Play $5s because that's where the fish is, even though they have a 8% rake; besides that and the paytable, they're the same format as usual Spins.

I'd play 7s because there's still buckets of fish+lower rake.

yeah Been thinking what to play the $7s with lower rake or the $5s?? there will be much more fish, you would think a fish would almost always choose the 5s over the 7s with the possible 1 Million prize . Hmm not sure what to do, curious what other people think aswell.

lol, so just stealing their money?? ''thanks guys, but no poker and prizes today?

I would be up for removing the 10x multiplier and the 200x, whats the point? why not make some more 4x and 6x.

From a regs perspective, having 25% of games finish instantly but having more 4x and 6x makes sense.

For a rec it would be awful. Imagine you log on, decide to check out those spin and goes but get your money 'stolen' in their eyes without a hand being played. They'd probably never register another spin again.

Grinder, I'm not sure it's all that life changing to chop 3 ways for most players.

Take a solid $100s pro who makes 100k a year (say 65k after taxes, though I know that varies a ton country to country). Is 300k (really like 200k after taxes) life changing compared to 1 mil (650k)? These #s drop down quite fast when you consider earnings for a pro and taxes.

If you go to $30s, say a guy makes 30k a year, the tax rate in most countries isn't going to be that high, so he likely pockets 22k+ a year. On his 300k outright win, he might be taking home 200k, which is fairly significant, but on a 100k chop you're talking about 60-75k take home. A great prize, but hardly life changing.

I still think your points are valid, and maybe 100% of people should still take the deal, but it's worth thinking about being 38% likely to win the big prize of take the 33% all the time. It isn't the lottery if you're a successful pro in any of these games and you take 33% of the prize.

*And I realize my example #s could be 0% tax in some countries or 50% in others. Was a little conservative with the #s for countries that tax winnings.

Does anyone actually feel the deals in top prizes should not be there?

If so, why do you feel that way?

Thinking about it, I believe there's an easy fix for any valid worry about players chopping the big prizes, but maybe there are points I have not considered.

Well I'm assuming here the pro is smart enough to move to a country with a 0% tax rate or otherwise stick two fingers up to the taxman and move countries after his bink.

If we're saying a 100s pro takes home 100k in an average year I'd say 400k was life changing yeah. Same for a 30s guy taking 120k.

38% isn't close to the right amount to take the flip unless you are already wealthy. How would you fancy flipping coins with a 5% edge for 4x your annual income now? It sounds horrific just typing it out but that's what you'd be doing if you declined a deal vs 2 fish.

only ego and degenism or being radalot type rich 'rec' would decline a 3way chop and play for something in spins imo, just to good to pass up the free money, smart thing to do even v 2 fish , that being said i like the fact theres no chops

Why do you like that there are no chops Squire?

"How would you fancy flipping coins with a 5% edge for 4x your annual income now?"

I'd consider a 38% chance for a one time extra 12x my annual income versus a 100% chance at an extra 4x my annual income. I think I'd take the 4x, but I don't think it's an immediately obvious decision.

12x would allow me to live off the investment returns pretty much ever if I keep my lifestyle (fun, but non expensive). 4x wouldn't. 4x 100% of the time would still probably be more attractive.

If I had college tuition debts, a big mortgage to pay, a car on loan (or the need of a new vehicle), any children, a prospective business to invest into... then yea, the 4x would be a snap decision, but because I don't, I think it makes the decision an actual decision.

Well, your chance is to get 10x your annual income vs a guaranteed 4x (since the total prizepool is 12000x, it means everyone is getting 4000 buyins if they deal, but only one guy gets 10000 buyins if they don't).

And well, it's a fact of life most people are going to have debts, cars, mortgages, kids etc. If you don't have any of those you are probably 'wealthy' by comparison to the average person (assuming the reason you don't have these isn't because you're a high school dropout who lives rent free with his mum while working at Walmart).

For your average poker player who lives in a one bedroom flat in East Europe/Mexico/South-East Asia, and doesn't have high six figures in savings...taking the deal is a no brainer even against two huge whales.

I might be way off base here - but given your join date and post count, I'm going to assume you were playing in the heyday of online poker, and printed the cash like pretty much everyone could back then. On top of that, you're running a popular staking/coaching site in HUSNG.com which is going to provide a nice chunk of income. Then you're saying you have no mortgage, kids, or college debts - so your expenses won't be so high. You're almost certainly 'wealthy' in comparison to 99% of poker players out there and so might be one of the few guys who can 'afford' to take the flip. I still say unless you're rolling in money it's better to take the guaranteed 400k, but no doubt it becomes a more palatable decision to gamble it up when the prizepool doesn't represent many multiples of your net worth.

I'm guessing squires point is that starting from the initial point, your odds of the million game are really small so it doesn't impact your utility curve much. However, the no deals draws attention and excitement to the games that draws in new players

It's certainly many multiples of my yearly income Grinder. But I've been the equiv of a $100s pro in income for like 7 years and bought a modest priced house years ago.

I rented a place half the size of my house for about 50% more of the cost before. It just makes a huge difference (in America at least), everything is stacked against a renter and for years I had to pay more while making less. Poker actually helped teach me how to find better value for my life. A place I enjoy more than where I used to live, that is also less expensive, and the confidence in making that decision. I'm sure it's the same for many players that made big moves to places they find happier and may also be less expensive (I know guys in Thailand, Mexico and other places that feel this way).

Anyways, there are many guys at $100s in spins that have a lot more money than me, that's why I found the question interesting. If I were just some wealthy guy that had more than all of them, I would just be being a prick chiming in like this.

