According to my Sharkscope im somewhere between 12 and 15 wont show me the exact number, although permission granted to anyone who can understand this better than me to tell me exactly.
According to my Sharkscope im somewhere between 12 and 15 wont show me the exact number, although permission granted to anyone who can understand this better than me to tell me exactly. Posted by The_Don90
Well done mate on a good roll. Is sharkscope any good? 1st time i have ever looked at it. lol I have a wee shark next to my name lol Posted by stuza
Yeah I think its very useful.
I've used it in the past to analysis all the different types of games and entries fees I was paying to see which returned me the highest ROI so I could concentrate all my efforts on that format. I would suggest you play 500 games plus before you read too much into otherwise one off big results can distort you figures.
I also find useful it against players on here, particularly if they seem to be getting involved with a lot of pots and doing a lot of calling in poor positions before lumping all in after the next card to see if they're clueless fish or smart players using an aggressive call, raise, tactic. It's amazing what the difference can be between two players who play a couple of hands in an odd manner, so far I've seen it done by people with a 15% plus ROI and clearly are using to unsettle other players to absolute planks who are running at -60% who clearly ain't got a clue. I can then adjust my tactics accordingly.
I normally play DYMs as well with odd tournaments thrown in. receantly cashed in one for 243 quid which was a good boost but took a small break the now with my dad not well and my wedding coming up in less than 4 weeks, thought would keep good bankroll for when my head is clear.
i do not understand sharkscope can some one explian it to a stupid old man please ? hope its ok to put this up here . this was taken with all games ty all
hi all just checked sharkscope site out. and it only counts for s and g tourny's, so in all fiarness it is usless as some people only play cash games so ther ranking on site and go might bad but does not mean there a bad player just that they do not play s and g games. i personally will take no notice of it as it is not that accurate when judging other players.
Silverback, to a certian extent I disagree with you there.
You're right that it does only sample SNG's and tournaments, but by and large, if your a losing S'n'G and Tournament player then you're probably a losing cash player too*.
*I'll accept that there maybe one or two players who play cash 99% and then try and satelite into major events for a coupld of dollars which might look at bit ropey on Shark Scope, but other than if you can't beat people in front of you on a table of six when the chips have only a nominal value then I fail to see how you could beat a table of six because the chips have a cash amount.
Silverback, to a certian extent I disagree with you there. You're right that it does only sample SNG's and tournaments, but by and large, if your a losing S'n'G and Tournament player then you're probably a losing cash player too*. *I'll accept that there maybe one or two players who play cash 99% and then try and satelite into major events for a coupld of dollars which might look at bit ropey on Shark Scope, but other than if you can't beat people in front of you on a table of six when the chips have only a nominal value then I fail to see how you could beat a table of six because the chips have a cash amount. Posted by ACE_RAGE
i certanly agree with what your saying ace and am not saying that sharkscope is not of any use. but what i am saying is that you can not compare a sng player to a cash table player as it is 2 differant styles of play, so a good cashh player might of cashed in 100s of £ pounds but yet only lost a few quid on sng so it would not give a complete profile of that player and rank him as a low player. yet in true terms he would be a very good player .
In Response to Re: DYM - What's your record for consecutive cashes? : i certanly agree with what your saying ace and am not saying that sharkscope is not of any use. but what i am saying is that you can not compare a sng player to a cash table player as it is 2 differant styles of play, so a good cashh player might of cashed in 100s of £ pounds but yet only lost a few quid on sng so it would not give a complete profile of that player and rank him as a low player. yet in true terms he would be a very good player . Posted by silver8ack
I agree completely that there's a distinct difference between the two, and that some one could be very profitable in one format and only reasonably in the other, due to subtles between the two styles.
However I can't see some one being a loser player in one format and highly successful in the other.
Silverback, to a certian extent I disagree with you there. You're right that it does only sample SNG's and tournaments, but by and large, if your a losing S'n'G and Tournament player then you're probably a losing cash player too*. *I'll accept that there maybe one or two players who play cash 99% and then try and satelite into major events for a coupld of dollars which might look at bit ropey on Shark Scope, but other than if you can't beat people in front of you on a table of six when the chips have only a nominal value then I fail to see how you could beat a table of six because the chips have a cash amount. Posted by ACE_RAGE
Comments
Cheers, The fish is a Barbel.
Yeah, Scope confirmed the exact number, as I wasn't too sure as it's been over a week or so of play.
Is sharkscope any good?
1st time i have ever looked at it. lol
I have a wee shark next to my name lol
I've used it in the past to analysis all the different types of games and entries fees I was paying to see which returned me the highest ROI so I could concentrate all my efforts on that format. I would suggest you play 500 games plus before you read too much into otherwise one off big results can distort you figures.
I also find useful it against players on here, particularly if they seem to be getting involved with a lot of pots and doing a lot of calling in poor positions before lumping all in after the next card to see if they're clueless fish or smart players using an aggressive call, raise, tactic. It's amazing what the difference can be between two players who play a couple of hands in an odd manner, so far I've seen it done by people with a 15% plus ROI and clearly are using to unsettle other players to absolute planks who are running at -60% who clearly ain't got a clue. I can then adjust my tactics accordingly.
will give it a try
I normally play DYMs as well with odd tournaments thrown in. receantly cashed in one for 243 quid which was a good boost but took a small break the now with my dad not well and my wedding coming up in less than 4 weeks, thought would keep good bankroll for when my head is clear.
hope its ok to put this up here . this was taken with all games ty all
and it only counts for s and g tourny's, so in all fiarness it is usless as some people only play cash games so ther ranking on site and go might bad but does not mean there a bad player just that they do not play s and g games.
i personally will take no notice of it as it is not that accurate when judging other players.
You're right that it does only sample SNG's and tournaments, but by and large, if your a losing S'n'G and Tournament player then you're probably a losing cash player too*.
*I'll accept that there maybe one or two players who play cash 99% and then try and satelite into major events for a coupld of dollars which might look at bit ropey on Shark Scope, but other than if you can't beat people in front of you on a table of six when the chips have only a nominal value then I fail to see how you could beat a table of six because the chips have a cash amount.
but what i am saying is that you can not compare a sng player to a cash table player as it is 2 differant styles of play, so a good cashh player might of cashed in 100s of £ pounds but yet only lost a few quid on sng so it would not give a complete profile of that player and rank him as a low player. yet in true terms he would be a very good player .
However I can't see some one being a loser player in one format and highly successful in the other.