** Official Spin and Go's Discussion Thread **
11-07-2014
, 07:28 PM
Uhm...
So he saying variance is like 10000 buyins? I guess we can all agree variance is closer to 10 max buyins downswing than to a 10000 buyins downswing.......
Nuff said, right? Btw you are the 6max cartels spokesperson?
Oh a jolly bit of Friday evening entertainment.
Quote:
So people unless you want your graphs to look like these TIMES 10:
Quote:
No, you were taking a shot at 6 max, and saying basically that players that win money from rb are beneath you.
Quote:
If I decided to sit 30s I would crush every reg there, including you and whether or not you wanted me in, I would eventually have my own lobbies because no one would sit me.
Oh a jolly bit of Friday evening entertainment.
11-07-2014
, 07:35 PM
There isn't that much overlap in skills b/w HU and 6max hypers...is there a popular format with less postflop play than 6 max hypers? Not saying that the skills to beat 6 max are easy to obtain, they are just different, and its very unlikely that you would crush 30's.
I'm sure that many 30's and all 60's guys would be willing to play you heads-up at high enough stakes for it to be "worth your time". Even I would take you up on the challenge, and I have not even gotten into 30's division.
SandmanNess How about we arrange a heads-up match at 100's/200's 1k-2k games? Easy variance-free money for you
I'm sure that many 30's and all 60's guys would be willing to play you heads-up at high enough stakes for it to be "worth your time". Even I would take you up on the challenge, and I have not even gotten into 30's division.
SandmanNess How about we arrange a heads-up match at 100's/200's 1k-2k games? Easy variance-free money for you
11-07-2014
, 08:47 PM
Quote:
There isn't that much overlap in skills b/w HU and 6max hypers...is there a popular format with less postflop play than 6 max hypers? Not saying that the skills to beat 6 max are easy to obtain, they are just different, and its very unlikely that you would crush 30's.
I'm sure that many 30's and all 60's guys would be willing to play you heads-up at high enough stakes for it to be "worth your time". Even I would take you up on the challenge, and I have not even gotten into 30's division.
SandmanNess How about we arrange a heads-up match at 100's/200's 1k-2k games? Easy variance-free money for you
I'm sure that many 30's and all 60's guys would be willing to play you heads-up at high enough stakes for it to be "worth your time". Even I would take you up on the challenge, and I have not even gotten into 30's division.
SandmanNess How about we arrange a heads-up match at 100's/200's 1k-2k games? Easy variance-free money for you
I agree most of them are not great, probably including me. I don't think I said anywhere that 6 max regs were better than HU regs at HU across same stake levels. That would be absurd. I said I will happily play any 30s reg for a side bet and that I could easily crush 30s.
Last edited by SandmanNess; 11-07-2014 at 09:02 PM.
11-07-2014
, 09:10 PM
Quote:
If you provide your SN, and a way to prove that it's really you playing and not your 300s reg roommate, and you are who you have represented yourself as, I would absolutely do this in January after I finish SNE. And if you really think that either one of us can get 100s or 200s lobbies, you're delusional. We can play 30s and do a side bet of about 10-15k to make it worth it. 2k games. Just let me know.
11-07-2014
, 09:26 PM
Meaning he's an aspiring 30s cartel reg or already is a 30s reg, I would even consider a 60s reg. But if he gives me his SN and hes actually a 200s reg then that's different. And I said there would have to be a way to prove that its really him playing.
Last edited by SandmanNess; 11-07-2014 at 09:28 PM.
Reason: pretty sure I've seen in here his SN is the same
11-07-2014
, 09:27 PM
Yeah shouldnt be too difficult to get a lobby when you ask nicely, and after all there is still FTP. Gonna come back to you on this one 
Any ideas? Who guarantees you dont hire a 300s guy whilst sitting in front of your PC stroking it pretending to play?
Quote:
And I said there would have to be a way to prove that its really him playing.
11-07-2014
, 09:43 PM
I dont have a problem with a webcam and pics of me verified by people in this community who have met me IRL and my personal fb page to compare against my webcam. I'm covered in very noticeable tattoos, so its pretty hard for me to pretend to be someone else.
