** Official Spin and Go's Discussion Thread ** - Page 121 - Heads Up SNG and Spin and Gos -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

Spinwiz as it currently is will be disallowed starting Oct. 1. The Spinwiz people are saying they are making some changes that will (hopefully) prevent it from getting banned. I find the person/people behind support for this software to be douchey, typically retorting with sarcastic/condescending responses to questions when a simple "I don't know at the moment" would suffice, and hinting that if the software is banned altogether they'll just run off with people's money. If you're planning on getting Spinwiz I'd wait at least a week or until everything is sorted out between Spinwiz and Stars.

Did not use it today and will probably uninstall the software. I was just a bit confused that there was no update on the website concerning yesterdays change in Stars' policies..

Quote

09-30-2015 , 02:41 PM

#3002

nateofclubs

journeyman

Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 244

Quote:

Originally Posted by IQrobot

Did not use it today and will probably uninstall the software. I was just a bit confused that there was no update on the website concerning yesterdays change in Stars' policies..

The update is there, check again. http://www.spinandgowiz.com/

Quote

09-30-2015 , 03:36 PM

#3003

IQrobot

grinder

Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 609

Quote:

Originally Posted by nateofclubs

The update is there, check again. http://www.spinandgowiz.com/

Tx for info. Do not want to accuse anyone besides Stars setting up a way too short time frame in this case.
Anyone has an idea if using SpinWiz in a few hours (even after the new software update without waitlist etc) could result in a ban?

Quote

09-30-2015 , 03:50 PM

#3004

MOV EAX

newbie

Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 43

Quote:

Originally Posted by nateofclubs

Sure sounds like me, sorry if I offended you. Other people behind SpinWiz are almost decent human beings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IQrobot

I have sent version 3.0.5.0 to PokerStars for approval. I suggest users not to use SpinWiz after the the date set by PokerStars before we confirm 3.0.5.0 is approved.

Quote

09-30-2015 , 05:16 PM

#3005

SiQ

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 7,248

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbarone

Yes, really. I don't understand your outrage. What's wrong with customers evaluating the strategies for sale by the coach's results/EV?

Strongly agreed here.

Husla, it's silly to market content based on good results and then get upset at consumers for questioning it after poor results (I'm not insinuating you can't do well, by most accounts you're damn good at poker, I'd imagine you're more than capable still today of beating the format, and there might be legit reasons for subpar results over that sample without it meaning you magically got bad at poker). You tied it's value to your results when you used them to market it. Live by the sword...
But that's not to say that you can't stand by your valuation of the content and your game.

The only bad thing I see here is that you used a claim of additional material to sell more (that may not have been your inten - I'd like to think you were just excited to share more with customers and didn't realize you wouldn't be able to put it out in the time you expected - but it is what happened) and you haven't delivered. That's a big no no. But I'm inclined to believe you have every intention of honoring that claim, so get on it, for your customers sake

Quote

09-30-2015 , 07:57 PM

#3006

coon74

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 10,684

@ el-terribel, plaid retina:

I've been dreaming of 4-max jackpot hypers whose bottom tier would award 2 BIs to the 1st and 1 BI to the 2nd - not in addition to the current 3-max offering, but instead of it (possibly on a euro network). The frequency of jackpots would decrease, but the format would be more welcoming to STT players.

To compensate for the increased number of entrants, the blind structure could be even sped up a little - regs' ROIs would be still healthy because recs would be committing big ICM mistakes even in high blinds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SiQ

Husla, it's silly to market content based on good results and then get upset at consumers for questioning it after poor results (I'm not insinuating you can't do well, by most accounts you're damn good at poker, I'd imagine you're more than capable still today of beating the format, and there might be legit reasons for subpar results over that sample without it meaning you magically got bad at poker).

Why doesn't he give us a hint on what the reasons were? They aren't always bad, e.g. one of the coaches known to me intentionally 'tries out very exploitive lines' (i.e. spews) at the $15s and below in order to get an idea about population tendencies there (for his students' sake) and end up discovering some exploits that work well. Or he might have been checking Skype all the time while grinding to keep track of the horses, which would of course have been detrimental to his EV as a player but it might have been helping the EV of his business assets grow fast enough to compensate for that.

Last edited by coon74; 09-30-2015 at 08:15 PM.

Quote

10-02-2015 , 04:27 AM

#3007

MOV EAX

newbie

Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 43

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOV EAX

I have sent version 3.0.5.0 to PokerStars for approval. I suggest users not to use SpinWiz after the the date set by PokerStars before we confirm 3.0.5.0 is approved.

3.0.5.0 is allowed to be used now.

Quote

10-02-2015 , 06:05 AM

#3008

Captain Sifilis

journeyman

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 238

What changes did you made in sw to make them approve this version?

