** Official Spin and Go's Discussion Thread **
04-27-2015
, 05:57 AM
04-27-2015
, 09:38 PM
The 100s might as well come with $1.2M as the top prize pool on a permanent basis, be careful with your wishes 
Edit: Pokerstars Baard has been inactive here lately, but you can try your luck and PM him.
What do you think about a prize structure as follows? It does look quite playable.
The $300K top prize version:
The $1M top prize version (very unplayable with 35.5% ITM 
):
It does
, even in the tourneys where I've finished in 3rd, because the prize pool is written into the tourney summary file.
Edit: Pokerstars Baard has been inactive here lately, but you can try your luck and PM him.
What do you think about a prize structure as follows? It does look quite playable.
The $300K top prize version:
Code:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Effective Specified Simulation Place Finish Distribution Finish Distribution 1 0,000355% 0,000356% 2 0,00033% 0,000339% 3 0,000315% 0,00031% 4 0,001065% 0,00106% 5 0,00099% 0,000974% 6 0,000945% 0,00095% 7 0,00355% 0,00354% 8 0,0033% 0,00324% 9 0,00315% 0,003152% 10 0,01775% 0,017705% 11 0,1775% 0,177494% 12 2,6625% 2,662609% 13 7,873545% 7,873666% 14 24,763735% 24,762207% ITM 35,50903% 35,507601% --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10000 simulations of 100000 games Expected ROI (with 40% rakeback): 3,15% (3145 Buyins) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mean 3142,94 Sum square deviation 35965339158,51 Mean square deviation (Sample variance) 3596893,61 Root mean square deviation 1896,55 99% had ROI below 8,84% (8841 Buyins) 97.5% had ROI below 8,24% (8243 Buyins) 95% had ROI below 7,14% (7140 Buyins) 90% had ROI below 5,62% (5616 Buyins) 80% had ROI below 4,90% (4901 Buyins) 70% had ROI below 3,68% (3677 Buyins) 60% had ROI below 2,74% (2739 Buyins) 50% had ROI below 2,42% (2421 Buyins) 40% had ROI below 2,17% (2175 Buyins) 30% had ROI below 1,95% (1947 Buyins) 20% had ROI below 1,71% (1708 Buyins) 10% had ROI below 1,41% (1412 Buyins) 5% had ROI below 1,18% (1183 Buyins) 2.5% had ROI below 1,01% (1011 Buyins) 1% had ROI below 0,79% (788 Buyins) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had a downswing greater than 161 buyins 97.5% had a downswing greater than 174 buyins 95% had a downswing greater than 185 buyins 90% had a downswing greater than 199 buyins 80% had a downswing greater than 220 buyins 70% had a downswing greater than 238 buyins 60% had a downswing greater than 255 buyins 50% had a downswing greater than 273 buyins 40% had a downswing greater than 292 buyins 30% had a downswing greater than 316 buyins 20% had a downswing greater than 348 buyins 10% had a downswing greater than 400 buyins 5% had a downswing greater than 448 buyins 2.5% had a downswing greater than 494 buyins 1% had a downswing greater than 559 buyins --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had a low point lower than 0 buyins 97.5% had a low point lower than -1 buyins 95% had a low point lower than -4 buyins 90% had a low point lower than -8 buyins 80% had a low point lower than -17 buyins 70% had a low point lower than -26 buyins 60% had a low point lower than -38 buyins 50% had a low point lower than -52 buyins 40% had a low point lower than -68 buyins 30% had a low point lower than -89 buyins 20% had a low point lower than -118 buyins 10% had a low point lower than -169 buyins 5% had a low point lower than -220 buyins 2.5% had a low point lower than -271 buyins 1% had a low point lower than -343 buyins ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
