Review of SharkScope .com
Related Articles
Shark Scope lets you search through a few million or so SNG results from Poker Stars. Full Tilt, OnGame, Pacific, Merge Network (Carbon, Poker.com) Party Poker, iPoker networks and the Crypto network (Interpoker, William Hill, etc). Why would you want to do that? Because you can search by player name and find out how they’ve done in the past, giving you some sense [if there’s sufficient data] of the relative quality of your opponent.
SS also offers coverage of MTTs for selected rooms, and has a few other features (tournament selector, SNG leaderboard).
Look
The definition of clean. Minimal ads, no hype, just the information you need. God bless you, sharkscope.
Content Quantity / Quality
I hunted around on a few forums and the general consensus is that shark scope is pretty damn accurate. Any undertaking like this one is going to have some holes, but they seem to be few and far between. My own records were fairly accurate. You can find a complete breakdown of specific coverage room-by-room on their site.
If you’re a subscriber (around $10), you get access to a ton of search filters and can sort your SNG results by most imaginable metrics. It also spits out the info in a table format that can be easily converted into a graphic.
The one caveat to the above is that sharkscope will remove you from their database if you email them and ask, so you shouldn’t read too much into the complete lack of information for a given opponent.
Unique Pros / Cons
I’m going to restate the apparent comprehensiveness of the d-base as a unique pro. Past services like this have come up short.
This used to be a free service, but it is now subscription-based. You get the first 5 searches for free, and then you either have to pay a subscription fee (about $10) or set up an account through one of their affiliate partners.
Bottom Line
If you play SNG’s on any of the supported sites, I don’t understand why you wouldn’t use this … if you’re playing lower buy-in SNG’s, you might have a harder time justifying the cost. As a totally irrelevant note, I preferred the old logo (in the screen shots) to their current one.
