I don't deny that this was happening, but this is overly simplified. When I played hyper I had sharky set to sit empty tables, fish, unknown AND weak regs. Whatever came first. Some regs sat me too ( presumably because they had tagged me as a weak reg). Fair enough, I was fine with that. I always hated (and didn't have time) to sit in queues.
Now to play hypers, I would have to waste my time playing thousands of games vs good regs exclusively ( hoping that I don't have too bad of a card distribution)to then still sit in a queue, with less fish, no weak regs ( they have been chased away) probably less unknown or empty tables and on top of that have to obey by the cartel rules.

I maintain that reducing the population for any game can't be good for that game in the long run

Do you believe it not to be the case?

(Imo in hu cash, the problem is to be able to sit first and refuse action...sound ridiculous to me but idk the ins and outs of it all)

SpinWiz users are bumhunters by definition. The only players who are not bumhunters are thos willing to sit every player in the pool.

My definition of "working better" is that I hope there would be a bigger pool in the Zoom-style games. That the demonstrable fairness of the games to recs (equal chance to sit anyone in the pool) would attract a bigger pool of recs. Now this may also attract a bigger pool of regs which may lead to lower winrates for some or all regs but that to me is a secondary factor (that not being a reg I couldn't care less about). If the pool of players is bigger and games are started faster on average Pokerstars total rake increases. That would be the incentive for Pokerstars to spend the resources to create a Zoom-style lobby that deliberately enforces a ban on all third party seating software.

I think it is reasonable to expect a bigger pool of rec players:

1. That is what happened when cash Zoom was introduced. Recs like it precisely because they got away from seating scripts.

2. SpinWiz isn't popular because it is 3-handed. It is popular because of random prizes obviously but I contend also because there is the appearance of random seating. That's what I thought until I found out the lobby has been poorly coded and is misleading.

Intuitively that's what I've assumed. No matter what the current ratio of regs to recs, a Zoom-style pool leads to an improvement in the fun a rec can have (winrate is not really relevant to a rec who doesn't tend to think that way as I explained before except that too high a lossrate correlates with lack of fun).

All the more so if the change to a Zoom-style pool attracts, say 20% more recs so now there are say 90 regs and 36 recs.

Pokerstars has the data to make reasonable estimates:

1. They can analyse today's players and divide into regs and recs.

2. They can analyse their experience with cash addition of Zoom as to what happened to the pool of recs and regs.

I suspect that if the current pools are 90 regs to 30 recs the Zoom pool might be initially more like 95 regs to 36 recs and settling at 92 regs and 36 recs with both numbers long term growing hopefully and the 92 reg composition different to the regs you see now as some can cut it in the new format and other leave the game.

I mean if you take that definition then everyone is a bumhunter except mid/lowstakes zoom players- which I guess is fine. I would say that ppl who wouldn't play in the lobbies at the current state, but would if there are favourable changes for them are bumhunters.

Regarding improvement- I have no idea if it brings in more recs, and no idea if there is data stars can use. Numbers are being thrown around without much factual basis (I agree tho recs will likely face other recs more often), and there are a lot of uncertain factors. I think it's just optimistic to think stars will take an initiative on this.

I disagree on all counts.

I think it's questionable whether bumhunters would actually gain. We're not talking about HU cash where a bumhunter can occupy a table with the intention of only playing a very small subset of people, we're talking about a system where if one joins, they have to play poker. If these bumhunters are so bad, they won't survive without spinwiz either since they have to play poker. The effect of spinwiz is that if you use it, you can get targeted, or if you don't use it... you have more skilled composition of opponents.

Which brings me to my second point. Recreational players are in the same boat as bumhunters. If they use spinwiz, they will be targeted so they can only register through the Pokerstars lobby as normal. The existence of spinwiz means that their composition of opponents has a higher average skill level than if spinwiz did not exist. In other words, their EV is lowered by the existence of spinwiz. This EV does not go to Pokerstars, it goes to the users of spinwiz by manipulating the registration system to generate a less skilled composition of opponents and ensuring as much as possible of the liquidity deposited into the system is redistributed to those using it. I don't have the data to make a properly informed conclusion on this, but logic makes me think that when the players who provide liquidity to a site win more often, they are more valuable players to the site in terms of rake paid and deposits made. Higher liquidity is a good thing for everyone.

I think this is a pretty clear benefit. Already stars could make an improvement in this department by simply banning spinwiz.

+1, very logically argued.

and banning SpinWiz takes little to no Pokerstars resource.

If spinwiz is going to lead to anything like the HUSNG lobbies and cartel system then I don't think 'efficiency' is a valid argument at all. When there is reg on reg action it is a lot more like the 50th best reg playing the 10th best. The best regs just sit there all day and bumhunt without facing any 'challengers'. At least with a random lobby, the worst players would actually face the best players sometimes. Anyways, I don't think that game selection efficiency should be the goal of any changes. I would define working better as more deposits. More deposits means that the games are better, that there are more games, more rake for pokerstars, and that those who make those deposits are getting more value from their money (since they choose to continue depositing more). I think that almost anything that 'improves game selection' is at odds with this goal.

