Sharkscope?????

BCFC_CHU

Hi all, some advice on how accurate sharkscope is would be very much appreciated. I have just scoped myself and it shows that im - $1030 in total, now i know this is not true as im about £200 in profit. I understand that cash results aren't included, but as i only play these occassionally, that shouldn't be making much difference in all.

Any clarification would be grateful, as this is mind boggling. lol cheers Matt

Slykllist

It's pretty accurate, it only includes MTT and STT results, so no cash games.

Only discrepencies tend to be over sattelites as until recently these would show as a loss regardless of whether you won a seat or not.

BCFC_CHU

In Response to Re: Sharkscope?????:

It's pretty accurate, it only includes MTT and STT results, so no cash games. Only discrepencies tend to be over sattelites as until recently these would show as a loss regardless of whether you won a seat or not.
Posted by Slykllist

Cheers for the reply Slykllist. Thanks for the info on the sats i wasnt aware of that.

Would that be partly the reason it shows me in -ve figures?

Like i said i think im in profit as on my account it shows as net deposits being £0 and i have recently withdrawn. So surely therefore if i have deposited £0 total and have withdrawn money and still have money in my account im in profit. Right?????

Once again thanks for the reply. Matt

Poker_Fail

Depending on how much you play the monthly C4P could affect it quite a bit

GaryQQQ

If you win Roller seats in the League Stars Freeroll (or win any other sort of seat in forum competitions etc.) that affects it too, Sharkscope assumes you bought in for the full price.

BCFC_CHU

Cheers for the reply poker fail and gary. much appreciated. So imo if the sats and tourneys are/ or were assumed as full priced buy ins, some of the data is very misleading.

DOHHHHHHH

Having looked @ ur stats I'm surprised to see you are a losing sng player, but you're showing a profit @ mtt's....

Played u @ HU sngs a few times n wud xpect you to be showing a profit....

The mtt stats on skope can be misleading but sng r normally very accurate. 

GaryQQQ

Sats work properly now, but it was only fixed a few weeks ago. For years it assumed you paid the full buy-in for everything you played.

BCFC_CHU

In Response to Re: Sharkscope?????:

Having looked @ ur stats I'm surprised to see you are a losing sng player, but you're showing a profit @ mtt's.... Played u @ HU sngs a few times n wud xpect you to be showing a profit.... The mtt stats on skope can be misleading but sng r normally very accurate. 
Posted by DOHHHHHHH

Alright DOHHHHHHH. i think its all the russian roulettes i play. im a proper sucker for them. lol. used to play a lot of sngs to grind c4p and league points but after a few weeks break decided to focus more on my game, rather than chase c4p. This helped enormously, and especially in mtts results improved greatly., as i

Also, rather than just playing for fun, i would like to take poker a bit more seriously, do u think its worth purchasing sharkscope, as at the moment i only use the free 5 searches.

cheers for the response Matt

BCFC_CHU

In Response to Re: Sharkscope?????:

Sats work properly now, but it was only fixed a few weeks ago. For years it assumed you paid the full buy-in for everything you played.
Posted by GaryQQQ

Cheers gary. At least they have rectified that now, as that will defo help for more accurate data.

Eyeman

Speaking personally, it's quite inaccurate. I think this is down to Sky in the early days. At one point I know I was approximately £2,000 ahead on Sky, yet Sharkscope had me -$750 (initially sharkscope did not recognise Sky worked in pounds, either, so every quid won or lost was registered as a dollar). On my Sky account it seemed to register every deposit I made, but not every withdrawal - this was 4 years ago, and that seems to have been ironed out.
Another major flaw is that if you pay a tenner to satellite into the Sunday roller, then don't cash. Sharkscope will register a £220 loss, not a £10 loss. So players who regularly sat into events will generally have a worse than actual record.

BCFC_CHU

In Response to Re: Sharkscope?????:

Speaking personally, it's quite inaccurate. I think this is down to Sky in the early days. At one point I know I was approximately £2,000 ahead on Sky, yet Sharkscope had me -$750 (initially sharkscope did not recognise Sky worked in pounds, either, so every quid won or lost was registered as a dollar). On my Sky account it seemed to register every deposit I made, but not every withdrawal - this was 4 years ago, and that seems to have been ironed out. Another major flaw is that if you pay a tenner to satellite into the Sunday roller, then don't cash. Sharkscope will register a £220 loss, not a £10 loss. So players who regularly sat into events will generally have a worse than actual record.
Posted by Eyeman

Cheers Eyeman. I think that might be part of why it shows me -ve. As mentioned in a post above it looks like thats sorted now. Well hopefully.

