Sharkscope - utterly unreliable or what?

[whitenight]

So, last night, I had a little peak to check up on The "Dennis Phillips"

And, today, D. Phillips still comes up on Sharkscope as... wait for it...

A fish.

A fish!??? Not only an alleged "fish"!??? is he, but we are reliably informed that he is "on tilt" too - as he is down over $23,000!

Now, I don't need to list his amazingly gifted accomplishments to show how thunderingly ridiculous it is to call a WSOP final tabler "a fish" who's on tilt.

So, is sharkscope utterly unreliable or what?

Now that I've seen that as well as certain other questionable ratings I'm beginning to wonder why so many people put their faith in it.

Discuss.

[Phildavies]

I'm not sure the criteria for how sharkscope identifies a player as a fish, shark, etc. but the stats themselves are reliable

[DeadBabySoup]

sharkscope considers anyone a fish with an ROI lower than -15%. if you lose 3 or more games in a row, it says you're on tilt. if you lose 10 or more in a row, it says you're on supertilt. a lot of big name players have shitty online stats. mike matusow isn't ranked as a fish, but he's down $70,000.

[travz21]

Dennis Phillips sucks, so I'm not surprised. You should really start a "Sharkscope is rigged" thread. It is legit, so why are you even questioning it? Because someone you think is good, isn't really good at all? Also, good players don't play every aspect of poker well. SNG's aren't for everyone.

[whitenight]

yeah thanks for the sarcasm travs. And let's see you make the final table of the wsop and some guy on a forum pontificates that "you" suck!! Doubt you'd lose too much sleep over it lol. Anyway, the facts speak for themselves: anyone who makes the final table in the wsop is anything but a fish. Period. Matter of fact he came 3rd, picking up 4 big ones. It is impossible to get that far in the main event if one's not at least a good player. Saying that about someone who did so well is more of a reflection on your judgement than on his play.

Also, I'm not saying sharkscope's "rigged" - by any stretch of the imagination: Just that the way it is informing persons about players definitely... "sucks" (for want of a better expression) at times, if my example is anything to go by. And let's face it, calling Dennis Phillips a fish on tilt IS ridiculous just because he' down in a few cash games!

[travz21]

Sharkscope only looks at MTT's and SNG's. If you have the stats of a fish, then you are a fish. What else would you be? Good players can still have fishy stats. Why are you even looking up a no-namer WSOP final tablist?

You can't seriously say no fish has ever made a final table. Anyone can make a final table if they run hot. Phillips ran incredibly hot. So you're just going to throw out all of his accumulated stats on Sharkscope because of one hot run in live poker? That's ridiculous. How you thought of making this thread is ridiculous. I don't think you quite know how Sharkscope even works, so I'll forgive you.

[frecklers]

QUOTE=whitenight;37600]yeah thanks for the sarcasm travs. And let's see you make the final table of the wsop and some guy on a forum pontificates that "you" suck!! Doubt you'd lose too much sleep over it lol. Anyway, the facts speak for themselves: anyone who makes the final table in the wsop is anything but a fish. Period. Matter of fact he came 3rd, picking up 4 big ones.

Also, I'm not saying sharkscope's "rigged" - by any stretch of the imagination: Just that the way it is informing persons about players definitely... "sucks" (for want of a better expression) at times, if my example is anything to go by. And let's face it, calling Dennis Phillips a fish on tilt IS ridiculous just because he' down in a few cash games![/QUOTE]


You obviously need to take the stats in context i.e. in terms of the level at which a player is playing and associated competition. In this case, despite your opinion of Dennis, a monkey could make it to the Final table of the WSOP on a one off basis, so that in itself (without other consistent results to back up a one off luck based event) is no measure of ability. It is more likely that the best player(technically speaking) in the world would never obtain a WSOP main event final table than actually make the final table.

On the basis of his performance against his peers in SnG's at the buy in level he opts to play he IS a FISH. i.e. he consistently loses money, and not only that, he loses at a significant rate.