Quote

10-02-2015 , 06:29 AM

#3009

LeaksSuck

old hand

Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 1,859

Serious question: What useful things can the software do now?

Quote

10-02-2015 , 06:48 AM

#3010

dybboss

old hand

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,514

^it can save you some time clicking ctrl+s when you bust one table! in other words, none.

ok, that was a bit harsh

you can time your session to play 30 games for example or 2 hours (if you dont prefer ahk table counter or looking at clock :P )

Last edited by dybboss; 10-02-2015 at 07:03 AM.

Quote

10-02-2015 , 10:58 AM

#3011

doodiewiz

journeyman

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 371

So no queue or sit list at all?

Quote

10-02-2015 , 01:23 PM

#3012

TouchOfEVil

veteran

Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 3,140

Quote:

Originally Posted by bighusla

I don't have spectacular results for a few months and now people are accusing me of not being able to beat the game? And compare my ev to hardcore bumhunters winrates? Really? Not only am I going to have a +50 chip ev over my next 10k games I will do so without using spin wiz at all. Also my how to crush regs free bonus content will be released right after, sorry for the wait.

Sooo are we gonna see a challenge tread and betting? Put up a line and walk the walk !

Quote

10-02-2015 , 02:53 PM

#3013

SootedPowa

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 3,758

Quote:

Originally Posted by coon74

According to the current edition of the EULA,

That's cunning

Funny that, when SpinWiz was being sold before the ban they promised a partial refund on long licence purchased if the software was banned before the time was up. Now that has been removed.

Scummers.

Quote

10-02-2015 , 02:59 PM

#3014

coon74

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 10,684

Technically, it's not 'unfit for use' even now, just 'some of its functionality has been removed'

Quote

10-02-2015 , 02:59 PM

#3015

MOV EAX

newbie

Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 43

Quote:

Originally Posted by SootedPowa

I'm not saying you wont receive a refund or any sort of compensation, but the EULA has been on our website since the end of February and you are asked to agree to it on 2 different pages on our website (order, download). I don't know what you were promised in February, but we only sold 6 months licenses back then.
What I know for a fact is that a statement like that has never been on the website.
SpinWiz is not dead yet and updates are on the way.
The situation were are in is still new and everything can happen from this point on.
Keep reading the announcements on our website and calm down.

Last edited by MOV EAX; 10-02-2015 at 03:11 PM.

Quote

10-02-2015 , 05:07 PM

#3016

fix9

adept

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 998

If spinwiz didn't make the user the money he paid for the software in the first place then it is probably time to give up poker because it got you the softest games on stars. When there is a doubt of something being allowed for ever then why oh why would anyone buy a 6 or 12 month license? Surely anyone with an ounce of common sense would buy the license with the minimum amount of time and just renew for another minimum license. It's not like he was charging crazy prices for the software in the first place so if you bought 12 months without reading the eula then more fool you. You have learned a valuable life lesson quite cheaply.

Quote

10-02-2015 , 05:27 PM

#3017

teddybloat

grinder

Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 423

i firmly believe that the spinwiz guys will do whats right. note they don't 100% exclude refunds, and the wording doesn't strike as being in there as a 'catch all' get out clause by people out to avoid refunding in this situation, and the software was initially marketed on forums with a refund promise in the event of a ban.

but we should remember that have been hit hard too, and got very little warning by all accounts.

i'm happy to give them time to try and salvage something out of the situation and see what the final software looks like. if its not of value to me then, yes i would like to be refunded for the remainder of my licence.

but a grace period for them to try to sort out their business is appropriate, innit

Quote

10-02-2015 , 06:27 PM

#3018

nateofclubs

journeyman

Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 244

Quote:

Originally Posted by fix9

Some people didn't make the money they paid for the software because they bought it recently. And even if it is true that it's time for someone to give up poker because it got a player the softest game on stars, this is an irrelevant point for what you're trying to argue - it doesn't follow from this that a player therefore shouldn't be refunded. If anything, such a player would need the refund even more given that he can't regenerate it playing poker. And as for anyone with common sense buying the minimum, when you're buying the minimum you're paying more per day, so if Spinwiz was never banned then a player would be paying more in the long run and we're therefore taking a chance either way.

I agree that it's not a significant amount of money that we're losing and I'm not going to waste my time sweating it. What I don't understand is why the Spinwiz players who are okay with not being refunded are so adamant about other Spinwiz players not being refunded as well. It seems to me to be an order of magnitude more reasonable for someone to want to be refunded than for someone to want others to not be refunded given that the transaction here has nothing to do with them.

To be sure, I'm aware that the Spinwiz staff are doing what they can to fix the problem and I don't blame them for the problem's existence. And I'm not arguing they ought to refund players right away. I agree with Teddy regarding the grace period.

