link please?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...takes-1502954/

ty. found that one but prob haven't got to the cartel issues yet.

So you are ok to use spinwiz to politely line up and take money from recreational players but you don't want to be targeted by individual players?
We're not talking about a cartel, we talking about changing the spin wiz algorithm to make it profitable for individual players to target mediocre regs.

He's probably not talking about the idea I proposed, but rather the talk of forming actual groups of players.

One advantage of my idea is that there is no group, it just makes it so that players have real rewards for sitting other players on an individual basis. That's one of the major complaints people had about groups.

In HUSNGs, nothing could really be done (due to the way the game works + an uncooperative software programmer). That's not the case in Spins.

That's how it works, I believe the paragraph is there to explain, if you sit someone you have a good chance to get bonus fish tables.

Yeah I think so as well. Whenever I sit someone (when it's their turn in the queue I join their table rather than when it's my turn) I usually get a table with 2 fish simultaneously as well.

Unless they mark me as well (not 100% sure on this), and we get multiple tables together

People who have marked you will not be seated with you when you try to sit someone (aka when you are not #1).

sorry i havent really got time to go thru these 9 pages, is there any list with people that are clear value sits for good hu players? i reckon that would benefit everyone, help queue run faster, so why not share a list like that. and judgeing by quick look at the active player list there's so many new names that there must be plenty of clear value sits

Public disclosure of the value sit list is as big an insult to those on it as shaming players for their Sharkscope graphs, imho.

If I'm ticked by a lot of players, I can at least conjecture that some of them simply tick everyone to get more games, i.e. I can be yet delusional about my relative skill level.

lol are you being serious? Posting this question on a public forum where most spinwiz users are likely to frequent...

I wouldn't rely much on the opinion of other people either.

In HUSNGs, people would constantly talk about how good or bad a blocked stats person was. Then eventually you saw the data on them and realized how wrong people were.

There's no data in Spins, I would play people and get an idea for yourself. Your definition of a bad player (and how you matchup against them) is often different from someone else's.

Think back to how many times even a person whose game you respected told you how weak or good someone was, and how many times your own experience told you different.

The lines are getting worse and worse meaning more and more mediocre regs are clogging up the queues.
Chicagory, I think a spinwiz algorithm driven solution can work but it needs to be advantageous to sit mediocre regs eg for every time you sit a spinwiz reg, you get shifted to the front of the queue twice (or something like that).

I'm afraid that 'induction' into the sitlist will be based not only on personal opinions, but also on shared notes and stats. It takes only a few thousand games where the given player faced one of the cartel members to determine the former's all-in adjusted chip winrate quite accurately (separately in 3-max and HU, the 3-max assessment being more accurate because it can be observed in the games where the latter finished in third as well).

Its against EULA and you're a dick.

Something similar will be released next week.

I only described what I fear. Of course I'm not going to do this myself. I'm even not going to play Stars' Spins higher than $15s (and it's going to be only a tiny part of my overall volume, just to gain a status at a training site to which I'm affiliated) exactly because $30s-60s are controlled by spinwizzing regs of HUSNG origin who'll never respect me and would always have me on the value sit list.

Seems paranoid to think you can't play above $15s though.

What you fear may be against the rules, but is probably a better criteria than what is likely to happen, given historical evidence.

Hopefully the change Pies mentions will be embraced and/or improved to be satisfactory for the community moving forward.

hey guys
i now see 50-70 people in queue in spinwiz uring day time on 30-60 buy ins. Idon't play 30-60 so I am just wondering how long you have to wait to get new tables? I mean several months later there maybe 100+ people in queue and your tournaments/hour will be like 10-15 per hour lol

yes, the line at the $60s is not healthy for the game.

Online players =/= in the queue, lots are stopped not playing or stopped to wait #1 in line.

As far as I understand the basic queueing theory, the waiting time in a typical (M/M/1) queue is inversely proportional to the difference between the 'arrival rate' (the frequency of users requesting a new table) and the 'service rate' (the frequency of non-users' registrations).

The fact that the queue length has grown dramatically means that 1) it's going to grow rapidly if no measures are taken, 2) it suffices to slightly reduce the arrival rate to make the average waiting time much smaller.

MOV EAX has at least two tools of control over the arrival rate:

1. Reduction of the allowed table count per user (but it's down to 3 already at the 60s, and adjusting it to 2 would have too big an impact).

2. Reduction of the time for which a user whom no one has ticked can wait for two non-users to join (currently 40 seconds) and is then sat with the next user from the queue (hence in a 1-non-user game).

Evidently, I'm in favour of the second measure

Ideally, there should remain fewer unticked (strong) regs, but ticking them is quite a sacrifice. Still, I find it +EV for the pool of weak regs as a whole because they'll then deny the strong regs the monopoly on 2-non-user games (force everyone to play mainly 1-non-user games) and get a bigger share of non-users' deposits, i.e. will be able to get more games an hour (with 1 user and 1 non-user, which is still profitable).

Again, it's rather a theoretical musing of mine because I can just play on iPoker and (in the worst case) the WPN, whose nontrivial seating algorithms (I'm not sure about iPoker) render any potential Spinwiz-like tools ineffective

that one made me laugh. "guys! guys! i hate this system... why we all cant be friends, just pls dont sit me for value you god damn hu mafia bullies, we can all bumhunt together, trust me its fine"

not to mention that nothing is controlled by anyone and the likes of you, that openly admit that never going to improve their game and stay forever as value-sit for others (wtf...), can actually get lot of fish at the moment

but heyy can we pls stop talking cartels, cartels are wrong and unfair and put preasure on us. its like in ****ing school all over again: i need to work hard, learn every day... nobody singed up for this ****, we are pokerplayers, come on

I want the one where the best regs get extra value/fish & shorter lines. Unless I don't qualify as a best reg then I want the other way.

Did.. did I vote?

If both good and bad regs get totally random opponents, good regs will still earn significantly more. Compare it to the really unfair situation in non-Zoom cash games where the players who're the best in terms of pure poker skill might have lower hourlies just because their seating scripts are slower.