How can you be sure they pay out exactly as their odds list?

About half the list has less than a 20k post-rakeback profit, for playing over 10k games and nearly 3 months of time.

Only 2 players, won more than they paid in rake, and barely won more.

So basically, if you play 15,000 games, and run really good, you can hope to make a $1 or $2 a game after rakeback.

thx Rampage_Jackson2

Wouldn't you want to be showing a decent profit without rakeback at the game you're playing (studying)?

I don't really care where my money comes from -- money is money.

Though I am a little bit surprised about the lower hourly than I would have expected. The 20 winners made around $1.72/match. I don't know how many games per hour you can get at $60s and $30s but assuming 40 that's $69/hour in the best case, which is lower than a lot of players anticipate.

Very good point about the hourly... personally I am just very surprised; I thought the potential for these games was a lot greater. Also, expected to see a few of the better players winning without jackpots.

It's in big contrast to when PTR came out for cash games and people learned you could make millions playing mid stakes cash... or CAP games.

Why isn´t Pokerstars provably fair already?

When did i say I was sure? If You hit and don't win it, it is only 18k and it is impossible to tell it from those results.

You can't say anything meaningful about the likelihood of fairness surrounding jackpot probability from these data, because:

A) Players could have hit them and then losing;
B) Players could have hit them and won, but other losses compensate the winnings;
C) Mathematically, even in 300,000 games it's common for a 1 in 100,000 probability to not happen.

You can be relatively sure that Pokerstars creates a fair jackpot probability because if word/evidence gets out that it is in fact unfair games will die. Furthermore, games need to be somewhat beatable to keep attracting new players (fish) who will try to beat them.

#13 and #16 both hit a 3000x

Right, I have new question for spinwiz programmer/support/whatever. Since queue seemed long and running slow at 60s and I was sitting no one, despite having big sitlist, decided to experiment and make a video (if required will upload it).

Result at the 60s (around 23:30 CET):

Moved 19 places in the queue for 20 minutes of video, didn't sit anyone in the process. Out of 35 queue, I had marked 25 people.

Now this brings me to several questions:
Why queue moves with something like 1 place/minute - games were filling for the most part for no more than 10-15 seconds at the same time, traffic was still decent.
Is it normal to have 70%!!! of the queue marked and sit no one for 20 minutes and 19!!! places in the queue?
Lastly, if all of the above is completely normal, what is the actual value of spinwiz? If it is not normal, why does it happen and still nothing is done to fix/improve it?

If you need the video, just pm me and will send it. Thanks!

Has anyone validated the queue? Is there a way to get list of last 1000 tournaments in 60s for example and see if someone is getting more games she should be getting with a fair queue? As with any software there might be loopholes someone is taking advantage of. With sharky/hu open lobbies it is easier to see if someone is jumping the queue, but maybe can get the list for Spins too somehow?

If you hit a 3000x and win at 60s, you are likely taking some time off celebrating and you might not be in the "Most active" leaderboard. Therefore being in the list provided has negative correlation to hitting 3000x and winning.

If you want to see how much money the biggest winners make in a game you probably don't want to look at a most games leaderboard, it probably misses out on a lot of people I'd imagine.

In any case, projecting 100k+ at $60s seems pretty nice to me. How much money were most thinking are in a $60 buyin game? Seems like a positive addition to HUSNGs not a negative.

Whats the proper BRM for 7$ spins if you play fulltime? And what ROI would be considered as average?

10 - 15 seconds is not impossible and actually happens, but from the data I have it regularly takes over 60 seconds to fill tables at that time.
One important thing to go about is when I had timeouts set at 30 - 40 seconds everyone was complaining about sitting their friends.

I just checked the data from one of the recent logs

1992 $60 started
1682 of them were vs sit list

*Unless I checked it wrong


My guess is: You either have sit list disabled, sit others enabled with an empty friend list or you're very unlucky.

There have been several loopholes that have been fixed over the months.
Now that the queue heavily depends on the sit list it your luck is important.
The player who gets to sit someone is randomly picked from the queue.
If anyone has any ideas on what to replace the randomness with let me know.

time elapsed since last given a seat descending?

Almost everyone in the 'most games' list isn't playing close to as well as they could if they were playing less tables, they're conceding most or all of their pre-rb profit in order to achieve SNE and make over $2 a game in rakeback. They also have more chances to bink a 3000x and have a $300k+ year. Ignoring jackpots is silly, ignoring rakeback is ridiculous.

There are plenty of regs with very good pre-rb profit, they just play closer to 5k games a month than 10-20k.

If you want a very low chance of having to redeposit and know you're a decent winner at the games 150-200 BI is probably fine, you can get away with like 100 if you're a crusher. You could start with 50 but there's a high risk of ruin.

I don't know what you mean by average and ROI varies a LOT based on multipliers but 5%+ 'true' ROI is definitely doable. If you can maintain that though it would be silly to stay at 7s for long.

Most people on that list played around 5k -7k games, no one plays over 10k games a month and 20k games would be impossible, 10k is about the maxium possible I would say, But even looking at good respected HU hypers regs, who play around 4-5k games a month most of them still dont win pre RB.

if you play 5k games, you ''should'' get 7.5% 6x games, that's only 375 games, and those games will decide for a big part if you win or lose pre RB that month. Ofc you can also run good in those games and have a great month.

With 5% rake and games getting tougher by the day, just look at spinwiz users, its growing quite fast. The variance will only get worse and worse, to the point they are not worth it anymore unless you play insane volume and get high RB %

Obviously multipliers matter, they matter a lot, but if you're playing 50k+ games a year you start to get close to your expectation (-the top jackpots ofc). The samples there aren't big enough to show true winrates and a lot of the players on that list are fare from the best regs even at 60s.

Also why are people so against making profit from rakeback? The games are raked at 5%, rakeback just lowers the effective rake.

If these trends continue over a huge sample then they may have to cut rake a bit in the future but with SNE rakeback it wouldn't even make that much of difference, losers wouldn't become winners, a 1% rake cut would effectively be closer to a 0.3% rake cut for most of the people affected.

imo the best solution would be to flatten the payouts a bit at 100s, but that's probably not actually the best solution as Stars has a said a lot of times that the bigger the top prize the more recreational players get excited.

yeah okay, but then again its quite possible to be winning pre RB in EV roi, but be losing $ even over 50k sample.

yes over 50k games you would get really close to expectation of 6x multipliers, but thats only 3750 games, and its completely possible to run bad in that small sample, and therefore have a losing year. also if you dont hit any of the big multipliers, you will also run under EV most likely. There just many ways to run bad, and most people will run under EV lifetime in these games.

Yes if you absolutely crush the games with 5% roi pre RB, then you will most likely be fine, but then again games are getting harder, so if you ''only' win 2-3% pre, you could very well have a losing year pre RB over a large sample.

Also in that 50k sample, you expect to spin 50 times a 25x game, and 250 times a 10x.
Run bad or good in that small sample of games, and it will decide for a huge part whether you have a good or bad year.

You can run under EV in any game and I'm okay with 6 figure bad years.

yeah ofc you can, but I thought we where discussing the variance in Spins, and it seem after analyzing data on that website, variance is huge, and I think its important for people playing these games to know what they can expect.

There are not many games out there where with a 3% EV roi, you can still be a loser pre RB over a 50k sample.

Also there are not many games out there where you are more likely to run under EV than over EV over very large samples.

Its just part of the game, Im not trying to make it look worse or claim that the game is unbeatable. Yes if you play enough and get good RB% you could still have good results even when your running bad.