Quote

10-02-2015 , 07:53 PM

#3019

Complexity

newbie

Join Date: Dec 2014 Posts: 32

is it normal for someone with 37% ITM, 37% EVITM and 55 chip ev per game, to have breakeven stretch, after 2,5k games? Is it possible that someone is playing bad and thats why he doesnt win? Can chip ev be completely trusted to evaluate somebody's game?

Quote

10-02-2015 , 09:40 PM

#3020

coon74

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 10,684

SwongSim will answer your question. It can give an approximate probability of a 2500-game breakeven stretches over a longer sample (tick 'Run Text Only' and see the text results). But as far as I've understood your query, you only need to put in 'Games per simulation = 2500' and find the line 'x% had ROI below 0.yz%' in the text results. E.g. the following sim results

Code:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective	Specified		Simulation
Place	Finish Distribution	Finish Distribution
1	0,00037%          	0,00048%
2	0,00033%          	0,0002%
3	0,0003%          	0,0004%
4	0,00185%          	0,00196%
5	0,00165%          	0,0018%
6	0,0015%          	0,00152%
7	0,0037%          	0,00336%
8	0,0033%          	0,00316%
9	0,003%          	0,00296%
10	0,037%          	0,03664%
11	0,185%          	0,18248%
12	2,775%          	2,76704%
13	7,90542%          	7,8894%
14	26,09166%          	26,06596%
ITM	37,01008%          	36,95736%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1000  simulations of  2500  games
Expected ROI (with rakeback/bonus/award): 5,39%  (135 Buyins)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
99% 	had ROI below   119,52%	(2988 Buyins)
97.5% 	had ROI below   14,28%	(357 Buyins)
95% 	had ROI below   12,20%	(305 Buyins)
90% 	had ROI below   9,76%	(244 Buyins)
80% 	had ROI below   7,32%	(183 Buyins)
70% 	had ROI below   5,84%	(146 Buyins)
60% 	had ROI below   4,76%	(119 Buyins)
50% 	had ROI below   3,72%	(93 Buyins)
40% 	had ROI below   2,80%	(70 Buyins)
30% 	had ROI below   1,80%	(45 Buyins)
20% 	had ROI below   0,68%	(17 Buyins)
10% 	had ROI below   -0,80%	(-20 Buyins)
  5% 	had ROI below   -1,96%	(-49 Buyins)
  2.5% 	had ROI below   -2,88%	(-72 Buyins)
  1% 	had ROI below   -3,72%	(-93 Buyins)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  99% 	had a downswing greater than   33 buyins
  97.5% 	had a downswing greater than   36 buyins
  95% 	had a downswing greater than   40 buyins
  90% 	had a downswing greater than   44 buyins
  80% 	had a downswing greater than   49 buyins
  70% 	had a downswing greater than   54 buyins
  60% 	had a downswing greater than   59 buyins
  50% 	had a downswing greater than   65 buyins
  40% 	had a downswing greater than   72 buyins
  30% 	had a downswing greater than   80 buyins
  20% 	had a downswing greater than   91 buyins
  10% 	had a downswing greater than   108 buyins
  5% 	had a downswing greater than   125 buyins
  2.5% 	had a downswing greater than   138 buyins
  1% 	had a downswing greater than   154 buyins
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  99% 	had a low point lower than   0 buyins
  97.5% 	had a low point lower than   0 buyins
  95% 	had a low point lower than   -1 buyins
  90% 	had a low point lower than   -4 buyins
  80% 	had a low point lower than   -8 buyins
  70% 	had a low point lower than   -13 buyins
  60% 	had a low point lower than   -18 buyins
  50% 	had a low point lower than   -24 buyins
  40% 	had a low point lower than   -32 buyins
  30% 	had a low point lower than   -40 buyins
  20% 	had a low point lower than   -54 buyins
  10% 	had a low point lower than   -75 buyins
  5% 	had a low point lower than   -87 buyins
  2.5% 	had a low point lower than   -107 buyins
  1% 	had a low point lower than   -127 buyins
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  99% 	had a breakeven stretch longer than   310 games
  97.5% 	had a breakeven stretch longer than   355 games
  95% 	had a breakeven stretch longer than   420 games
  90% 	had a breakeven stretch longer than   495 games
  80% 	had a breakeven stretch longer than   604 games
  70% 	had a breakeven stretch longer than   729 games
  60% 	had a breakeven stretch longer than   854 games
  50% 	had a breakeven stretch longer than   976 games
  40% 	had a breakeven stretch longer than   1150 games
  30% 	had a breakeven stretch longer than   1328 games
  20% 	had a breakeven stretch longer than   1595 games
  10% 	had a breakeven stretch longer than   2009 games
  5% 	had a breakeven stretch longer than   2258 games
  2.5% 	had a breakeven stretch longer than   2393 games
  1% 	had a breakeven stretch longer than   2477 games
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

imply that you were to end up with a loss (negative total ROI) after 2500 games in ~15% of cases.

