I don't know what the average time to finish a spin & go is but it's probably less then 10 minutes for a 6% rake grab from each players buy-in. Players play more games especially them 1 or 2 tabling guys = network grabs the rake faster from them versus a 9 man sng that might be raked at 10% for example where even if the player just plays that one game and gets to the end if it's a reg speed it can take 90 minutes.

Due to the small amount of time it takes to play this type of sng format that is a total cash grab from any poker site for a structure that is going to bring a lot of variance to players.

I'm not saying these games can't be beaten because they can but you also add the multiplier variance in where even the best players putting in the biggest volume may not be lucky enough to draw even close to neutral ev in the value of the spins over a several thousand sample size.

*would

fixed it.

* could

There... refixed it. Don't fix what ain't broken.

We really cannot judge it tell we see what happens when it starts.

believe whatever you want

And you can believe whatever you want. Then you can write your own post. Don't edit mine.

To put this into the right perspective:
1. Winamax is a french site who invented this format. They are in a regulated market and rake (for cg, mtt & sngs) is higher than on the global sites.

2. Stars is taking 5% for 15$ upwards (this is too high as well)

3. Full tilt is taking 4% for the 50$

4. Ipoker is overpriced like hell and just copied the winamax rake amount when they introduced this. You can cut down the effective rake way more than on other sites with decent rb deals which makes this (depending on the deal) the cheapest option despite the high rake.

I play jackpots on any possible site and i like the deal option you are introducing but the rake should be 5% (or lower) to stay competitive. You are not a huge network right now so i dont see how i can jump ships if you dont offer a better product than the Competition

Can we not speak of stars, makes me sad when I think about 100k gtd's daily for 11 bucks

people were talking as early as mid october how beatable they were. just because you didnt hear about someone beating them until march doesnt make it correct.

People talking about how beatable they think they are doesn't equate to proving that they are beatable. I've heard about all that has been said about them. And I was very involved in the PokerStars thread discussing them.

I've never said that they weren't beatable by some of the best players. My issue is with people like Kahn who have been trying to create the illusion that anyone can beat them since a few of the best pros have been able to win money. I've also seen that a couple of other people have been hyping these games as a gold mine so that they can sell coaching lessons; but there is nothing new in the poker world in regards to that type of shady marketing.

The guy that supposedly proved that they can be beaten is one of the best hyper players around. He agreed to a prop bet that he could beat them. He was given about 3 to 1 odds against him being able to beat them. Playing his normal number of games, he actually wasn't able to beat them. He had to reduce his playing to 2 or 3 games at a time to succeed. And even then he only played 5,000 games which isn't really enough of a sample to prove anything. His ROI was high enough, though, to reasonably assume that he was beating the game.

What the pros can do with the game isn't the important thing. The real question is whether Rec players can beat the game. I think that there is little question that they can't.

Recreational players are attracted to these games by the prospect of winning the big spin. The fact of the matter, though, is that in any given session a player is far far more likely to win a Bad Beat Jackpot (if there was one) than to win that big spin. Drawing players in with a spin that they aren't going to win and then burning them with a game that they can't possibly beat, I don't feel, is the best way to treat Rec players on any site.

Jackpot games should make us examine definitions more closely. I think of beatable in the theoretical sense: profitable under correct play over an infinite number of games, and grindable as: profitable under correct play within a reasonable time frame and with reasonable BRM. Grindable is more subjective and player dependent but also more pertinent.

Most casual conversation uses the term beatable to mean what I call grindable. There is some good evidence that a few players are beating Stars spins. (This evidence is in the form of expected chip-EV.) I would not personally call it proven, but that's admittedly a bit pedantic. I believe the verdict is still out on how grindable they might be, especially without backing or profit sharing.

Food for thought. What can Stars spins being beatable and/or grindable tell us about WPN Jackpot Poker, given the relative player pools and potential new players? What does the shift in Stars traffic between SNG types and increase in new players after introducing spins tell us about what will happen to WPN traffic?

Let's not lose sight of the fact that rec players can't beat any game format. Which really makes this sort of a moot point and not the real question imo. Although a better point here would be not that rec players stand to lose at this format, but rather that they stand to lose more quickly vs other formats (probably).

Yes, this is the point. So some of the real questions here imo are:

Q: Will these draw new players to the network?
A: Almost certainly yes, to what extent is unknown.

Q: Will the rec players drawn to the jackpot prospect burn out their rec money in them?
A: Sure, some % that is not zero will. But I think it's fair to say many won't. They'll find they don't like the format for whatever reason, or they enjoy other formats of poker too (the latter most likely), and their play will bleed over to MTT's, SNG's, and cash games.

Q: Will these kill off the WPN economy?
A: I think the answer is no. We can debate this until we're blue in the keyboard but the truth is this remains to be seen. That being said, these have not killed the poker economies where they are already in play, and the CEO (who has more info than any of us do) and his team don't think it will kill the network economy since they are rolling them out.

