and that is not a hu-sng problem, that is a poker-problem.
how much midstakes fish vs fish action do you see on 6max plo?
close to 0%

For a rec, removing spinwiz at 60s would mean instead of a highly probable 1 reg 1 fish game, they would have 1 reg 1 bumhunter games mostly, and a small chance of a 2 fish game.

Tim I trust that you aren't asking for change in your benefit (and only looking to make things fair in your view), but monetarily removing spinwiz only benefits bumhunters and occasional regs from other games.

Recs will lose at similar rates if not at bigger rates due to the increased number of bumhunters that can now join the pool profitably.

I was speaking specifically to HUSNG, not jackpot/spin sngs

In the interests of full disclosure, I am only looking to make the games fairer from the viewpoint of a recreational player who IMO reasonably expects to have an equal chance of being sat with all players in the player pool. I regard SpinWiz and other third party software as bumhunting tools. I don't mind bumhunters being in the pool. I do mind tools that specifically target me.

I am a 100NL 6-max cash reg player. I have never played a Spin&Go (but I have watched Primo's twitch stream for hours and Spin&Go's look like fun). I have played probably less than 50 HUSNG's. But I would like to play both formats for fun but I won't unless I feel the games are fair for recs as defined above. I expect to lose money at them short and long term and I don't mind that as long as I can have fun. I think of them as a potential stress release from the daily 6-max grind (~ 1-5 hours at various stakes depending). I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of cash regs like me keen to become fish in the Spin&Go pool if random registration could be guaranteed. I have no intention of ever studying to become an expert in either Spin&Go or HUSNG.

BTW, I am independently wealthy (supported myself by "investing" since 2004) and I expect my buy-in level would be ~$30 because less just seems too small for me to care about and $60 is the current top (but long term maybe one below the top level)..

What do people estimate is the current rec to reg ratio in the total pool of sometimes players at Spin&Go's so we can roughly estimate seating mix expectations?

As I understand it, SpinWiz is pretty much an anti-bumhunting tool. At worst it's neutral.

I understand your pov Tim, but imo the biggest reason that you feel that spinwiz is unfair is because it is mainly unfair to you- the part time "reg".

In terms of effecting recs- there is really not much change at all if you ban spinwiz. They would still lose at similar rates.

I understand that there is a legitimate argument to be made as to what the lobby structure aught to be (and within that argument, whether spinwiz should be banned or not), but imagine as a rec wishing to play at 50/100 HU vs anyone and complaining that the format is KOTH. This is a legitimate argument for a type of fairness, and as a disreputable rec, no one will be willing to give a seat for you to play anyone you want.

Also the argument for removal of spinwiz at the higher bi levels is really weak in practice (almost no difference to recs' opposition). You can argue that people who have spinwiz have more advantages at the 15$ level or below and maybe 30$ level- since the ones to dish out money for it there tend to be hardworking regs who are only using it for a registration tool (15 or below u can just manual reg 100% as a regular without much difference). Therefore buying it and avoiding such a population of regs would mean more at lowe stakes.

If spinwiz is removed for 60s- all that happens is more bumhunters will appear and make more money, and the best regs will make less money. Fish will lose the same amount or greater.

I'm not going to breakdown your entire post but only what you mention above.

You say that this program is unfair to Tim because he is a "part time" reg in these games. Yet you imply it is not unfair for most recreational players because they will lose at similar rates with or without this program. You are generalizing that "recreational" or player without this software is often a losing player. Whether true or not this is not relevant to the point of striving to create an equal level playing field for all. If an unfair disadvantage is created for "Tim" by not having this software then that same unfair disadvantage is created for "John" without this software, whether or not he's expected to be winner or loser from his strategy once sat at the table. The ideal should be creating an equal level playing field for all players in the pool. This includes the seating process.

Tim is playing these games "recreationally". If the first part of your argument holds true then I argue that this program does in fact create a unfair disadvantage for any player that enters into these games without this software.

I don't understand these 2 quotes, could someone explain!??

+1, my point is that fairness should mean equal level playing field for all.

Apart from the excellent response to you above I have +1ed:

No, there is a significant difference for recs: the fun factor. It is a lot more fun to play another rec rather than to play against a reg who relatively speaking plays close to perfectly (boring = ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ).

