How do you use the /100 number to determine the players skill?? would 55 be a good rank? weak player? at what number would you consider these people losing players? with only their /100 number on SS

Depends on the stakes. In general, low stakes fish probably have less than 58ish. In high stakes even fish have like 65 iirc.

Could be totally wrong, never used SS much .

Similar to this,but I don't know the exact formula. Just don't think it is all that accurate.

That composite score that SS uses is fairly retarded. You can be a -10% loser at the high stakes, and have a higher score than a big time winner at the low stakes. It doesn't really mean a whole lot IMO

Yeah the ratings are a fair measure. Even two players at the same stakes can have the same ratings despite one of them having a much higher profit

To be fair most high stakes fish would probably be winners at microstakes .

I'll agree with that on a very general level, but there are many instances where that is not the case, especially in the realm of the super turbos.

some one should contact the guys at sharkscope, find out the formulas they use for calculating player score and post it here so we can all discuss it. if you properly know how the player score works it should still be pretty usefull

I don't know the actual calculation, but I can tell you it disproportionately and drastically overvalues the stakes a person plays, relative to their results at their stakes.

For sngs, if a guy has an average BI of $50, and has a -10% ROI (really terrible results), they will still have a higher composite score than somebody with a $10 ABI and a 3% ROI. If both players have an adequate sample, the higher stakes guy should almost never be considered the superior player, unless the games he is playing are insanely reg infested relative to the lower stakes.

I personally just don't give any credence to the ability/100 score. It's not an effective way to compare players of different BIs or different game types. I won't go so far as to call it useless, but if you are a discerning player, you don't really need a composite score to interpret the rest of the numbers anyways.

with 7% rake a -10% ROI (with likely no game seletion) is only about a -3% true roi in what is probably a tough game considering the buy in, that player could be better than someone with 3% at low stakes

if you understand how they calculate it you have alot more info than no info