That probability is a bit bigger for lower stake / higher rake Spins than $15s, but the above calculation is only an example because you need to add rakeback (and subtract life expenses expressed as a % of the rake per game) anyway. E.g. if you spend $500 and play 5K games a month, then your expenses per game are $0.10, which, in the case of the 15s, is equivalent to 28 percentage points ($0.10/$0.75 = 0.28 = 28%) subtracted from the rakeback percentage.

Last edited by coon74; 10-02-2015 at 09:53 PM.

Quote

10-03-2015 , 12:00 AM

#3021

acbarone

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 4,869

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonik

is it normal for someone with 37% ITM, 37% EVITM and 55 chip ev per game, to have breakeven stretch, after 2,5k games?

Normal? I dunno. Possible? Sure. I personally have had 2,500 game breakeven stretches and my cEV is higher than that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonik

Is it possible that someone is playing bad and thats why he doesnt win?

Yes, playing bad normally leads to not winning

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonik

Can chip ev be completely trusted to evaluate somebody's game?

For the most part. Could be that a player does better in 2x and worse in higher multipliers (i.e. how athletes can 'choke' in high pressure spots). However you'll probably never get close to a sample of meaningful, high equity games to even know.

Quote

10-03-2015 , 01:22 AM

#3022

coon74

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 10,684

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbarone

Could be that a player does better in 2x and worse in higher multipliers (i.e. how athletes can 'choke' in high pressure spots). However you'll probably never get close to a sample of meaningful, high equity games to even know.

Fortunately, high multiplier games are responsible for only a small part of the ROI in Spins, unlike final tables in MTTs. So even scoring 30% in 10x+ multiplier Spins isn't a tragedy: compare

with

The ROI falls from 4.8% to 4.1% - quite insignificantly.

Quote

10-03-2015 , 01:39 AM

#3023

Mirikrom

centurion

Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 133

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbarone

Normal? I dunno. Possible? Sure. I personally have had 2,500 game breakeven stretches and my cEV is higher than that.

Yes, playing bad normally leads to not winning

For the most part. Could be that a player does better in 2x and worse in higher multipliers (i.e. how athletes can 'choke' in high pressure spots). However you'll probably never get close to a sample of meaningful, high equity games to even know.

what about if we win a lot of chips on certain streets, stack size, but loosing in endgame in HU? can it guide as to be loosing player despite fact to having good chipEV? I think rather no, but it can increase variance significant...?

@jonik , answering your question yes, it is not only possible but happen quiet often. for example, I beat 7$BI over 1.7K games with 70+chipEV and I won about 100BI. I beat 15$BI over 1.9K games with 65+chipEV and I was loosing 40BI, now on 30$BI after few hundred games with chipEV about 50 I run according to spinEV, but yet overall after 4K games I am breakeven pre rakeback. spins have really huge variance bro. if you go at your own, I think you need really put in the volume, like 5K games/month and counting money per quarter or semester rather then monthly.

Quote

10-03-2015 , 02:23 AM

#3024

acbarone

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 4,869

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirikrom

I don't see how it has anything to do with variance.

If you're saying we somehow crush 3h play but struggle HU, I imagine then we're getting HU with considerable chip advantage and that can make up for hypothetical HU leaks.

Quote

10-03-2015 , 08:49 AM

#3025

Mirikrom

centurion

Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 133

in short, even we play good 80% of match but sucks in endgame, we are more likely to be loosing, regardless of number of chips we won.

let's say this way. we are in HU, and when we are 17bb+ we win good portion of average pots as we are good postflop at this deep and we outplay our opponent. let's say average pot is 500chips, but winning it, is not guiding us to finishing the match. however, when we are <12bb, and let's say we sucks at this deep, we will loosing bigger portion of pots, the size of average pots can be smaller then 500chips (let's say 400), but loosing it guiding us to end of the match and miss of payout. in average the difference between winning and loosing pots at different stack deep is +100 but we are more likely to loosing $$ as we sucks in endgame and pay outs will occurring less often. I believe in long therm is not matter (an infinite amount of time), but on smaller sample size, I think we are more likely to deviating (under EV) from for example calculation which can be obtained trough SwongSim or other type of variance simulation program.

I am not sure that I am right about this, maybe is some kind of cognitive bias from my side.

Quote

Page 121 of 306

First

21 71 101 111 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 131 141 171 221

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 121 of 306

First

21 71 101 111 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 131 141 171 221

Last