Whether a rec is a long term loser or long term winner is largely irrelevant. I won't even notice because it will funded by my 6-max cash winnings. You guys (regs) agonise over winrates. I couldn't care less about winrate in Spin&Go's.

I fully expect to be a long-term loser. I am not a reg in these games and just because I am a successful reg at 6-max cash is irrelevant. I am a rec at Spin&Go. I don't use a HUD. I want to shove when I feel like it. I want to laugh at terribad play both by myself and my opponents.

I think Pokerstars has to trial a Zoom-style lobby before we would be able to reliably estimate ratio of recs to regs as Zoom cash has it own dynamic quite different to non-Zoom cash so I expect similar would develop for Zoom-style lobby Spin&Go. Some recs will love it. Some recs will prefer existing lobby. Some regs will love it. Others will prefer existing lobby. Both styles of lobby may well be viable post-trial of Zoom-style lobby.

Secondly new players (like me) may be attracted that don't play today so I would hope the total pool gets bigger.

Different stake levels may react differently, too. If it is like cash zoom then maybe the $60's Zoom would rarely run but as you go down the stakes pools became viable so $15's on down run well 24 hours per day. I don't know until it is trialled.

The actual effect or not of SpinWiz is irrelevant.

Fairness means that everyone who wants to play a Spin&Go is in one pool and everyone in that pool has an equal chance of being sat with everyone else in the pool. This is needed to provide the perception of fairness to the market of prospective Spin&Go players. Allowing third parties to effect seating looks very shady to new players (whether or not it is).

Zoom-lobby would be programmed to deliberately accomplish that objective. If third party software tools find a way around it the Zoom-lobby will be changed until third party software can't effect the randomness of the Pokerstars queue.

In SpinWiz "some animals are more equal than others." In SpinWiz some players are separated off into a separate SpinWiz queue and algorithmically managed into Pokerstars random queue. That is not the same as everyone having an equal chance of being sat with everyone else all controlled by Pokerstars randomising queue.

As stated above I am not a reg at Spin&Go, I am a total fish at it. But sometimes I'd probably sit at current-style HUSNG lobby because I am in a mood to "find out where I'm at" with a solid match against a strong regular. Other times I want to mindlessly muck around for half an hour or so and I'd jump into a Zoom-style Spin&Go pool or Zoom-style HUSNG pool. I don't think I'd ever use today's Spin&Go lobby because what I perceive as its unfairness really sets me against it and as a matter of principle I will never play it.

I'd also probably change stake level all over the place. If I'd had a big day at the cash tables I'd Spin&Go higher to celebrate and play for longer. If I'd had a bad day at the cash tables I'd probably play less Spin&Go's and lower stakes but be uber-aggro! I would experiment with one Spin&Go at the same time as I multi-table cash but I'm not sure. After I lose a big pot in cash there is a tendency to tilt for a few hands (nothing too drastic but open too LAGGY from Early Position for a few hands) and if I had a Spin&Go going I could randomnly do aggro crap that would relieve stress but cost me less than doing it in my cash games.

At cash I have to be so disciplined in every hand or I could lose $100 with a single street mistake in a single hand. The great thing about Spin&Go or HUSNG is I can be really undisciplined and "creative" without usually losing my whole buy-in for the game in one street decision. That really relieves the cash-game stress where 2 or 3 tiny mistakes per 1000 hands can be the difference between a winning or losing session.

I'm not sure what the actual part-time reg in these games would think because I'm not one.

I don't know that you understand how my type of recreational player thinks. I get the impression you think a rec has a certain amount of money to lose and then they and their money are gone. That may be true of lower stakes but it is not true of my rec play and nor I suspect is it true of most above micros stakes. I can spend as much as I want to play. I won't run out of money. I'll play as much as the entertainment is worth!

When playing recreationally I think of it as entertainment like paying to go to a music concert. I pay $100ish to play a handful of Spin&Go's and have fun. If I thought the entertainment was worth $100 I'll do it again. If I thought my opponents were all boring players who never even entertain me in chat and I wasted my money I won't. It is fun to win of course but it is easy to think of HU or Spin&Go as a coin flip so I lost because I was unlucky but I had fun playing. BTW, I'd love to play a player like MrGrn33 who berates me constantly in chat. I may not win the match but I might win the chat fun!

