There's a link to the S-B thingy somewhere on this site. It's not a clear forward explanation, but it does point you in the right direction.
What it does is count up all the points that your opponents scored in the games they played if you beat them yourself. If you lose to an opponent, you'll get no S-B points from him. Let's say you beat him, though. You get an S-B point for each win the he gets. I just won a tournament even though I didn't have the most S-B points. In the tournament we were playing two games each. Andreas beat me in both games, but I won every other game in the tournament. Seven of us were in the tournament. So I was 10 wins and 2 losses. Andreas scored 20 S-B points off of me. He lost three games and finished 9 wins and 3 losses. MenisfromVenis was 9 and 3 also. The S-B thingy gave Andreas second place, as he had the most S-B points between them. I had 46, Andreas 47, and Menis 37. So it seems to me the S-B thingy is flawed too, but I suppose it's better than leaving things tied unless the S-B is also tied, then I suppose you drop back and punt it as far as you can! :)

You can go to any finished tournament and count the points. Take one of the players that came in last or second to last. They're easier to count than the winners. If a player only won one game, he'll have the S-B points of the number of wins of the person that he beat. I did this a couple of times, and now I mostly understand the S-B thingy even though I'm not much of a fan of it. Since it's unfair to not use it and it's unfair to use it, I suppose a decision has to be made about using it or not. I know one way to break a tie is to make the winner between two players have the lead. Had Andreas only lost two games, I would've be OK with him being the tournament champion since he took all of our games. If we had split our games or if I had taken them both and it made him the champion, I would be very displeased about it.