All too often, people do not consider the level at which they are playing and their own general stats at that level. For example, you may be a $6 shark and a $50 fish due to your relative ability to play at a level and the standard of your opponents. Therefore it would be pointless taking on a table of average players at $50 but advantageous at $6. (maybe at $50 you might even shy away from the fish, simply because they are less of a fish than yourself!!)

In sum, it is not sharkscopes stats that are are fault, BUT your failure to interprete the facts correctly!!

I highlighted a small portion of your text, which as you can see, I take issue with. The statement makes no sense to me at all. I would be really interested to know why a single wsop bracelet (main event or not) is a reflection of superior ability. Given the number of entrants, is it not more likely that an unknown lucker would win than the one of the best players, simply because there are more chancers than experts?

To put this into context, if one player was a poker expert (the perfect player) and able to look at his hole cards throughout the WSOP and ALL his 10,000 opponents had to go ALL in blind every hand, is it more likely that he would win or that one of his opponents would win?

Even with a massive edge on his opponents, he is unlikely to beat them all.

[whitenight]

I just love the way a few of you guys are talking down Dennis Phillip's achievements to make the final table of the Main event as if, to quote, a monkey with the right luck could do the same. Yeah right. You definitely made me laugh with that one! Like all you need to succeed in the world's most arduous live poker tournament is good cards lol!!

Also, the Dennis Phillips only hit the big time once so he's a fish argument because sharkscope doesn't err is total bs too. Why then is he also a team pokerstars pro? And why weren't any commentators for the 2008 wsop pointing out all the supposedly ridiculous plays he was allegedly making all throughout the extremly long and testing tournament which is the main event, and stating in disbelief repeatedly that he was such a fish and was so lucky to have got to where he did, otherwise he'd have hit the rail ages ago? I'll tell you why not, and the answer is simple: he is not the fish that you few think he is. And he has probably achieved more in poker than all you begrudgers ever will. Frecklers you disparage a wsop bracelet like they come free with a box of breakfast cereal or something, barely useful enough to hold napkins etc. I'm not saying he's anything like the world's greatest player but he is about as far from being a fish as you few are from being respectful of a player who deserves respect.

[infinii]

I just love the way a few of you guys are talking down Dennis Phillip's achievements to make the final table of the Main event as if, to quote, a monkey with the right luck could do the same. Yeah right. You definitely made me laugh with that one!

in a field of 10k entrants, if half were monkeys and I trained those monkeys to shove all in preflop every single hand...there would definitely be a chance of a monkey making it to the final table.

Also, the Dennis Phillips only hit the big time once so he's a fish argument because sharkscope doesn't err is total bs too. Why then is he also a team pokerstars pro? And why weren't any commentators for the 2008 wsop pointing out all the supposedly ridiculous plays he was allegedly making all throughout the extremly long and testing tournament which is the main event, and stating in disbelief repeatedly that he was such a fish and was so lucky to have got to where he did, otherwise he'd have hit the rail ages ago? I'll tell you why not, and the answer is simple: he is not the fish that you few think he is. And he has probably achieved more in poker than all you begrudgers ever will. Perhaps it's hard for some of you to accept that.

he wasn't a ps pro during last year's wsop so his sponsorship obviously had to do with him making the final table.

whatever you say fanboi

[whitenight]

"in a field of 10k entrants, if half were monkeys and I trained those monkeys to shove all in preflop every single hand...there would definitely be a chance of a monkey making it to the final table."

Like all you need to succeed in the world's most arduous live poker tournament is good cards lol!!

As for "fanboi", wtf? it's simply sharkscope's calling him a fish on tilt that I don't bite. you also speak of his being an amateur first like pros are born pro. Got news for you: every pro starts as an amateur. Now Eat that!