I don't know if this will be good or bad for wpn, none of us do. But what I do know is that it's almost certain to attract new players, especially rec players, and once they have their foot in the door, some of them are going to decide they like the decor and stick around, spilling over to cash games and mtt's. That seems like a step in the right direction. If these games burn off rolls faster than they bring in new sustained rec players, then it won't work in the end, but that doesn't seem to be the case on other sites who have them so I think it's reasonable of WPN to roll the dice on them.

(PS- I agree with everyone else the rake on these is brutal, it seems like WPN just went with the industry standard here, but maybe they can/should do a bit better tbh... would make for a good marketing angle too... first US facing site to offer this format AND with the best rake in the entire industry! Maybe with that tag line WPN attracts some business from other sites with these. )

Speak for yourself!

There was some substantial impact within certain game types on Stars (HU and 6-max hypers, especially). One could imagine the effect being even more pronounced given WPNs small SNG player pool. On the other hand, that small pool might be more robust given the higher proportion of regulars. I can't foresee ANYTHING killing off those damned DONs! Kinda glad I'm just an interested observer, for now.

First of all, rec players aren't always losing players. They just usually aren't very good players. I know rec players who make a small profit.

Secondly, the Spin and Goes require an extremely exploitive style of play in order to beat them that only the best players can master well. That style of play isn't required of all games. A player who can beat DONs might have no chance at all with Spin and Goes.

And thirdly (as you mentioned), the problem isn't necessarily whether or not a rec player actually wins money over the long run. In many games a rec player might lose money slow enough to feel like he can almost beat the game. But a game that burns through a rec player's bankroll as quickly as these type of games, isn't all that good for a healthy ecology.

Wait, I just assumed since I can't beat any format, no one else can either.


Maybe we are defining rec player differently. I think we were talking about the casual player that plays for fun and is not a winning player. Not the player who studies the game to some extent and plays decently, just on a limited basis for fun only and eeks out a small profit margin. Surely you weren't worried about jackpot games luring this latter type into gross roll degening (when they're not spinning to get in)

this isn't rocket science guys.. you have to kill the fish slowly.. so that they have time to reproduce! you can fish forever if you respect the balance of the ecosystem.. but you can only fish once if you kill all the fish in 10 minutes...

+1 to this post.

i can't see why WPN would not want to have a lower rake than any other site in order to attract more people. the current level of rake definitely calls into question the "grindability" of these games.

prediction: these will NOT attract players to other poker variants at a rate that equals or surpasses the rate at which it hemorrhages money from the system as a whole.

If these detract from SnG traffic I'm going to be looking for a new place to play. The SnGs are already reg-infested enough.

I agree with everything Santa Cruz is saying.

These things canabolise poker. There are tonnes of recs in these games on Stars (I've played them) which is such a shame, because even with all those recs the game is still a physical and mental grind by the best players. Everyone knows about bighusla and how well he did, but if you think you're going to do the same then stop grinding those $300 husng's and start studying (sarcasm).

exciting!!!

I see arguments ITT that:

- Fish like me will play these games instead of the regular SNGs.

- Profitable regs will avoid these games because they will be harder to beat.

- The result will be less profit from pots for regs and more profit from rake/hold for WPN.

Those arguments seem reasonable to me. Suppose they are correct:

- If I were a profitable reg, I'd think this was a bad thing.

- If I were a manager or owner of WPN, I'd think this was a good thing.

We all know which one of those two groups gets to make this decision.

It's unlikely that any argument will prevent WPN from at least trying this, since they have already made that decision and invested resources into making it happen.

If WPN does become more profitable after implementing Jackpot Poker, it's likely to stay, and to be imitated by other sites / networks also.

If fish lose their money quickly and leave, and regs leave because there are no fish, WPN will eventually figure that out and reduce the rake/hold on the Jackpot games, or eliminate them. WPN's best educated guess is that this won't happen. They know more about it than I do.

Again, either way, it looks like this is going to be a thing for the short- and medium-term.

No one is obliged to like it when it rains, but it rains whether we like it or not, and the most useful thing is to figure out how best to adjust to it. That's easy for me to say, as a losing micro-stakes rec whose income won't be affected. But it's true nonetheless.

It's WPN that is imitating other sites.

I'd still like to know if these get rakeback or not. If so, the rake is lower than industry standard overall (I don't really know how PS and the other sites deal with rewards but I'm pretty certain there's no rakeback or nothing in the realm of 27% cashback with their rewards unless you grind a lot.)

I think that this Jackpot Poker concept will bring a "NEW" variety of player. I don't believe that this feature will ruin the existing casual player base because those players already attracted to the site are attracted to it for what the site already has to offer. What the site already has to offer those existing casual players is not going to change. The new feature will attract a new TYPE of person to the poker site.

Think of it this way: Poker players play poker because of the skill involved in the game. and slot players play slots for the thrill of the gamble, right? Wouldn't it be nice to get some of those thrill seekers who like to gamble to get excited about playing poker? I think that's what will happen with Jackpot Poker.

What's the over under line on the new traffic Jackpot Poker will bring? I'll take the over for sure! And cash game traffic will increase, mark this post!