Thanks, as always coon74! I like the idea of comparing to a similar non-lottery payout structure, but hadn't thought about how to further quantify the comparison.

I think I'm going to add numbers for length of "longest" break-even stretch. This would be similar to worst buyin downswing, but would record the number of games (until back into profit relative to the start of the downswing; i.e., break-even stretch) rather than the deepest. Then you can simulate a "solid" player and see numbers.

For example:
99% had a break-even stretch longer than ___
95% had a break-even stretch longer than ___
.
.
.
5% had a break-even stretch longer than ___
1% had a break-even stretch longer than ___

You rock, c o o n - very helpful information (not sure I understand everything but I think I get it).

Does that mean, inversely, that the other approx 98% of variance is due to actual $ ROI results being different that EV ROI results?

Ok, so let's take someone whose skill should win them 50 chips per game - if we wanted to know the time period over which they should get at least 45 chips per game, the formula for 95% confidence would be (600/5)^2=14400.

And your first example (225 games (=(600/40)^2)) suggests that a skilled player could very well be close to break-even over 225 games (or slightly losing when you factor in rake).

Am I understanding you correctly?

Sorry, I hadn't intended to give you more work , but i like that idea a lot. Players who are just starting with the spin format can get discouraged pretty easily if they feel like they can't win even though they may actually be playing well - but they should have awareness of what an appropriate sample size to look at might be to actually make a strong assessment.

Yes, that's because 1) the difference between the chip EV and the actual chip winnings depends only on the board cards that fall after the betting action ends (everyone either has folded or is all-in) but is independent of players' strategies and 2) the players' strategies are almost independent of the prize multipliers.

The variance of the sum of two (or several) probabilistically independent random variables (the EV and the difference in our case) always equals the sum of their variances.

Yes, it's correct, except one clarification: the solid player can be breakeven even in terms of the chip EV after 225 games; of course he might end up losing a lot of BIs over this sample because of getting too many 2x multipliers (those times when he wins). If you wish to assess the probabilities of certain monetary losses, just use SwongSim.

Cool - thanks for the clarification.

It is interesting then that someone whose skill should garner them an EV of 50 chips per game would most likely not have a negative EV ROI in a sample size as ridiculously small as 144 games.

www.dropbox.com/s/ukpadqy24se12th/SwongSim.exe?dl=0

• Added numbers to the text output for longest breakeven stretch.

Good thing we have chip EV!

50% probability of break-even stretch of 4600 games (or more) - showers....

Thanks, Max Cut - looks good.

Thx Max Cut for making and sharing this software, its awesome, much appreciated!

www.dropbox.com/s/ukpadqy24se12th/SwongSim.exe?dl=0

Fixed bug for break-even stretch when using $ mode instead of buyin mode.

The iPoker network has just started dividing Twister prize pools of €1000 or more, regardless of the buy-in, between all the three participants in the 80%/10%/10% proportion (e.g. €800/€100/€100). The frequencies stay the same.

So there should now be separate built-in structures for €1-2 (where only the top tier enjoys the 80/10/10 split), €5 (where the top two tiers have it) and €10 Twister (where the top three tiers have it).

Thanks for the info! Can you verify that the bottom tier is 2.01 buyins?

www.dropbox.com/s/ukpadqy24se12th/SwongSim.exe?dl=0

• Updated iPoker structures.

Yes, it's all correct, the bottom tier awards 2.01 BIs, as witnessed by my cashier. Thanks!

www.dropbox.com/s/ukpadqy24se12th/SwongSim.exe?dl=0

• Speed up for drawing graphs with large numbers of games.

www.dropbox.com/s/ukpadqy24se12th/SwongSim.exe?dl=0

Bug fix. (Crash when drawing graph for very few games.)

www.dropbox.com/s/ukpadqy24se12th/SwongSim.exe?dl=0

Updated FTP Jackpot frequencies.

That rake

Speaking of the prize structures, the Winamax ones have changed too (which I've recorded in text files importable into SwongSim).

