** Official Spin and Go's Discussion Thread **
12-08-2015
, 10:02 AM
Quote:
They were losing a slower rate in the normal hypers. Refer to this old post where I asked Maxcut if he could run a simulation(simulation I believe is based on "old" spin and go structure)......
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=3077
The variance from these Spin and Gos is good thing for increasing the likelihood of losing players having upswings. Maybe not for Regs but for the recreational or losing players the variance created from the Spin should create a similar amount of short term winners but more importantly "far" more short term winners winning much more than they did in a lower variance game. I have no idea if that money trickles up the stakes or where it goes but the variance certainly doesn't decrease their chances of a "bigger" upswing.
Similar to MTTs the variance can be a good thing in attracting and keeping weaker players in the game.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=3077
The variance from these Spin and Gos is good thing for increasing the likelihood of losing players having upswings. Maybe not for Regs but for the recreational or losing players the variance created from the Spin should create a similar amount of short term winners but more importantly "far" more short term winners winning much more than they did in a lower variance game. I have no idea if that money trickles up the stakes or where it goes but the variance certainly doesn't decrease their chances of a "bigger" upswing.
Similar to MTTs the variance can be a good thing in attracting and keeping weaker players in the game.
Spoiler:
12-08-2015
, 10:34 AM
Quote:
Could you please post raw text results, with all the checkpoints ticked, for both Spins and HU hypers (in 'CODE' tags to save forum space)?
I expect that there will be fewer people running 'close' to the EV at Spins, but more people running very good, as well as more people running very bad.
I expect that there will be fewer people running 'close' to the EV at Spins, but more people running very good, as well as more people running very bad.
Spin @ -7.8%
Code:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Effective Specified Simulation Place Finish Distribution Finish Distribution 1 9.705E-05% 7.5E-05% 2 9.795E-05% 0.00011% 3 0.000105% 8E-05% 4 0.0016175% 0.00166% 5 0.0016325% 0.001795% 6 0.00175% 0.001895% 7 0.003235% 0.003315% 8 0.003265% 0.003285% 9 0.0035% 0.003505% 10 0.03235% 0.03201% 11 0.16175% 0.16129% 12 2.42625% 2.421355% 13 6.91167455% 6.91638% 14 22.8130259% 22.808215% ITM 32.36035045% 32.35497% --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10000 simulations of 2000 games Expected ROI (with rakeback/bonus/award): -7.79% (-156 Buyins) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had ROI below 5.15% (103 Buyins) 97.5% had ROI below 1.05% (21 Buyins) 95% had ROI below -1.35% (-27 Buyins) 90% had ROI below -3.60% (-72 Buyins) 80% had ROI below -5.85% (-117 Buyins) 70% had ROI below -7.20% (-144 Buyins) 60% had ROI below -8.25% (-165 Buyins) 50% had ROI below -9.20% (-184 Buyins) 40% had ROI below -10.20% (-204 Buyins) 30% had ROI below -11.20% (-224 Buyins) 20% had ROI below -12.30% (-246 Buyins) 10% had ROI below -13.90% (-278 Buyins) 5% had ROI below -15.05% (-301 Buyins) 2.5% had ROI below -16.20% (-324 Buyins) 1% had ROI below -17.40% (-348 Buyins) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had a downswing greater than 80 buyins 97.5% had a downswing greater than 97 buyins 95% had a downswing greater than 112 buyins 90% had a downswing greater than 131 buyins 80% had a downswing greater than 158 buyins 70% had a downswing greater than 178 buyins 60% had a downswing greater than 196 buyins 50% had a downswing greater than 211 buyins 40% had a downswing greater than 228 buyins 30% had a downswing greater than 245 buyins 20% had a downswing greater than 266 buyins 10% had a downswing greater than 295 buyins 5% had a downswing greater than 317 buyins 2.5% had a downswing greater than 338 buyins 1% had a downswing greater than 359 buyins --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had a low point lower than -29 buyins 97.5% had a low point lower than -53 buyins 95% had a low point lower than -76 buyins 90% had a low point lower than -105 buyins 80% had a low point lower than -138 buyins 70% had a low point lower than -162 buyins 60% had a low point lower than -180 buyins 50% had a low point lower than -198 buyins 40% had a low point lower than -216 buyins 30% had a low point lower than -234 buyins 20% had a low point lower than -257 buyins 10% had a low point lower than -286 buyins 5% had a low point lower than -311 buyins 2.5% had a low point lower than -332 buyins 1% had a low point lower than -354 buyins --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had