I think there are a fair number of crushers who could maintain ~100cEV/game at 15s on stars, they obviously play higher though.

my results are this, i hate it, bye bye spin!
http://gyazo.com/051604346c7037d2e65ff0e56a917276
http://gyazo.com/f5c55a5700124faceffc3f486909050d
http://gyazo.com/467403779f8fcfc01820a627134a4527

Whats a suggested brm? Biggest downswings for good winning players?

100-200BI depending on stake and winrate, even then you're not guarenteed to not bust. 100BI downswings are very, very common. It would be lucky to not have one every 5k games.

Okay guys, exactly what it is that makes spins so unbeatable according to you? Is it the third player and the fact that +70% of the times you're playing the x2 multipliers (in other words, bigger rake)?

Most people in this thread say they are quite beatable. I might not be understanding the question correctly.

really? My bad then. I've been picking random pages from this thread to read and I usually see people complaining about the huge variance and all, so I assumed most users here were losing their money on these games.

Variance being huge doesn't equate to the game being unbeatable.

You are right tho about most 2p2 users being net losers at poker- usually the figure is better for a niche game type/forum but probably it's still true that most are losers here as well.

When I said there are frequent and huge downswings I was just stating a fact. The games are still very beatable and you can easily have upswings that are even bigger (sometimes without even hitting a huge multiplier).

Variance goes both ways.

I think most people complaining or discussing huge variance aren't taking that to say "hey these games aren't' worthwhile/aren't profitable."

I mean, MTT variance is probably worse.

Spins are a new format though. When hyper husng came out, many in the community (of all levels) talked about how crazy variance they were. It was super overstated (I don't think spins variance is all that overstated in many cases), but just try to look at the facts.

Showing downswings while negating rakeback value, for example, is not realistic to any professional because a dollar in rakeback is as good as a dollar in bonus is as good as a dollar in game, etc.

Showing downswing while eliminating all the top jackpot EV is not realistic unless with disclaimer with the odds of not hitting any of those top jackpots (just like MTT variance when eliminating making a FT for awhile).

Yeah people definitely forget that a breakeven or -~100Bi Month at spins can still be a profitable month if you're playing enough volume, especially with SN or SNE rakeback.

hey Lobby Skills nice work could you or anyone post one for a crusher with a 8% ROI?

Sure. With 6% rake, w/o rakeback:
- 194 BI's 1%
- 161 BI's 5%
- 73 BI'S 99%

31% rakeback will reduce these swings to 154, 128, 62.
You can calculate this with SwongSim, it's a variance simulator for lottery sng's. Great software and easy to use.

thank man

Hey guys, I was looking at this https://spinlyzer.com site. It lets you look at who you have played against the most as well.

One shocking thing, is that most of the good regs that I play against at the 60s or 100s, are not winning pre-rakeback.

Looked through about 20 players, plenty of guys who won roughly 500k chips and are down 10-20k. Some more extreme examples with guys who won 1 million+ chips, and are down huge.

Only a few players who were up in the 5k-20k range who had hits on 100x or 200x jackpots.

Saw nobody with a 3,000x multiplier win, despite a cumulative total of well more than 100,000 games.

So basically nobody is consistently winning without the jackpots...

I was also wondering, does Stars so the system, like each spin is totally independent from the rest? What I mean is, in 100,000 is there a guaranteed 3,000x multipler... or is just each spin has a 1 in 100k chance, and there could be no 3k multiplier for a longer time?

Each game has a properly random chance of being whatever multiplier, it's not like a slot machine which slowly builds towards a jackpot.

yeah also looked at that site, and was also shocked about how little of the regs win $ pre RB. variance is huge, did some calculations in Swingswom and the downswings post RB aren't really huge IMO, but then again the downswings might not be really huge, I do believe its really common for winning players to go on extremely long break even stretches of 10k+ games. IMO that's worse than a game where downswings are bigger, but overall the trend goes up instead of breakeven stretches over huge samples.

And also, should that site be allowed? there's no option to block your own stats like sharkscope, also the pricing is completely ******ed at 60$ for a month subscription.
Not to mention that I believe selling HH's is not even allowed.

Wow, looking at those leaderboards it certainly looks like the games are not beatable at the $60+ stake!

Out of the top 25 grinders (by volume) 18 are losing money pre-rakeback. And that is in 60 days of playing with pretty decently enough samples overall... as you say pretty shocking...and scary...

do you have to subscribe to view? or just register?

If you register, you can look anybody up. However, just registering will not show you EV lines and chips won... someone who had the subscription send me the EV lines. If you get the subscription there are other features.

What I saw was not a single person winning consistently (pre-rakeback). The best examples are guys flat-lining, who have 100x, or 200x jackpot wins mixed in. You can see that without those jackpots, nobody how good they player, they will not be winning.

I am posting in the hopes that players or Stars see that this is almost a scam against the players, where even the best regs are consistently losing pre-rakeback.

For those who do not want to register. These are the players who played the most 60s...



Not a single player has won over 20k, yet multiple have lost over 20k.

Not a single player with a 3000x jackpot, despite well over 300,000 games played for those players.

How sure are we that Pokerstars really creates a jackpot for every 1 in 100,000? Especially if the system is not guaranteed to pay out one during a given 100,000 games running.

How can You be sure about that? If You hit it and lose, You get only 18k. So If You are down lets say 8k and hit it but lose it, You are up just 10k in profits!

20 out of 25 people of that list won money. Why would you exclude rakeback?

I asked about the opt out in live chat, and their answer is LOL

"Support
Currently there is no such feature, however it is being considered and might be available very soon. Please let me know your username and I will make sure your data is opt-out once it's available and will let you know by email"