Huge + 1 to pretty much everything in SandmanNess long post. Not all poker players are completely braindead, Stars.

Good post Ruse

Well Baard is just redistributing things that Amaya set up, trying to show us Spins are actually a good thing. Well we arent stupid We shouldve been grateful for previous owners. Pokerstars has always been a successful pokersite because it was offering POKER at the best playable conditions from all sites. I would fear more whats gonna come after Spin and Gos, and I dont like the direction where "poker" on pokerstars is heading....

Dealmaking

I dont get why the hell not allow it? If the 3 people want to deal, let them. If one person doesnt, play on? Its their decision.

You allow deals in tournaments, why not here? The prize money is big enough, same as tournaments.

Its the recs that all really want it as the pros if they play SnGs rather just gamble with their edge.

Because their SW cant make deals automatically such as on FTP and they dont have the manpower to handle all those deal requests manually. Thats the only reason they dont allow it atm.

Just bricked 1000x multiplier (7$ spin); got aces cracked twice.

PokerStars - $6.72+$0.28|20/40 NL (3 max) - Holdem - 2 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

Hero (SB): 1,080
BB: 420 (VPIP: 35.71, PFR: 23.08, 3Bet Preflop: 25.00, Hands: 31)

Hero posts SB 20, BB posts BB 40

Pre Flop: (pot: 60) Hero has A A

Hero raises to 80, BB raises to 420 and is all-in, Hero calls 340

Flop: (840, 2 players) 8 4 5

Turn: (840, 2 players) 5

River: (840, 2 players) 8

BB shows 5 K (Full House, Fives full of Eights) (Pre 11%, Flop 19%, Turn 95%)
Hero shows A A (Two Pair, Aces and Eights) (Pre 89%, Flop 81%, Turn 5%)
BB wins 840

Couple of hands later:

PokerStars - $6.72+$0.28|20/40 NL (3 max) - Holdem - 2 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

Hero (SB): 620
BB: 880 (VPIP: 40.63, PFR: 30.00, 3Bet Preflop: 30.00, Hands: 35)

Hero posts SB 20, BB posts BB 40

Pre Flop: (pot: 60) Hero has A A

Hero raises to 80, BB calls 40

Flop: (160, 2 players) 8 5 K
BB checks, Hero bets 80, BB raises to 800 and is all-in, Hero calls 460 and is all-in

Turn: (1,240, 2 players) 9

River: (1,240, 2 players) K

BB shows K 4 (Three of a Kind, Kings) (Pre 11%, Flop 20%, Turn 11%)
Hero shows A A (Two Pair, Aces and Kings) (Pre 89%, Flop 80%, Turn 89%)
BB wins 1,240

lol'ed. Stars agreed to not implement new games? Or to have an abundance of actions regardless of anything happening?

Thats okay, you are only couple of K Buy-Ins below EV, just a bit of that new level variance that makes this game so incredibly fun as Stars like to put it

This is the problem PS is facing. Noone wants to wait 20000 tournaments and then finish 1000 bi tournament on second place with 100 BI.

Not fish, not reg. Its just insane lottery.
However, if they accept dealmaking it would automatically mean that spin & go's in current form are silly and need to be redone, to the point where they can work without deal making.

And they don't want to make them reasonable as it appears.

Lets say they accept deal making.
Everytime a 1200 BI tournament lottery occurres players will split the money at start and leave with 400 BI each.

This can effectively be replaced with a JACKPOT! YOU WON 400BI message, the money gets credited to your account and a normal spin & go begins.

This, however, sounds a little too much like anything but poker.

I don't get all the complaints. Stars has brought a new format that is bringing tons of fish into the game that otherwise wouldn't deposit. You can an have a way higher roi than 6max, with same rake and much shorter game time.

The only bad thing is the variance but it's already really easy to sell the variance in turn for a couple % roi which still leaves this as a great format.