a breakeven stretch longer than 913 games 97.5% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1063 games 95% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1257 games 90% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1507 games 80% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1757 games 70% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1866 games 60% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1924 games 50% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1959 games 40% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1979 games 30% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1991 games 20% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1997 games 10% had a breakeven stretch longer than 2000 games 5% had a breakeven stretch longer than 2000 games 2.5% had a breakeven stretch longer than 2000 games 1% had a breakeven stretch longer than 2000 games ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Code:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Effective Specified Simulation Place Finish Distribution Finish Distribution 1 47.27% 47.26752% ITM 47.27% 47.26752% --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10000 simulations of 2000 games Expected ROI (with rakeback/bonus/award): -7.82% (-156 Buyins) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had ROI below -2.89% (-58 Buyins) 97.5% had ROI below -3.67% (-73 Buyins) 95% had ROI below -4.25% (-85 Buyins) 90% had ROI below -5.03% (-101 Buyins) 80% had ROI below -6.01% (-120 Buyins) 70% had ROI below -6.69% (-134 Buyins) 60% had ROI below -7.28% (-146 Buyins) 50% had ROI below -7.86% (-157 Buyins) 40% had ROI below -8.35% (-167 Buyins) 30% had ROI below -8.94% (-179 Buyins) 20% had ROI below -9.62% (-192 Buyins) 10% had ROI below -10.59% (-212 Buyins) 5% had ROI below -11.37% (-227 Buyins) 2.5% had ROI below -12.06% (-241 Buyins) 1% had ROI below -12.84% (-257 Buyins) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had a downswing greater than 77 buyins 97.5% had a downswing greater than 91 buyins 95% had a downswing greater than 102 buyins 90% had a downswing greater than 115 buyins 80% had a downswing greater than 133 buyins 70% had a downswing greater than 146 buyins 60% had a downswing greater than 157 buyins 50% had a downswing greater than 167 buyins 40% had a downswing greater than 178 buyins 30% had a downswing greater than 188 buyins 20% had a downswing greater than 202 buyins 10% had a downswing greater than 221 buyins 5% had a downswing greater than 235 buyins 2.5% had a downswing greater than 247 buyins 1% had a downswing greater than 263 buyins --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had a low point lower than -66 buyins 97.5% had a low point lower than -82 buyins 95% had a low point lower than -93 buyins 90% had a low point lower than -108 buyins 80% had a low point lower than -126 buyins 70% had a low point lower than -140 buyins 60% had a low point lower than -151 buyins 50% had a low point lower than -162 buyins 40% had a low point lower than -173 buyins 30% had a low point lower than -184 buyins 20% had a low point lower than -197 buyins 10% had a low point lower than -217 buyins 5% had a low point lower than -231 buyins 2.5% had a low point lower than -244 buyins 1% had a low point lower than -261 buyins --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1370 games 97.5% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1551 games 95% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1667 games 90% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1784 games 80% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1884 games 70% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1931 games 60% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1959 games 50% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1975 games 40% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1987 games 30% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1994 games 20% had a breakeven stretch longer than 1998 games 10% had a breakeven stretch longer than 2000 games 5% had a breakeven stretch longer than 2000 games 2.5% had a breakeven stretch longer than 2000 games 1% had a breakeven stretch longer than 2000 games ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler:
Last edited by Max Cut; 12-08-2015 at 10:58 AM.
12-08-2015
, 08:08 PM
12-08-2015
, 09:27 PM
12-08-2015
, 10:37 PM
12-08-2015
, 11:28 PM
12-09-2015
, 12:09 AM
Quote:
you frame it as if it is mutually exclusive because you don't understand. Stars wants to protect recreational players from profitable players, not from themselves or their rake. See the post I wrote above for how that happens, and then combine it with your understanding that rake is higher in these games than others.
12-12-2015
, 04:45 PM