Cheers for the response Matt

bigflop1

i was working on my mtt graph.. managed to get it above ev then i won a comp for a free roller seat and all of a sudden i was - 100 again arghh

Oopnorth

Its the same with rebuys too. If you play a rebuy tournament and purchase the add ons. Sharkscope registers your initial buy in and the average of all the add ons and rebuys combined so if you play them and dont rebuy because you run well or are too tight or you are chipped up and dont add on,  this will also affect you.
Because many rebuys I have played theres usually one donk whos going all in with any two and failing, so they may rebuy 10 times, this increasing your own average rebuy despite you not purchasing any.
Hope that makes some sense.....

tiercel

I've just looked myself up on sharkscope and it says I am down by more than I have paid into Sky since I started  overall and that was right from Sky opening. On the basis of money paid into and out of my account I am down about a third of what sharkscope says but in the last three years I am up, year on year, the losses relating to the early years. So I don't know how these figures are worked out.

BCFC_CHU

cheers for all the post guys. After reading everyones comments it becomes apparent that its not as accurate as people would like. That being said, it appears that they are trying to rectify many of the factors that make for inaccurate reading (sats, re-buys, ect). I for one was baffled by my own scope as stated in op, but after everyones comments it is far easier to understand how the figure comes about.

I think i will stick to making notes on opponents, instead of purchasing sharkscope, that way i will determine the info and i am the only i can blame for inaccurate reads. lol.

Once again cheers for all the posts and gl at the tables Matt

Slykllist

In Response to Re: Sharkscope?????:

In Response to Re: Sharkscope????? : Alright DOHHHHHHH. i think its all the russian roulettes i play. im a proper sucker for them. lol. used to play a lot of sngs to grind c4p and league points but after a few weeks break decided to focus more on my game, rather than chase c4p. This helped enormously, and especially in mtts results improved greatly., as i Also, rather than just playing for fun, i would like to take poker a bit more seriously, do u think its worth purchasing sharkscope, as at the moment i only use the free 5 searches. cheers for the response Matt
Posted by BCFC_CHU

Purchasing is something I'm considering too, most of the advice I've had suggests it's a good tool but would be interested in other peoples thoughts.

BCFC_CHU

In Response to Re: Sharkscope?????:

In Response to Re: Sharkscope????? : Purchasing is something I'm considering too, most of the advice I've had suggests it's a good tool but would be interested in other peoples thoughts.
Posted by Slykllist

Im undecided m8, the reason im considering purchasing it, is due to the greater search options you can explore

huuuuume

fwiw my sharkscope is nowhere near accurate at all overall but the sng stats are pretty much spot on.

DOHHHHHHH

Hey Matt, I pay $9.99 for 200 searches on skope. I'm not sure what the alternative deals are but the 200 normally last me about 2 months. You still get the 5 free searches a day on top of this, & it allows you full access to all the stats same as a monthly subscription.

I play only HU sngs, maybe if you play dyms you use more searches (play against more players) but the 1 off payment is definitely best for me & well worth it for a tenner (less than a buy in)

MP33

In Response to Re: Sharkscope?????:

Hey Matt, I pay $9.99 for 200 searches on skope. I'm not sure what the alternative deals are but the 200 normally last me about 2 months. You still get the 5 free searches a day on top of this, & it allows you full access to all the stats same as a monthly subscription. I play only HU sngs, maybe if you play dyms you use more searches (play against more players) but the 1 off payment is definitely best for me & well worth it for a tenner (less than a buy in)
Posted by DOHHHHHHH

Wish i had done that last month . I paid $29 for a month of searches (up to 500 a day ) and used it twice

You also get the HUD which can be used on some other sites though

GliterBabe

I personally think it's a good indicator but necessarily a true reflection.. I rarely use to be honest but I just scoped my sit and go stats... Hmmmmmm, no way is that ever right.....