Sure stars should have a lower rake to be fair but they know they're offering a great format and are capitalizing on it

I'm curious about potential win rates. I assume you're talking about expected long-term ROI. Can you explain what evidence there is showing ROIs could be way higher than 6 max, or what your reasoning is behind the statement? If you're just talking about the potential to get lucky and bink a jackpot, then disregard my question.

Battlenet lobbies aside, the ROI's should be much better than 6 max since attainable BB/100's 3handed are alot higher than 6max. Probabally won't be better than HUSNG longterm though.

well you have less time than on a 6max hyper and same rake, but blind lobbies that must be it you can table select better =P.

i'm jk you might be right but if that's true it's only temporary (cuz maybe to many rec players first month?) and variance 10x sicker for a 1% better ROI? not worth.

but yeah i'm not complaining either the fish in me enjoys this new format.

Hence why I have been proposing a change in the balance between jackpot and a game where players will actually compete that in turn also lowers variance. I get the sense as you do that they do not want to change the payouts after they have already introduced the game and marketed 1000x payouts. On other regional sites like .FR there are no 2nd/3rd place prizes for the top payouts so you could hit and get nothing. That has to be demoralizing for everyone. I think a lot of players that find these very fun now in the short term will be complaining after a while of not hitting any top payouts or hitting and getting nothing.

Speaking about ROI I am running with 40% ITM after ~500 games at 15$ which is 15% ROI. Games are really soft and there is plenty of edge to be made especially HU.

I LOL'ed hard at this. That table you have there does indeed show the spin & Go rake is higher than 6 max hypers at 3/5 buy in levels (that is a majority Baard). It is also a higher % as an average across all buy in levels offered. Its funny that in trying to refute claims of high rake you made me aware of just how extortionate they are. So ok perhaps they you can argue they are not comparable, but only if you wish to argue Spin & Gos are raked more.

I haven't played a single spinandgo but that rake is ridiculous. Hard to see how they can honestly say that a 3 max hyper needs almost double the rake of a heads up hyper.

Games are softer. I think ps prefers keeping the extra profit themselves rather than spreading it between regs, hence the extra rake

After nearly 2k games I have ~12% chipev before rake. Thats not much of a sample, but even if I've had really good cd that should be way better than 6max where I believe most regs lose pre rb. And I have a pretty good base of knowledge to judge my opponents, there is still a ton of edge to be had. This is also mostly 8tabling.
The time thing doesnt really matter. I get that people used to use that as a guideline between sngs and mtts, but the variable costs for stars to run an extra game are absurdly low regardless of if they take 3 minutes more. There are way more important considerations to determine proper rake.

It's true that a big part of the available edge is so many fish playing it (and so many regs staying away) but thats not purely due to a new format, stars have clearly found something that is legitimately able to bring in new players.

The variance is truly sick, but if you have say a 2% better roi than at 6max you can just sell the spin variance and now you have the same roi as at 6max but with more games/hr and vpp/hr
Bingo. Rake being this high makes no sense from a gods eye view, but stars is a business, they've given us a format that can be super profitable for us and them, and they've intelligently decided to give themselves the way bigger slice of the pie. They know exactly how high they can go before they would start losing important regs.

yes, let's pity the wealthiest party in this arrangement. I guess when we're taking it dry we're not supposed to complain, and just be thankful for the sex.

yes but then everyone keeps asking click deal etc and it kinda creates an unnecessary dynamic whereby if there is just no deal making nobody ask click ...

Somebody can try and arrange transfers rather than asking me to click click etc

lol, something tells me this wouldn't last long, gl with the edge

Yeah sounds very sustainable

I love the "i m running super hot attitude" so the format must be awesome

How about each player gets 300 BI, and then play for the remaining 300? Banks a nice win if you spin the big one, which reduces the variance, but still playing poker for an equally large amount so there's some skill element too.

And similarly for the next two levels, 30 BI each and play for the other 30 at the 120x level, and 60 BI each and play for the last 60 at the 240x level.


And then no deals.