prefer live play. Second, I think I have looked once at SS, to check myself out and see what it was about. If I were more than a very occasional player I would in all probability opt out of SS. I tend to have a slight touch of paranoia, I am not keen on people knowing my business, or tracking me. It is only slight, hence while I have Facebook and twitter accounts I don't actually do anything with them.  Here's my thoughts, for what they are worth.

Poker is a game of information. Can't really blame people for taking advantage of information available. There are many companys out there which, in this information age, use information as a commodity. Data mining gives them their raw material and they add value to it by presenting it in new and easily digested forms.

As far as SS goes, I am very much in favour of explicit opt in, rather than assumed opt in. However I think anyone who uses SS to gain information should do so ONLY if they themselves have opted in. In my book anyone who takes advantage of the information available on SS, while denying others their own stats, are AT BEST being unfair and hypocritical. I would be quite happy to have signing up for SS being counted as an explicit opt in, but you cannot then deny your info to others who have opted in.er all, if you sign up for one of Sky Poker's TV tables you can't then demand that none of your hands be shown.

Tikay10

In Response to Re: Thinking out loud - Sharkscope.:

First, I'm a VERY occasional on-line player, I prefer live play. Second, I think I have looked once at SS, to check myself out and see what it was about. If I were more than a very occasional player I would in all probability opt out of SS. I tend to have a slight touch of paranoia, I am not keen on people knowing my business, or tracking me. It is only slight, hence while I have Facebook and twitter accounts I don't actually do anything with them.  Here's my thoughts, for what they are worth. Poker is a game of information. Can't really blame people for taking advantage of information available. There are many companys out there which, in this information age, use information as a commodity. Data mining gives them their raw material and they add value to it by presenting it in new and easily digested forms. As far as SS goes, I am very much in favour of explicit opt in, rather than assumed opt in. However I think anyone who uses SS to gain information should do so ONLY if they themselves have opted in. In my book anyone who takes advantage of the information available on SS, while denying others their own stats, are AT BEST being unfair and hypocritical. I would be quite happy to have signing up for SS being counted as an explicit opt in, but you cannot then deny your info to others who have opted in.er all, if you sign up for one of Sky Poker's TV tables you can't then demand that none of your hands be shown.
Posted by SomersetJo

That is a terrific Post, with great balance.

I'm getting many PM's along similar lines, as not everyone wants to go public on their views, but they feel quite strongly about it.

MAXALLY

Interesting debate this one. I am sitting on the fence with the whole 'what should Sky Poker do as a business' question' but would like to make some points.

1) Using SS is an advantage for some and a disadvantage for others, it seems. So if blocked, who actually gains/loses?

2) When players in a 'live' situation need information about fellow table players, they will use all kinds of media to gain this info.

eg. When a player is at the WSOP, use platforms like the Hendon Mob to get background on their opponents. Why is this so different when using a tool to do this on line?

3) I am actually playing a lot more on 888 now they have blocked SS as my track record wasn't great on there when at the early 'learning' stage but I can now play on a level playing field and my results have improved five fold.

4) As i have done holiday cover for GARYQQQ on his result thread, it is quite simple to retrieve any tournament lobby you want and view the results that way and collate if you needed to.

5) Whatever happens in the future on Sky Poker, a clear line of communication will need to be set up to convey any decisions made IMHO.

shakinaces

Has SS updated it's website in the last day or so?

I just did a quick search on a fellow Sky player (who recommended I do so!) and before it showed their results I received a pop up box to say:

Note: SharkScope is an independent tracker of poker tournament results.

The results are tracked by our own software and no pokersite provides us with special access to these results. We do not have access to any account.

Use of these statistics to abuse players is strictly prohibited by us and all sites we cover and may result in account closures.

Is this something you guys have managed to get them to sneak into their offering... well done if so... can but hope it works?

Tikay10

In Response to Re: Thinking out loud - Sharkscope.:

Has SS updated it's website in the last day or so? I just did a quick search on a fellow Sky player (who recommended I do so!) and before it showed their results I received a pop up box to say: Note: SharkScope is an independent tracker of poker tournament results. The results are tracked by our own software and no pokersite provides us with special access to these results. We do not have access to any account. Use of these statistics to abuse players is strictly prohibited by us and all sites we cover and may result in account closures. Is this something you guys have managed to get them to sneak into their offering... well done if so... can but hope it works?
Posted by shakinaces

They have always had that Clause in their T & C's, though I've never known them to enforce it. Maybe they do, I don't honestly know.

I would honestly be extremely surprised if that had anything to do with Sky Poker, I'm not aware that the Business has even considered their options.   

jimb0d1

Ive alqays had that pop up when searching on there.... for at least a year

GaryQQQ

Bump. Relevant news to this thread;

I see 888 have reversed their decision to ban Sharkscope. They are now back on using the same 'opted-out by default' policy as PokerStars.

Seems like a good compromise to me.

gerardirl

Yes bad move to remove it without any notice to their customers who paid for sharkscope. It affected 888 traffic, they then gave access to other sites to display their stats and now reverted back to sharkscope with opt in options. Interesting...