I dont think ive come across very few SS reg'd playing nl$50 that do much better than breakeven. With rakeback they likely show a nice profit 24 tabling though.
You really need to look into the SS game a lot more, the whole concept is based a lot on reverse implied odds
,ie getting into pots vs a full stack player with the danger of another full stacker coming in behind and stacking you. Denying full stacked player the option to set mine, and play suited connectors. This suits a SS because there is a lot of isolation play at a table of full stacks, giving your pairs a fantastic price, once if goes raise, you shove, and a re-raise, your 22-88, AQ+ becomes a profitable play with the dead money in the pot. Full stacked players have also become much much better at playing back . There is a SS reg on nl$100 that 3bets from the BB at a rate of 18%, I call him with my full stealing range from LP cause im a nit anyway.
Of course naturally this whole concept becomes mute once you are at a table with 3 or more other SS players, because you simply cannot rely on the FE that the other players provide as much, and the full stacked player can call much easier with SS players behind. Overused strat imo, not really that profitable anymore, most full stack players know how to combat it anymore. Learn to play full stacked, its much more profitable, unless you perfer playing as a total robot, and being hated on the tables.
There is a few players here that have given it a go over a decent sample of hands, Jag stands out for some reason, but tbh, I think that is a mistake. Now there are some situations where SS is a great strat imo, the ideal way is testing out a new limit for a few K hands, mainly in order to get a low variance way of seeing how the regs play when you move up, but I woudlnt even do that.
On a few I-Poker tables Ive seen total collusion of full stack regs at nl$100 deliberately taking up seats and sitting out, so that the SS cannot play profitably.