In contrast when I play 6-max cash I want to play as close to perfectly as I can. I never play cash recreationally unless I go and bully players at the nano-stakes. I don't want to ruin my pretty graph or lower my winrate. Also, because I am independently wealthy I don't care if I donk off my cash winnings on Spin&Go's because I don't need to cash out ever. I play cash for profit because it is how I measure how good I am at the intellectual challenge of the game. I want to play Spin&Go's for fun but I can't today on principle until the lobby is fair to all.

Before Black Friday I used to play non-Zoom cash games, chatting with chatty whales at whatever stakes on up to 4 tables. These guys love to chat. IMO a lot of money has left the games because recs are not encouraged to have fun. Winrate is boring unless you need it for a living. Recs play for entertainment so you'd better entertain or the money would rather be at a live casino or at a concert or spent on a holiday or more gas in the boat or ...

When I go to a live casino, I do not see poker room management put me in one line of recreational players while a second separate line of prop players lines up and then fill most of the table seats with recs before carefully seating a prop player to maximise his profit. Maybe live casinos do this but I don't think so. My understanding is that prop players start tables and are there solely to make sure a rec can always get a game. They are not there to maximise their profit.

If I did see two queues at a live casino, one for recs, one for regs then I am not going to play.

Similarly if Pokerstars is foolish enough to allow the shady appearance of two queues for Spin&Go's then I and many others will refuse to play on principle. One house-administered rule for all or we won't play. The *appearance* of game integrity is as important as actual game integrity. Today's Spin&Go lobby with approved third party software with group-based seating does not have the appearance of game integrity.

I really don't see how spinwiz makes the lobbies unfair. All it does is automate the otherwise tedious process of the top% of regs avoiding each other. It also likely increases the number of 1 reg games recreationals get, at the cost of a very small % of 3 fish games (which still happen).

The field of players spinwiz affects negatively is comprised almost entirely of weak regs, who can beat 2 fish games but struggle against other regs, because they'll be sat heavily and be forced to improve or stop making enough money.

Recs still get mainly 1 reg games which is a better ratio than they're likely to find in any other format at reasonable stakes.

Also spinwiz isn't two lines in a casino, spinwiz is more like pros in a poker room not sitting at each others tables/asking for table switches when they can, because at a certain ratio of pros to recs it becomes less profitable. The casino is under no obligation to force any group of people to play together.

I disagree. SpinWiz is two lines in a casino. Spinwiz has nothing to do with tables already sat in running HUSNG. You are talking about behaviour once at the front of the queue choosing which table to sit at or moving once sat at a table that allows you to leave similar to in an online non-Zoom cash games. Standing up and moving tables is not allowed in tournaments/SNGs.

SpinWiz takes what would otherwise in Pokerstars lobby be random seating and turns it into two queues, one for recs and one for regs.

Regardless, with respect I don't think the opinions of regs matter if recs are offended by the appearance of double queues. If regs want the games to dry up because of the appearance of unfairness to recs fine. PLay all by yourselves. See how profitable that is for you. But I and many other recs will refuse on principle to play in what appears a shady lobby. There is no point arguing with the depositer/loser of money.

Except in a tournament/SNG which is the live analog of the Spin&Go or HUSNG. If you choose, for example to play the National Heads-up championship and you are randomnly paired with Daniel Coleman, tough titties. You can't have your entry fee back.

We are talking about a situation where tables are full and there is a waitlist. Everyone gets an equal chance to be sat in a live casino in arrival order. When tables are full and there is a waitlist all regs whether strong, weak or otherwise are lined up in one queue with all recreational players whether strong, weak or otherwise.

You're describing a bunch of events and structures that aren't the same as the current system for spins and asserting that it's better when it's really just your understandable preference.

I'm suggesting that that is what Pokerstars intended when they introduced the blind Spin&Go lobby. They failed to anticipate how third party software could piggy back on their blind queue. I'm suggesting they then approved SpinWiz because they thought it simply automated the registration process, allowing players to play for a time interval or a bunch of games more than the default lobby. They didn't bother understanding the algorithm in the SpinWiz FAQ which in my opinion is deliberately obfuscating as it could easily be explained more clearly but that would have given the advantaging regulars purpose away to Pokerstars and the functionality may have been banned.

Now forgive me for being touchy, but all that seems underhand and is offensive to me. I won't play in that environment because it is not equal chance of seating for all as implied by the Pokerstars Spin&Go lobby.

