So PokerStars removed reg speed and turbo HUSNGs I think on the main site I think maybe not long ago and afaik on the Ontario site only hypers are offered (it might have launched with reg speed and turbos, I don't know - I used to play a bunch just came back to start playing again). I think hypers remain on the main site, making hypers the game that are offered on the main site and on the Ontario site (unless I have it wrong). Does anyone think offering only hyper HUSNGs is bad for poker? If reg speeds and turbos were removed for lack of interest (I'm not sure if they were), I think reoffering turbos is worth consideration. Hypers and turbos are like two different games, the HUSNG variant is still technically offered but you aren't getting to play what a 1500 10/20-15/30-etc HUSNG is like by playing a 500 chip hyper. You're missing out on a lot of what HUSNGs are like by only being able to play hypers.

guilexperi battling VbV and rams on 6 tables, come on son

Hi all, (I think) I'm back... I'll be reviewing hands if ppl post them.

I'm going to try out SNG format this year as an ex 6max NLHE cash game player and have not been up to date with what's the best approach to which sites should I be playing.
Is it still worth it to register over dozens of sites and mobile apps and try to find the best games with best RB deals (which is kind of rhetorical question, if you want the best EV) or can I narrow it down to 3-5 sites, if I don't want to bumhunt too hard and actually learn on game for next year or so.

For next 3 months I just want to play, learn and get a bit familiar with the basics at microstakes/lower stakes and do things on my own and not think too much about the whole operation that goes into setting up dozens of sites and waiting for bet action. Then I'll get coaching and hopefully withing 6-8 months get some things going in the right direction, while having a full time job as software developer.

Which site has 'okayish' rakeback and volume, given my starting plans? I played a bit on GG, but really don't like it due to no third party HUD policy, unless you are importing your own hands. I've played a lot on Winamax NLHE 6max midstakes and know the games have been pretty soft during weekends.

Any information would be welcome.

I remember when you used to play $6 reg speeds or something. What’re you up to now and who is still around from 2010?

right now playing (hyper) HUSNGs on Stars.PA (30s->500s). been playing professionally since 2011 tho, did lots of coaching and videopacks and stuff too. played spins for a long time too. Been quite the journey

What in your opnion is more profitable, grinding big volume of $2 spin & go's (regular speed) or HU $2 hypers?

Due to the increased rake on PokerStars, unless you're playing on another site, it would be much more profitable to play Spin & Go tournaments. In comparison, the profitability would be similar, but since Spin & Go tournaments have three players, you can play a higher volume compared to hyper-turbos. It's much easier to manage a 12-table setup when only four of them are in the heads-up stage, as opposed to playing 12-table hyper-turbos where the heads-up stage is almost impossible to handle.

I keep seeing people say that spins are profitable. Every reg that I sharkscope on any site is losing in Spins. Can anyone show me a graph of someone winning in spins over a decent sized sample? I just don't see how such a small edge game can be profitable with such a high rake.

At high stakes many regs play huge volume and have rakeback that gives them profit even if they are losing games after rake. Plus they are winning on leaderboards table which again gives them profit which doesnt show on any tracking website. BTW sharkscope isn't tracking spins, atleast for me it shows only those who I was playing 5years ago.

It has tracked 433 of them played by this guy over the past 7 days on WPN. It appears to be tracking them but again, this guy is down way more than than he can possibly be getting back from rakeback on these.

He has played 24,006 of the $50 buy ins. At 6% rake, that is $3 rake per game. 24,006*3=72018. If he is getting a huge 70% rakeback, (This is being generous because it won't be that high even with the leaderboard.) he will have gotten $50412.6 back in rakeback. He is down over $53,150 pre rakeback. So, he is still losing money even with a rakeback that isn't attainable playing these.

Why do you care what people do with their time?
What if he wins 1000 buyins tomorrow and all of a sudden is +50k (i dont know what multipliers are over there), would that mean games are profitable, worth playing and you will jump in?

I am asking from a theory perspective.

Why would you care if I care what other people do with their time? See how weird that question sounds?

What's the question though? Can't he just be a regular breakeven or losing player?

I've met tons of people over the years who don't win in poker, but lose a very reasonable amount relative to their income. If he's losing $10hr or something, that's very comparable to many other forms of entertainment. You could triple that number and it wouldn't necessarily be an issue for many people.

just fyi, good regs know what sharkscope is and they block themselves, unless they have a bad run at the start and its +ev to show yourself as a losing player

The question is if they are profitable at all. I have never found a player, even the good regs that aren't blocked, that has a positive ROI in jackpots.

I am not dismissing that it is a form of entertainment. I am curious to know if it anyone is +EV in this game because the edges are small and the rake is high.

over the last few years this game made more millionaires and 100k+ winners than all other formats in 20 years of online poker combined

I have yet to find any evidence of this claim. I am sure there are a few that have won money from hitting a few of the big jackpots but that is not evidence of it being a profitable game in the same way hitting the lottery is not evidence of it being a profitable game. Do you know of any players with a sizeable sample that are profitable over that sample?

.

Hello everyone, am i missing something or you cant see who is registered HU on partypoker? Thank you

Correct. If you want to see who it is, you have to play them (or wait until someone else plays them).

I've been grinding a lot of HUSNGs lately and I have an issue. As far as I can tell there are basically two ways to play. You can bluff the heck out of people or you can nit it up once it seems like villain has a hand. I've played both ways and the latter seems to be way more profitable. Basically I'm c-betting like 90-95% of flops, if called and the board doesn't develop in a way that makes it hard for second pair type hands I'm just giving up. This might sound bad but I think my winrate went up a lot when I stopped trying to bluff every spot. The other way to play is just to rep a strong hand every hand and try to get every medium strength hand and worse to fold only giving up in obvious spots. This is how I played, but I started running into hands so much that I just stopped... and like I said my winrate went up. I notice often at the higher stakes and in high stakes HU cash games especially, like every street is getting bet by the button so my nittier approach is apparently not adopted by apparently better players and all I can logically conclude is that they bluff everything knowing villain typically has a weaker hand, I hardly ever see medium strength hands holding to river bets though and I don't get it. If every street is getting bluffed, second pair and better seems like an easy call every time unless the board is horrible, when I spectate these games why am I not seeing second pair type hands winning at showdown all the time? I know for certain I can rarely beat second pair, so does everyone else just run like God in these spots or something when they play HU? It just makes me think variance is messing with everyone and people are winning and losing because of it most of the time when fish aren't playing. I wouldn't be surprised if nearly every major win in hu high stakes cash reg battles was because it literally was not possible for someone to lose with how the cards were distributed. I think it's kind of delusional to put much stock in the winrates there to be honest.

You must be playing very low staked or opposition be very weak if nitty heads up is working. Or variance/sample size. Without backing what you said with stats doesnt mean anything

It's low stakes, like $15-$30 mostly, but the sample is like 6,000 games. I think I had like average ROI of 9-15% in a pretty fast turbo structure (I'm actually one of the biggest winners on SharkScope right now, but I don't think that matters much anymore). Nitty is definitely the right approach, I get called on the flop by like 8 high no draw regularly and what not... people do not fold to me. I would have to practically stack off every hand hoping they fold, I played like that for maybe 1,000 games but eventually I ran into too many hands and got called too much that I started to tighten up and like I said my winrate went up. I probably sound like a fish but I understand the equities in different spots and how to estimate the ev of bluffs and everything, I'm just not good at communicating it. Anyways, I'm just blowing off steam, but it has bugged me how rare it is that second pair type hands hold up on the river when villains are betting basically every street every hand. I know I'm getting F'd and had to write something about it.