For HUSNG probably a little too thick indeed, for hung.com probably a little too, erm, thin

Didn't get past the home page mate, honestly (but *if* I did, I would say Mrs Abarone is one lucky lady).

Well now I'm wondering how many HUSNG regs got their start in this game because of a simple typo while trying to visit that other website (..not that there's anything wrong with that)

The chance of anyone entering HUSnGs this way is very low because 's' is so far away from 'hung' in the 'qwerty' keyboard layout.

Yeah, but they'd probably be typing with only their left hand so the likelihood of these sort of mistakes increases exponentially.

hi, i am trying to find a software to register spin and goes for me. i would like to play 4 tables for 1 hour. something like SFSO but for spins

tried:
table ninja 2 - not working
session lord - not working while starshelper is ON
SFSO - only for SNGs
holdemboss - not allowed on stars
spinwiz - not allowed on stars


will donate for simple ahk script, that auto regs spins.

Oops, I didn't know this

Why do you need StarsHelper at all while playing Spins, though?

I use no script, I just disable tournament autoclosing and press Ctrl+S ('register in a similar tournament'). The hotkey both closes the finished tourney and opens a new one.

As for the timer, you can use the Mindfulness Bell

Btw, you look like a solid candidate for an interview with Charles Hawk (requested in post #4013).

StarsHelper is excellent

An AHK should be no problem for this really - but yeah, CTRL+S pretty much removes the need?

if I stake a player in spins, and I play myself (same limits) is it legal for us to go all in every hand when we left HU since we are using same bankroll?

If you transfer funds to this player at Stars, then the seating algorithm will prevent you from being sat together in the same Spin.

So, if I were to play the 60s, I'd consider making donation transfers to Husla and other regs whom I'd be fearing

??

Where's this from?

From my experience, this is simply not true. I have sent funds to some of my mates on several occasions, yet, I still get seated with them every once in a while. Do you have a source C00n?

Also, what is this f-ing maintenance again. Cmon Stars at least you could tell us in advance

I was exaggerating a bit - it takes a ton of transfers to and from a friend in order to be marked as 'associated players'. Who is usually marked as 'associated' are relatives or those who play from the same IP address.

Don't quote me on that - I don't remember which exactly staff member stated anything of this sort, I'll try reviewing Baard's legacy now.

Anyway, you and the horse can both email Stars and ask them to mark you two as associated accounts so that you're prevented from sitting together (at least it's possible for non-spin STTs). Of course you'll have to provide a convincing proof of being in a staking relationship because otherwise cartels would abuse this feature

I mean, it never hurts to ask the support and let us know what they say.

That's some solid piece of advice, thank you for it

multiple mentionings of another Spin sticky.

Any1 care to link it?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/18...hread-1584241/

.

Mucho appreciado. They will be back shortly they said. But okay 'shortly' is a relative statement. Chosing your maintenance hours outside of peak hours would benefit all sides i suppose.

I'll make one (for those sweet, sweet donation dollars). PM me.

I just noticed something curious regarding a player's cEV: if you make it too high (above 1000) or too low (below -500) then you get impossible EVITM%s as calculated by the usual formula (above 100% and below 0% respectively). Of course these are unrealistic cEVs over large samples, but it still suggests some kind of inaccuracy with using cEV to calculate EVITM% (apart from the variance inherent in the cEV). It seems to suggest that when a player's cEV is above a certain # the formula overestimates a player's EVITM% and when it is below a certain # (the same # as the first one?) it underestimates it. If the first # is small then many people have their expectations too high and are setting themselves up for disappointment. On the other hand, if the second # is big, then that would be encouraging to many players as that would mean most have been underestimating their EVITM% when using the formula. If true it would be interesting to know what this/these #(s) are so as to be able to adjust our expectations accordingly. And if not true, then I wonder at what point the formula breaks down. (We know for sure it breaks down because as mentioned it doesn't work for cEV < -500 and cEV > 1000.)

cEV above 1000 is exactly as impossible as an EVITM above 100. You can't expect to win more chips than all 3 players start the game with...

Ev chip in one hand you cant , but i think you can EV in one or more spin overall,

Imagine you win one 90% (you) 10%
Then you build it up without showdown
And you loose again one 90% (yours) 10%

I think EV in tracker will show more chipEV than you can actully win.
(not sure in spins , but 100% sure in some games formats it works like that)

yes, but in that specific case an EVITM of more than 100 makes sense as well. Essentially you "won" the game more than once. There's no sense in which either case means the formula is an over or under estimate