11-08-2014
, 12:03 PM
Code:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Effective Specified Simulation Place Finish Distribution Finish Distribution 1 0.00037% 0.00039% 2 0.00031% 0.000306% 3 0.00032% 0.000341% 4 0.00185% 0.00183% 5 0.00155% 0.001576% 6 0.0016% 0.001642% 7 0.0037% 0.003714% 8 0.0031% 0.003103% 9 0.0032% 0.00318% 10 0.037% 0.037036% 11 0.185% 0.185188% 12 2.775% 2.77328% 13 7.90542% 7.901146% 14 26.09166% 26.092015% ITM 37.01008% 37.004748% --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2000 simulations of 100000 games Expected ROI (with 45% rakeback): 7.64% ($229349) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had ROI below 14.48% ($434339) 97.5% had ROI below 12.86% ($385889) 95% had ROI below 11.98% ($359489) 90% had ROI below 10.11% ($303209) 80% had ROI below 9.34% ($280079) 70% had ROI below 8.53% ($255839) 60% had ROI below 7.32% ($219569) 50% had ROI below 6.96% ($208859) 40% had ROI below 6.68% ($200430) 30% had ROI below 6.42% ($192630) 20% had ROI below 6.18% ($185550) 10% had ROI below 5.84% ($175110) 5% had ROI below 5.60% ($168149) 2.5% had ROI below 5.41% ($162300) 1% had ROI below 5.20% ($156000) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had a downswing greater than $2654 97.5% had a downswing greater than $2757 95% had a downswing greater than $2899 90% had a downswing greater than $3050 80% had a downswing greater than $3265 70% had a downswing greater than $3459 60% had a downswing greater than $3643 50% had a downswing greater than $3815 40% had a downswing greater than $3988 30% had a downswing greater than $4228 20% had a downswing greater than $4528 10% had a downswing greater than $5012 5% had a downswing greater than $5511 2.5% had a downswing greater than $5981 1% had a downswing greater than $6727 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had a low point lower than $0 97.5% had a low point lower than $0 95% had a low point lower than $-28 90% had a low point lower than $-56 80% had a low point lower than $-117 70% had a low point lower than $-211 60% had a low point lower than $-317 50% had a low point lower than $-438 40% had a low point lower than $-582 30% had a low point lower than $-765 20% had a low point lower than $-1037 10% had a low point lower than $-1490 5% had a low point lower than $-1928 2.5% had a low point lower than $-2358 1% had a low point lower than $-2721 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Code:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Effective Specified Simulation Place Finish Distribution Finish Distribution 1 0.00038% 0.00037% 2 0.0003% 0.000303% 3 0.00032% 0.000316% 4 0.0019% 0.0019% 5 0.0015% 0.001506% 6 0.0016% 0.001604% 7 0.0038% 0.003804% 8 0.003% 0.002944% 9 0.0032% 0.003277% 10 0.038% 0.038086% 11 0.19% 0.189709% 12 2.85% 2.849972% 13 8.11908% 8.116046% 14 26.79684% 26.797906% ITM 38.00992% 38.007746% --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2000 simulations of 100000 games Expected ROI (with 45% rakeback): 10.48% ($314399) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had ROI below 16.40% ($492029) 97.5% had ROI below 15.40% ($461879) 95% had ROI below 13.91% ($417329) 90% had ROI below 12.86% ($385769) 80% had ROI below 12.17% ($365189) 70% had ROI below 11.24% ($337079) 60% had ROI below 10.06% ($301709) 50% had ROI below 9.70% ($291029) 40% had ROI below 9.45% ($283529) 30% had ROI below 9.23% ($277049) 20% had ROI below 8.99% ($269789) 10% had ROI below 8.68% ($260549) 5% had ROI below 8.47% ($254160) 2.5% had ROI below 8.31% ($249329) 1% had ROI below 8.02% ($240720) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had a downswing greater than $2028 97.5% had a downswing greater than $2139 95% had a downswing greater than $2230 90% had a downswing greater than $2335 80% had a downswing greater than $2483 70% had a downswing greater than $2602 60% had a downswing greater than $2712 50% had a downswing greater than $2830 40% had a downswing greater than $2954 30% had a downswing greater than $3096 20% had a downswing greater than $3276 10% had a downswing greater than $3595 5% had a downswing greater than $3917 2.5% had a downswing greater than $4217 1% had a downswing greater than $4556 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had a low point lower than $0 97.5% had a low point lower than $0 95% had a low point lower than $0 90% had a low point lower than $-39 80% had a low point lower than $-88 70% had a low point lower than $-147 60% had a low point lower than $-222 50% had a low point lower than $-299 40% had a low point lower than $-388 30% had a low point lower than $-504 20% had a low point lower than $-687 10% had a low point lower than $-992 5% had a low point lower than $-1240 2.5% had a low point lower than $-1509 1% had a low point lower than $-1879 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Code:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Effective Specified Simulation Place Finish Distribution Finish Distribution 1 0.00039% 0.00038% 2 0.0003% 0.00027% 3 0.00031% 0.000308% 4 0.00195% 0.001937% 5 0.0015% 0.001466% 6 0.00155% 0.001567% 7 0.0039% 0.00388% 8 0.003% 0.002979% 9 0.0031% 0.003117% 10 0.039% 0.039092% 11 0.195% 0.19451% 12 2.925% 2.925327% 13 8.33274% 8.332426% 14 27.50202% 27.504239% ITM 39.00976% 39.011496% --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2000 simulations of 100000 games Expected ROI (with 45% rakeback): 13.31% ($399449) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had ROI below 19.02% ($570749) 97.5% had ROI below 18.31% ($549239) 95% had ROI below 17.24% ($517259) 90% had ROI below 15.84% ($475319) 80% had ROI below 15.07% ($452129) 70% had ROI below 14.20% ($425940) 60% had ROI below 12.91% ($387449) 50% had ROI below 12.53% ($375960) 40% had ROI below 12.25% ($367590) 30% had ROI below 12.00% ($359969) 20% had ROI below 11.76% ($352709) 10% had ROI below 11.41% ($342300) 5% had ROI below 11.15% ($334410) 2.5% had ROI below 10.92% ($327630) 1% had ROI below 10.72% ($321570) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had a downswing greater than $1699 97.5% had a downswing greater than $1762 95% had a downswing greater than $1823 90% had a downswing greater than $1906 80% had a downswing greater than $2014 70% had a downswing greater than $2100 60% had a downswing greater than $2189 50% had a downswing greater than $2286 40% had a downswing greater than $2374 30% had a downswing greater than $2481 20% had a downswing greater than $2625 10% had a downswing greater than $2862 5% had a downswing greater than $3100 2.5% had a downswing greater than $3352 1% had a downswing greater than $3727 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------