):Code:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Effective Specified Simulation Place Finish Distribution Finish Distribution 1 0,000355% 0,000363% 2 0,00033% 0,000342% 3 0,000315% 0,000312% 4 0,001065% 0,001068% 5 0,00099% 0,00098% 6 0,000945% 0,000944% 7 0,00355% 0,003519% 8 0,0033% 0,003307% 9 0,00315% 0,003147% 10 0,01775% 0,017687% 11 0,1065% 0,106455% 12 1,065% 1,064637% 13 9,861545% 9,8612% 14 24,444235% 24,443118% ITM 35,50903% 35,507079% --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10000 simulations of 100000 games Expected ROI (with 40% rakeback): 3,1% (3100 Buyins) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mean 3181,42 Sum square deviation 370002824954,31 Mean square deviation (Sample variance) 37003982,89 Root mean square deviation 6083,09 99% had ROI below 20,85% (20847 Buyins) 97.5% had ROI below 19,67% (19666 Buyins) 95% had ROI below 18,19% (18195 Buyins) 90% had ROI below 10,39% (10386 Buyins) 80% had ROI below 9,22% (9222 Buyins) 70% had ROI below 7,91% (7915 Buyins) 60% had ROI below 0,62% (624 Buyins) 50% had ROI below 0,02% (19 Buyins) 40% had ROI below -0,39% (-388 Buyins) 30% had ROI below -0,74% (-743 Buyins) 20% had ROI below -1,06% (-1061 Buyins) 10% had ROI below -1,44% (-1438 Buyins) 5% had ROI below -1,70% (-1696 Buyins) 2.5% had ROI below -1,91% (-1906 Buyins) 1% had ROI below -2,12% (-2123 Buyins) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had a downswing greater than 427 buyins 97.5% had a downswing greater than 496 buyins 95% had a downswing greater than 556 buyins 90% had a downswing greater than 641 buyins 80% had a downswing greater than 770 buyins 70% had a downswing greater than 878 buyins 60% had a downswing greater than 987 buyins 50% had a downswing greater than 1096 buyins 40% had a downswing greater than 1216 buyins 30% had a downswing greater than 1347 buyins 20% had a downswing greater than 1514 buyins 10% had a downswing greater than 1751 buyins 5% had a downswing greater than 1956 buyins 2.5% had a downswing greater than 2113 buyins 1% had a downswing greater than 2309 buyins --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had a low point lower than -15 buyins 97.5% had a low point lower than -35 buyins 95% had a low point lower than -70 buyins 90% had a low point lower than -142 buyins 80% had a low point lower than -301 buyins 70% had a low point lower than -446 buyins 60% had a low point lower than -600 buyins 50% had a low point lower than -768 buyins 40% had a low point lower than -925 buyins 30% had a low point lower than -1111 buyins 20% had a low point lower than -1323 buyins 10% had a low point lower than -1610 buyins 5% had a low point lower than -1842 buyins 2.5% had a low point lower than -2012 buyins 1% had a low point lower than -2211 buyins ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It does
, even in the tourneys where I've finished in 3rd, because the prize pool is written into the tourney summary file.
Last edited by coon74; 04-27-2015 at 10:07 PM.
04-28-2015
, 02:41 PM
Quote:
The main problem with my initial paytable was that the frequency of $1.2M tourneys was too high (they took 4% out of every BI); if it's reduced, e.g. like below, the format will become about as playable as today's 60s.
Note that, in the ROI formula (slightly simplified in comparison with my above post),
((amt_expected_won / cnt_tourneys) + 500) * (1 - (amt_fee / amt_buyin_fee)) / 5 - 100
the (1 - (amt_fee / amt_buyin_fee)) multiplier accounts for the rake (equals 0.95 for the 15s-60s etc). Rakeback should be added to the ROI directly (e.g. 0.4 * 5% = 2% for 40% return) because it of course doesn't depend on how often one wins.
Last edited by coon74; 04-28-2015 at 02:47 PM.
![mass[sr]'s Avatar](https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/customavatars/avatar230371_3.gif){kind=avatar}
04-29-2015
, 06:24 PM
