Let's say you're on the button first hand, you fold, the two blinds go all-in, one busts, so second hand you have 500 chips and the other guy has 1000 chips. If you had the option, would people prefer that every Spin and Go started this way? Or would you rather start at 500/500/500 every time? Why?

I suspect since this is a HUSNG forum, most people would prefer to get HU right away. Playing more hands + blinds/antes not going up yet means more time to exploit your edge?

"Would you prefer to start at an even playing field, or at a 2-1 chip disadvantage?"


Not a very difficult decision unless we feel we have some utterly absurd edge HU that we do not have 3way.

Given that we effectively need to win two 25bb HU Hypers in a row, with the 2-1 chip disadvantage, in order for us to have an overall winrate in the spingo of 33%, we need to beat that one guy in a HUSNG 58% of the time, and to do better than flipping the spingo we need to beat them more than 58% of the time. You pretty much need them to skype you their holecards to get such a winrate.

I think it's a relevant hypothetical. The way you word it makes it sound like an easy decision, but conversely you could say "Would you prefer to start where you have to beat two players or just one?

The way you word neglects a very important consideration

Even considering it is Friday night in Europe, this is absolute nonsense.

Pgh I would be happy if the other two players got allin on the first hand as you described.

Yes, the situation isn't exactly described by having to win two consecutive HUSNGs. But care to give a less **** explanation of why it isn't a sensible comparison?

@ferris.shrugged

Don't forget that the effective stacks will often get deeper than 500 chips. You don't have to double up before taking the rest of the opponent's stack; you can also build your stack up to 750 chips and then bust the opponent in one blow.

To have 35% ITM, you need to win 25 chips net per game (=0.35*1500-500). If both you and the opponent had 500 chips, that would correspond to 52.5% of wins in the HU, or 3% (=5% minus the 2% rake) pre-cashback ROI in a HU hyper, which is surely attainable. But as the effective stacks often get somewhat deeper than 500 chips, the HU edge is slightly bigger than in a usual HU hyper (as long as you get HU at the first blind level).

I don't mean to imply that no edge should be sought in the 3-max phase, but I wanted to show that seeing the opponents clash in the first hand is not as big a tragedy as you've pictured it.

Because if you win the first sng as you describe it you have a 1,000 v 500 chip advantage at the start of your '2nd sng'.

3 players equal skill you win 1/3. If you have 500 chips v one player of equal skill with 1,000 chips , you win 1/3. Your chance of winning hasn't diminished or increased.

I would prefer to play out the second scenario rather than the first because being in the small blind 3 handed is annoying, and heads up poker is a better game than 3 handed, in my opinion, and some other smaller reasons like on that table you can focus fully on one opponent rather than two.

Welp. I stand corrected

finally a game where fish can play a million hands and be up a couple thousand buyins

lolololololol

Move Down if you dont have a big roll, and move up agian when you have 200-1000 buyins depending on your expected ROI

You could significantly reduce the variance by forming groups with other regs and split all the payouts according to everyone's winrate, that way everyone in the group would get the same average payout per win and it would take a lot less time to hit higher payouts. This would also incentivize regs to play for big payouts instead of dealing since they wouldn't be risking much. Only problem with that is if one guy decides to freeride the group and not split if he hit a jackpot.

yeah, cause 100x buyins isnn't high enough! And lol at 100k games, make it 1mil and then we're talking as it stands.

Seriously guys...

$30 Spin & Go Probability

$3,000 - 25 of 100,000
$1,500 - 50 of 100,000
$750 - 100 of 100,000
$300 - 1,000 of 100,000
$180 - 8,000 of 100,000
$120 - 21,925 of 100,000

3% of the prize pool goes to rake

Nvm the 50/30/20 payout structure, it would actually be worse!
Here are some simulations of as it stands and how it could be:



...i think it would make a huge difference!
Please stars, at least if you're considering making stakes higher than 30s, consider this. (hence also why the 3% rake)

Doesn't that open the door for a ton of collusion when two people in the group get seated at the same table? Especially if there's an increased pay out.

I was initially pretty concerned about that happening, this game type seems like a magnet for collusion. But I think for now, the player pool is big enough that you won't end up with same players at your table too often.

Here's a fun risk management problem. What is the most you would be willing to pay to ensure that the next game you play has a prize pool of 150 minus rake as opposed to the spin element

A tougher question. What premium would you pay to be in insured such that over 1000 games, if you are below spinev you will be reimbursed according to your wr, while if you run good you don't owe anything

Is the raketrap explained ?



if anythign the variance AND the blind lobbies should account to the rake being proportionally lower, not higher...

Don't forget that if he 'loses' a 1200x, he'll still get 100 BIs, hence my advice to move up (unless his roll is depleted by running bad previously).

+1, I've been telling this for months.

This is exactly what i was thinking when I read about the sick variance.

if i get the same games/hr then i would pick 3-handed start because i would think i still have an edge there. If games were unlimited it would probably be better for me to just start HU.

well it's pretty obvious stars isn't going to add a game that won't produce more rake than games already on the site, why else add it

If regs were to swap %s of the jackpots, how would you track it?

you wouldnt

It can be done by requesting game history audit files and sending them to the swap partners while screencasting via Teamviewer.

Also, 1200x games show up in the lobby, so the biggest scores of the swap partners aren't getting hidden anyway. The rest is up to their integrity and conscience.

seems to me they are not allowing deals at all now. Just watched 2 1000x $3 and $7 and moderator says no deals...