Winamax (all the buy-ins - €1/2/5/10/25/50): https://www.dropbox.com/s/5chzbyaf1z...o_new.txt?dl=0 | Screenshot

Pokerstars.es Spins split the 100x and 200x prize pools in the 80%/10%/10% proportion. Otherwise they follow the structure that you have labeled as 'XXL' (the 1200x and 6000x ones are indeed split as 83.3%/8.3%/8.3% and 25x and lower are winner-take-all). Screenshot

Pokerstars.fr has set a promotional rake rate of 5% for €50 and €100 Spins https://www.dropbox.com/s/kf80ihjggq...promo.txt?dl=0 ; on September 1, they're likely to revert to the structure identical to the €25 one with 6% rake. Screenshot

Thanks very much for the info. Will get these updated ASAP.

www.dropbox.com/s/ukpadqy24se12th/SwongSim.exe?dl=0

Updated Winamax, PokerStars.es, and PokerStars.fr structures. (Wow, that Winamax structure looks intimidating, haha.)


Thanks again, coon74.

You didn't pay attention to the bottom part of my Winamax screenshot. The prize pool at the top 4 tiers (50x's and higher, at each BI level) is split in the 80%/12%/8% proportion, i.e. 40/6/4 BIs in 50x's etc.

So the structure is only about as much scary as the Stars.fr non-promotional one. Yes, it has become so top-heavy that I'm not going to switch to Winamax to play the €25s until I have a roll of about €50K, lol.

www.dropbox.com/s/ukpadqy24se12th/SwongSim.exe?dl=0


Whoops; thanks!

The 'PokerStars Spin&Go (France, 50€)' structure name should read 'PokerStars Spin&Go (France, 25€)'.

Also, I've just found out that the Stars.it rake has been reduced for the €10 and €25 BIs, and made a screenshot. (I hope it's understandable without knowledge of Italian.)

Note that:

Rake = 9% for BI=€1/2/5 (the 1st paytable), 8% for €10 (2nd), 7% for €25 (3rd).

Tiers A and B (12000x and 1200x) split the winnings as 83.33%/8.33%/8.33%. Tiers C and D (2000x and 1000x) split them as 80%/10%/10%. The other tiers (E and lower) are winner-take-all. As usual, no deals are available.

Edit: speaking of Italy, here's the paytable of the Shake&Go tourneys of the Dollaro network (which have 1-minute blind levels, ugh, and as far as I've understood, all the tiers are winner-take-all):



(Lol, there are of course misprints in the €5 and €10 columns; I guess the structure is the same in terms of multipliers for all the stakes; the misprints show the level of Dollaro's legitimacy, lol.)

Thank you, kind sir. Yeah, I left Dollaro out on purpose because I consider them silly (1-minute blinds) and they can't even be bothered to correct their tables. Will add if asked for.

www.dropbox.com/s/ukpadqy24se12th/SwongSim.exe?dl=0

France 25€ fixed; Italy updated.

It's all OK now, thanks

Edit: if I were living in Italy, I'd try out both available options, though. Judging by the edges people have on iPoker with 2-minute blind levels and sizeable antes on slow software, Shake & Gos might be sufficiently beatable if the fish-to-reg ratio is good - fish have glaring push/fold leaks and ridiculously weak minraise/calling ranges. Plus 1.5 times more tourneys can be played per hour with the same number of tables opened, which positively affects the hourly. Plus the rake (with RB up to 40%, I believe) is lower for those who can't get SNE at Stars.it (which is hardly possible at the €10 level anyway).

Hey Max Cut!
Just wanted to say thank you for your program, it's very nice, easy to use and good to see graphs too. Very useful to visualize and understand variance and project potential winrate.
Also well done for keeeping it updated, coon74 too.

Edit: I noticed small differences between winnings amongs different sites while the rake is the same. For example Pokerstars.com $1 gives you $40 winnings, while pokerstars.fr 1€ gives you $38, then $35 for Winamax Expresso, all 3 are at 7% rake. Are they due to a mistake in your program or maybe the actual rake is 6.99..% or 7.00..1% depending on the sites?

Cheers, sharko. Glad to hear you find it useful.

The differences you notice are due to differences in payout structure. More specifically, differences in the tiers that are not winner-take-all. When a higher proportion of the total buyins awarded go to 2nd and 3rd place, then ROI will be slightly lowered for players that finish in 1st place more than 1/3 of the time. You can see this by changing the player finish distribution so 1st, 2nd, and 3rd are all 33.33%, and then comparing sites with the same rake. Another check would be changing all the tiers to a 100/0/0 prize pool distribution.

This is the same reason the common formula for expected ROI that is based on expected win rate (from chip EV) is very slightly too high (but negligible for practical purposes.)