I also don't think things decisions should be made by popular vote (or at the very minimum not popular vote by a subset of the player population). History has shown that players make disingenuous arguments that simply serve their best interests. You just cannot rely on the popular vote to be unbiased or informed enough.

All good points.

Spinwiz can't lead to any real cartel system though, weaker players will just manually register to avoid being targeted.

I don't think that's true either. If spinwiz can make it so that a high percentage of the games that go off contain 2 of its users, then that's not any different than being targeted from within the program. Even in HUSNG non cartel members do manage to sneak a lobby now and then.

This is a good point that the best players are sort of left to bumhunt away whilst the weakest in the group are to do battle (for husng cartels that is).

The problem with banning spinwiz is actually similar to banning software aids- it's difficult to draw the line. Spinwiz started with a stable of players who made something so that it's easier to avoid each other. This of course already happened on the smaller scale, so I'm not too sure how banning spinwiz would work in this regard (but if a zoom lobby is implemented, then spinwiz is just useless). Perhaps groups of players can write their own software to avoid each other, and eventually evolve into a new spinwiz outside of ps control anyway?

Also regarding cartels in spins- it's just not going to happen ( ev requirements of spin graphs which can be doctored, team work between triers would actually gain ev in the games etc etc). Additionally, atm it's possible to have decent winrate without spinwiz. Actually at the end of last month it was more +EV for the best regs and worst regs to manual reg at 60s since spinwiz had a longer idle time when a new reg moves up the queue. That resulted in many "missed" lobbies where non-spinwiz users could register (in fact many ppl were manual regging). Later settings were changed to move queues faster, but others complained of accidental simulsits (they had to be since it was ppl from the same stable who would never sit each other). So spinwiz constantly adjusts settings based on complaints and I think now the iddle duration settings change during the day in relation to traffic.

I'm not well informed on poker software- but I don't see how banning something like spinwiz is easy. They can change to lobby structure for sure to make it useless but I don't see that happening.

I think spinwiz misses fewer lobbies now but only ps would have that data.

At 60s you can register for 3 tables at a time with spinwiz, so I would guess each time you only register 1 table (say you set to 4 tables max and have 3 running, and it's your turn in the queue) and aren't sitting anyone else there is bound to be missed lobbies.

I agree that a long term solution would require some sort of lobby system which could not be manipulated or not manipulated as easily as the current one is (ie registering multiple spin and goes from one pool). It's also possible you could run some analysis on seating ratios with other players playing at the same time and disallow coordinated sitting since the outcome desired from something like spinwiz is visible. However, in the short term I think a simple ban could be sufficient.

I'm not as convinced as you that cartels won't happen. While it may be difficult to run an EV system, cartels are not inherently reliant on that. They can still easily form and let people in based on 'feeling' if they like.

Yeah, I admit it's possible that the impact is not as big as I imagine (yet) and I think any decision should be measured against data, which only Pokerstars has. I think it's important to consider any data collected up to this point as a baseline, however. It's likely this kind of registering software will only get better.

A positive thing that I mentioned with spinwiz is that you reduce the amount of times that inherent collusion can happen.

If you share a bankroll with someone else and get the same game as them you are incentivized to collude without prior discussion. Also collusion can happen without your partner's agreement.

Thus spinwiz removes a lot of the problems that can happen in spins with large stables which is a good thing for game integrity.

Also I'm still convinced cartels won't happen for a long while.

However if stars introduces higher stakes spins, or the games run dry for some reason, then I can see that happening. It would be wise to look at what happens in other networks such as ps.fr, winmax etc first as a predictor of what might happen on stars regarding the future of spins/cartels.

You are correct that that is a positive thing. I hope that collusion of this sort is against the rules and something that stars is looking for especially in the large jackpot ones. Behaviour of this kind should be banned. However, I don't agree this is enough of a justification to keep spinwiz around. How does this look: "Pokerstars allows collusive seating software which increases the expected value of those using it at the expense of those not using it because it reduces the amount of times the software's bankroll sharing users are sat together and thus makes it less likely that they cheat since the bankroll sharing gives them incentive to cheat the 3rd person in the tournament"? I don't know how you can realistically ban bankroll sharing so this is certainly a difficult problem which I do not have an answer to.

It might also be a matter of measuring costs. Since spinwiz can also make it easier for unscrupulous people to sit together, we are only looking at the costs of honest people 'accidentally' colluding should they be sat together. Is this going to be greater than the cost non spinwiz users are currently incurring? I don't have the data, but given that cost is incurred in a high percentage of spin and goes which run, I would be surprised.

edit: some sort of pool system which makes it harder to control who you are sat with will also make it harder for intentional colluders to sit with each other.

Banning spinwiz would effectively ban spinwiz. But the other programs that others sometimes use would also need to be banned. Then there needs to be active enforcement of the private stables that have used their own software to avoid each other (they were the first programs for Spins). Manually avoiding a person would also need to be defined (can I get into a chat with 20 people and take turns registering by saying "game" when I have a game? What about 5? What about 40? That needs to be defined in some way so it is clear).