BCFC_CHU

In Response to Re: Sharkscope?????:

Hey Matt, I pay $9.99 for 200 searches on skope. I'm not sure what the alternative deals are but the 200 normally last me about 2 months. You still get the 5 free searches a day on top of this, & it allows you full access to all the stats same as a monthly subscription. I play only HU sngs, maybe if you play dyms you use more searches (play against more players) but the 1 off payment is definitely best for me & well worth it for a tenner (less than a buy in)
Posted by DOHHHHHHH

Nice 1 m8. This probably looks the best way to go, especially after reading mp33's post at the top of the page. I would never use 500 searches a month. Cheers for the info

GaryQQQ

150 per day is best value, very useful if your serious about your poker, wouldn't be without mine, can pay for itself several times over if you play a lot of STTs.

BCFC_CHU

In Response to Re: Sharkscope?????:

I personally think it's a good indicator but necessarily a true reflection.. I rarely use to be honest but I just scoped my sit and go stats... Hmmmmmm, no way is that ever right.....
Posted by GliterBabe

Cheers for the post. Unfortunatley it's not as accurate as we would all like, however as u stated it could be used for a general indication. Might buy the 200 searches  dohhhhhhh mentioned and see how much use i get from it.

Once again cheers for posting Matt

BCFC_CHU

In Response to Re: Sharkscope?????:

150 a month is best value, very useful if your serious about your poker, wouldn't be without mine, defo pays for itself if you play STTs.
Posted by GaryQQQ

Alright gary. Got quite a bit of time on my hands at the moment, so will defo try to improve my game and take it more seriously. And i do play a fair bit of Sngs so will probably have to invest in it.

Cheers for the post m8 Matt

rancid

In Response to Re: Sharkscope?????:

In Response to Re: Sharkscope????? : Alright gary. Got quite a bit of time on my hands at the moment, so will defo try to improve my game and take it more seriously. And i do play a fair bit of Sngs so will probably have to invest in it. Cheers for the post m8 Matt
Posted by BCFC_CHU

Worth it for STT/DYM, helps in identifying winning regs and absolute fish )

You can narrow your search just for DYM for example - allllllllllllriiiiiiiiight

Dudeskin8

In Response to Re: Sharkscope?????:

In Response to Re: Sharkscope????? : Worth it for STT/DYM, helps in identifying winning regs and absolute fish ) You can narrow your search just for DYM for example - allllllllllllriiiiiiiiight
Posted by rancid

I think it depends on the level, personally at £3.30 you can see who the bad players are fairly quickly, just anyone who limps after say 25/50,50/100 probably ain't gonna be too good. Likewise players who never limp at high blind levels and hardly ever get involved are good players, not rocket science lol.

If you however play at £11/£22 and above then it might be worth it but again there really ain't that many REGS and those you do see you will get to know soon anyway just by being on so many tables with them.

rancid

In Response to Re: Sharkscope?????:

In Response to Re: Sharkscope????? : I think it depends on the level, personally at £3.30 you can see who the bad players are fairly quickly, just anyone who limps after say 25/50,50/100 probably ain't gonna be too good. Likewise players who never limp at high blind levels and hardly ever get involved are good players, not rocket science lol. If you however play at £11/£22 and above then it might be worth it but again there really ain't that many REGS and those you do see you will get to know soon anyway just by being on so many tables with them.
Posted by Dudeskin8

Argumentative )

Just lets you tag players from the start......

Minimum seacrhes of 150 is perfect imo, very cheap

 

Dudeskin8

In Response to Re: Sharkscope?????:

In Response to Re: Sharkscope????? : Argumentative ) Just lets you tag players from the start...... Minimum seacrhes of 150 is perfect imo, very cheap  
Posted by rancid

At the start you should generally be playing VERY few hands, in my case only raising with 5 lol so leaves plenty of time to sit and watch the other guys and see what they do.

Also as for REGS at £3.30 I'd say there's about 5 guys I don't want at my table maybe 1-2 more but after them plus me its pretty much all RECS who limp every hand and try and knock eachother out.

But yet again as you move up the REG to REC ratio gets less favourable and then it might be more valuable but even then just cus a REC guy plays 22 smackers for his DYM instead of 3 bob doesn't mean he danny limp and get it in at 10/20 w/AJ just a case of the guy has more to burn but he's still making the same mistakes as lower level guy.

devonfish5

hope i was 1 of those 5  carl...lol

devon