[travz21]

Whitenight...You still don't understand sharkscope, so I still forgive you. Sharkscope doesn't pick and choose which players it wants to call "fish" or "sharks". It has stat guidelines that it follows for that. Phillips' stats fall into the "fish" category, making him a fishy online sng'er. No matter what he has accomplished anywhere else in the world, those facts won't change.

We're not saying a WSOP bracelet or final table is meaningless, it's just that the fields have been juiced up with n00bs ever since Moneymaker won. Back when the fields were mostly solid pros, the bracelets and final tables were a bigger thing. Now, anyone can have one. You don't bother thinking of this stuff on your own? Want anything else spoonfed for you?

I'm starting to think of you as a fish without even knowing your poker skills. Your logical reasoning is borderline retarded.

[C8H10N4O2]

D. Phillips' online record...


HU 7 Games +$175
Average Buy-in $129.29
Average Profit $25.00


SNG’s 119 Games -$2,886.80
Average Buy-in $159.21
Average Profit -$24.26
ITM 33.0%


MTT’s 274 Games -$25,127.51
Average Buy-in $155.55
Average Profit -$91.71
ITM 13%



Not that impressive no matter who you are.


I'd say sharkscope's analysis is pretty spot on, granted it is a pretty low sample size. But for his track record in online play, he's definitely not raking in the monies.
Definitely with travz21 on this one.

Not to mention he has cashed in how many live tournaments? Not very many... just one that really mattered. Even the biggest of fish get in the money every now and then.

I'm also not saying Phillips is a complete idiot with poker, but he doesn't seem to be that huge of a threat for the stakes he's playing online, which could easily qualify him as a "fish" among the other players he's playing with regularly.

[pokerbucket]

I use sharkscope all the time and it is very useful. There are lots of players that are very good playing poker in person but don't do as well when they play online. All that sharkscope does it track the stats... Just because sharkscope says he is in the negative doesn't necessarily mean he is a bad player. He could just be running bad or maybe he is playing bad. After all we are just human and even good players play bad sometimes. Also you have to consider the competition and limits he is playing. Just because he is a good player doesn't mean that he is playing against bad players. He may be up against some online pros that have a TON more online experience than he has. All sharkscope is tell you is that he has been losing online in sitngos.. which is useful info

[ProtekYoNuts]

look at Bertrand Grospellier dude got like 2 or more WPT titles over like 6 million in earnings but look at his sharkscope.




ElkY 21,628 -$16 $732 1% -$339,246 - PokerStars SNG Only

[C8H10N4O2]

Sharkscope seems to be off for him. What I'm looking at shows $299,752.39+ in MTT's, $18,469.76+ in SNG's, and -$45,241.20 in HU matches.

[frecklers]

[QUOTE=whitenight;37645
Like all you need to succeed in the world's most arduous live poker tournament is good cards lol!!

[/QUOTE]

YOU are missing the point completely!!

[phosphorescence]

Anyway, the facts speak for themselves: anyone who makes the final table in the wsop is anything but a fish. !

two words:

one mirrion.

[phosphorescence]

i'm starting to think this whole thread might be one big elaborate level.

if so i tip my hat to you sir!

[C8H10N4O2]

Dennis Phillip's

We aren't talking about Dennis Phillip. We are talking about Dennis Phillips.

i'm starting to think this whole thread might be one big elaborate level.

if so i tip my hat to you sir!

It pretty much has to be. Nothing else makes sense.

[whitenight]

Dew: I note that in March you wrote this, "I usually don't classify successful players as donkeys. Not that one tournament is the deciding factor, but over a long period, I just don't understand how you can call him donk"

Funny, it is that by June, your classification seems to have changed

Thus by most persons' judgement his earning over 4mill is very successful indeed.

PS of course Dennis Phillips's is the correct possessive form of his name and my writing otherwise was indeed a typo - i.e., I most happily admit my apostrophe error exactly as stated. As I said, I am human too! However you could hardly blame a typo on how you judge the success of one player as against another's : that is to ask, is there not a certain degree of discordance in your position?