There's no need for any cartel in spin and gos. If pros need more incentive to sit other pros, they should just request a change in the seating algorithm of registration software (something like, if you sit another spinwiz user, you move up a few spots in the que). AKA, get rewarded for sitting another reg, get slower games if you reuse to play other regs.

That said, if cartels do happen, Stars should take full action. There are clearly better ways or players to use the lobby in Spins and the word is just so negative and the perception is worse.

That registration method would actually be useful in HUSNGs too, but the guy that runs that program didn't want to do it and the market never offered an alternative. Would've been far cleaner than any groups and save many people dozens of hours of non poker playing politics.

A waitlist for HUSNGs on Stars where you can sit anyone on the waitlist would not be a bad idea either. More choice for a rec, no extreme bumhunting game selection for any reg either. It wouldn't kill groups currently, but it would save the community a lot of money + make seating more efficient than it currently is (say Skier wants to sit me in a $60 HUSNG right now, he has to wait until I reach the top of a que... what's the point in the two of us waiting if we're going to be facing each other anyways? More rake for Stars, more games per hour for players, more choice for players...).

I'm not sure I fully understand. It sounds like you're saying that the best players profit more by using Spinwiz, at the expense of weaker regs and recs. If that's true (I think recs got a game vs a reg as often pre Spinwiz, though that's due to other programs and stable registration methods), that doesn't mean that banning Spinwiz (or any similar programs) improves the games for everyone. It means it lowers the ceiling of potential profit in the game (limiting the success that the best players can have) and putting more money in the hands of weaker regs, possibly recs and possibly Stars.

How is this handled in MTTs or zoom cash where two players from the same stable/friends/staking relationships can find themselves in the same game?

I agree with you that it's not a long term solution. It would have to be a coordinated action with a planned followup which rendered such software ineffective. I don't think defining rules such as that is a good thing. I think it's better to have a technical solution which simply makes that kind of behaviour impossible or sufficiently ineffective.

Spinwiz creates the same problem as sharky did before cartels. If it's easy to get a game in which you are making money (1 rec+) then people will do it and eventually the queues will get so long that people will organise into cartels because of a tragedy of the commons scenario.

I'm saying that the users of spinwiz profit more than they would otherwise at the expense of non users. This is not an inherent property of spinwiz, but rather the result of a majority of the stronger players using it and a majority of the non spinwiz players being weaker. Spinwiz manipulates the games that start so that as many as possible include someone from the weaker pool. By doing this it reduces the amount of times someone from the weaker pool sits with someone they might be +EV or at least neutral EV against. I'm contending that if recs had the opportunity to play more of these better games then they might lose at a slower rate and thus be stay alive longer. The longer they stay alive the more likely they are to be satisfied with their decision to put money on Pokerstars, which will lead to more money being put onto Pokerstars. I'm of the opinion that more money being put onto Pokerstars is a good thing for everyone.

Genher the posts were made by husnginfo guy on the traffic in HUSNGs a few months ago and the only dip that occurred was on lower stakes when spins were introduced. I don't see how your argument holds the stats are there to prove otherwise.

The divisions were quite fair in the requirements and made HUSNGs much more competitive in general.

I'm not sure if you have ever used SpinWiz, but the lines are already too long to wait for "recs".

There is only a handful of SpinWiz users who don't actively use the sit list to sit at least 10 players which causes a very randomized result in rec vs reg ratio. Almost every second game starting by SpinWiz is a sit list game meaning it's not very different from manual registration.

Would you rather enjoy a case where two stable members get into the same game and decide to gang up because there's nothing to lose?

There are over 1000 spinwiz users and I doubt the majority of them are "stronger players".
If you're a bad player spinwiz will cause you to lose money because everyone has a better chance to target you. No matter if you use it or not it all comes down to your own skill unlike some other software.

I double checked to see if my understanding of spinwiz was correct, and correct me if I'm wrong, does spinwiz not guarantee that at least 1/3 players in any game which spinwiz starts is a non spinwiz user? How is that random at all? Given that this is not the case with manual registration, I fail to see how it is similar? It also seems to me that this sitlist makes it easier for "two stable members get into the same game and decide to gang up because there's nothing to lose".

So what do these 1000 players pay 40/160 euros a year for if it's going to cause them to lose money?

You are correct, it should make sure at least one is a non user, however it's not like without SpinWiz all games would contain 3 regulars either.

Many who buy SpinWiz disappear after a month. I don't know the exact numbers right now, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was around half. If SpinWiz was a holy grail they would never disappear.

The thing is that stable members lose money if they sit together, HOWEVER if they do, they take the best out of a bad situation.

I'm not arguing it's the holy grail of spin and goes or that I think all regulars should play with only regulars. I'm arguing that software/lobbies which reduce the likelihood of the weaker portion of the population from sitting together are inferior to a system where everything is random and all players are given a fair shake at sitting with the entire player population.

With our without SpinWiz that will never happen unless PokerStars starts a set of spin & go games every ~5 minutes so the wait would kill it.

How long does it take to fill a spin and go on average?