If Pokerstars does not want to do a Zoom-style lobby then I request they at least change the wording in the Spin&Go lobby so that it is clear to registrants :
Transparency is also important to the appearance of game integrity.

I agree that it may be slightly misleading but they're not lying. You're randomly matched with people who join at the same time as you, the software simply sequences the times in which people using it join. Technically pokerstars is telling the truth.

Pokerstars is also fully aware of all of spinwiz's features and applications, it would be naive to think otherwise.

There's a fine line on what is acceptably misleading. I for one think it's pretty gross that the $5 Spins with the Million dollar jackpot were diamond coloured in the lobby despite the fact that they had a significantly higher rake.

Do you also think pokerstars should advertise the fact that people use HUDs? If so, to what extent? People unaware of 3rd party software are likely to be scared by it. Until you have experience with and fully understand the advantages and applications of 3rd party software it's easy to misunderstand (not you personally, you as in people in general).

Cartels running the lobbies, seating scripts, automated advice software...no wonder recreationals don't want to play online poker anymore.

Could we get rid of all these and make it about who is best at playing poker? just an idea

In Australia where I live we have just had a gaming scandal in the greyhound racing industry. Many tens of trainers were secretly filmed by media using cats and possums and other live animals as live bait to train their greyhounds. This is illegal.

The Gaming Regulator has been sacked despite claiming they had no knowledge of live-baiting and not being involved in live baiting. The fact is that the regulator failed to properly ensure live baiting was not occurring. Government and the public took the view that the Gaming regulator staff quietly looked the other way.
team
So gaming integrity whether in greyhound racing or poker must not only be done it must be seen to be done.

The problem with allowing third party group-based seating scripts to register is that it creates the appearance of "looking the other way." It delegates what really needs to be directly and wholly under Pokerstars control (seating) to a third party. Now if SpinWiz merely automated basic functionality that an individual could do manually I'd think that fine. But I think coordinating many individuals is not something that can realistically be done manually so it crosses a line.

You say Pokerstars lobby may be misleading but they are not lying yet I've seen email responses from support that confirm that seating is random in Spin&Go's. That is a lie by omission. It gives the appearance of truth and legalistically it is the truth but it fails to answer the player's question by omitting either deliberately or out of ignorance that seating is not random due to the action of third party software. Like the Australian greyhound racing regulator it deliberately looks the other way.

I prefer to think Pokerstars thinks Spinwiz has certain basic functions and is unaware of the group-based manipulation of the seating process.

Either way I refuse to play Spin&Go's with the lobby as it is now.

Rake should probably be more transparent in a properly regulated environment. For example, on the lobby page before registering.

Pokerstars is currently reviewing proposed changes to third party software in other games such as HUDs.

I think all players should be told about the existence of HUDs but I don't know how best to do that. Maybe when a player first creates a signon there should be some sort of welcome pack where they are informed about various things like poker school online or maybe pokerstars should allow 3rd party software to advertise in "News" popups. I don't know.

Personally, I am indifferent whether HUDs are banned or not. I use one extensively for cash games but I can play really well without it, too as I sometimes do for a change to shake off the cobwebs.

Pokerstars sponsors Pokerstars school online and any players who watch videos there or watch twitch streams by Pokerstars team online pros will see HUDs and have them explained to them. For example, Nanonoko promotes and uses a free HUD called something like Jivaro on his streams. He freely answers viewers questions about HUDs. Primo doesn't use a HUD on his streams but I have heard him answer questions about them and about push/call charts. Primo openly uses SpinWiz on his streams.

To a random player not using spinwiz, the players they are matched with are 100% random. It could be two other non-users, one user one non-user, or two spinwiz users.

If you are a Spinwiz user, the seating isn't entirely random for you. By using the software, you gain minor convenience of registration, and lowered possibility of a game with two other users. You also get to avoid playing other users who mutually agree not to play you. By doing so however, you open yourself to be hunted by other users without means to avoid. You will be broadcasting to any other users when you are on and in the queue, ready to be sniped. Thus, it's not good for a weak bumhunter who wants to avoid action from strong players at all.

Absolutely no function is provided to hunt a particular player, or class of players. Unless they "opt in" to hunting, by using SpinWiz themselves.