The counter point to the attention of that big prize is that deals don't need to be advertised (and no deals is not advertised currently I believe).

Instead of "John123 won a million dollars today in Spin and Gos" it can say "John123 was the winner of our million dollar Spin and Go game today."

The second announcement could mean 30-30-30 split if all 3 players agree to deal, then play it out for 10%. Built into software, so no need to call a mod. You either all say yes or it plays for all or nothing. This doesn't need to be advertised or mentioned, there's still one person who wins more at the end and wins the match.

Imo, everyone wins in that scenario, Stars (and the players) still benefit from advertising the huge prize, anyone who wants to gamble it up for a higher prize can, and if all three players want some guaranteed money, they can safely choose to take it while still playing for a very meaningful match (10% prize to winner).

I highly doubt there are many guys at 100s spins that have a lot more money than you. I am saying this having just a very rough educated guess for your net worth, I don't care about specific numbers and it's none of my business.

Unless people have spent a lot of their money, there's gotta be dozens of guys. You look at how many guys did really nicely playing HUSNGs and now are playing spins. I probably made like 40k lifetime playing actual HUSNGs? I was only ever part time and basically stopped playing as the site grew (which was just as HUSNGs were getting more popular after 2010).

I'm also just the person associated with a lot of things. For example, I own half of HUSNG.com (bc I manage it people assume I own it all).

Maybe I'm overestimating others (doubtful, for every few regs that blow through money there's a reg that saves almost all of it in a tax free country), but I know I make a solid $100s HUSNG reg income for the last few years. I'm proud of that, but it's also not near tops, there are very good hard working pros in both HUSNGs and Spins that make multiples more.

I wasn't trying to make this a discussion of my income, my only point was for someone that makes a solid five figure income, has little to no debt and a low cost lifestyle... the idea of winning the full multiplier 38% of the time, investing it into a 5% type lowish risk fund and being able to live off of the dividend every year without having to worry (and being able to choose what you want to do with your time) is incredibly appealing.

I still likely take that chop, but it's an interesting decision and hard to say what I'd do in the moment.

Well IMO, anyone on a 5 figure income (who doesn't have tons of other assets - let's say less than 250k total) would have to be a total degen to play the 1M spin without dealing - especially with the poker situation being what it is today (i.e. 100k a year is a damn nice income that only the top regs are achieving...in days gone by when you could print out 300k a year if you were talented, sure maybe take the flip).

If we're saying winning 1M allows you to never work again (sounds reasonable enough), then winning 40% of that must allow you to cut back your hours at work by 40% at least. Do three days a week rather than five, or maybe just retire 20 years earlier. The guarantee of that (working 3 days a week is still a damn nice life with plenty of free time) is much better than the chance of working 0 days (but with a 62% chance of having to work as much as anyone else)

I like the idea of a 30/30/30 split with 10% being allocated to whoever wins the spin. Hell, even with current advertising I believe it says 'congratulations to A, B and C who shared $xxx,xxx' - that would fit just as well with a more even prizepool. And 1,200 buyins extra for the winner is still a lot of money. The Sunday majors have deals all the time at the final tables and that doesn't stop people railing them.

I have not visited the forum recently, but am curious how recent changes(1-4 months) have effected the profitability of the games.

I'm in the camp that thinks no deals is a good thing.

One reason being as noted, almost everyone would deal. It would become an expectation to deal, and people would "get screwed" when there was a random player who "wont's million" at the table. There would be regs making witch hunting forum posts, Xx_assssdf_xX is a "non-dealer", treat him like the scum that he is! Pretty soon it would be the norm to chop everything down to 100x, maybe even lower - unless there was a fish, of course - in which case, soft-collude, bust him then chop. A horrible environment.

Are people thinking the deals would only ever be 33% 3 ways? I don't see why they would be - and then you have the battle of bankrolls (more like life circumstances). you'll get "I'll deal, for half a mil. hope guaranteed $300k vs likely $100k isn't a massive difference to you regs".

The variance is what brings in the punters. Never forget this basic rule of the game.

Ironically, the "deal" people are arguing for a more lottery-style setup. Taken to the extreme, where they deal in every single game - there is no poker any more, just put in $$$ -> see what the spin wheel gives back. Of course nobody wants this, and if they do slots are available just one tab over - but technically, that's what you're requesting - "more slot machine in my spin&go please!"

"No deal" - is advertised, and heavily. Every single table of every PS spin&go has "Deal Making Unavailable" written big right in the center of the table. You're unlikely to find a player that doesn't know deal making is unavailable in spins. You may not consider this advertising? If it said instead "Enjoy Coca Cola", I think it's pretty obvious

There is a deal already, automated and enforced fairly for everyone. 8% split evenly, play for the rest. Nobody ever really gets screwed spinning a million.

Probably a bit incoherent, lol

There wouldn't be a chance to do any other deal than 30%-30%-30% and 10% to winner (or alternatively 25%-25%-25% and 25% for winner) because it wouldn't work like MTT deals do where a moderator comes, stops the game and deal gets discussed. There is just possibility to click deal button for 2 minutes or something and it works automatically, if all 3 players don't click then it's no deal and the game proceeds as normal.

Is there currently witch hunt for players who don't do deals in MTT-s? I could see if a recreational gets offended but the reg needs to be pretty dumb to be offended about something like that...

Just make it anonymous. If all three click the button, they deal. If one (or more) don't click it, then the spin gets played, but no one gets told who was the guy who didn't click.

That's how WPN does it (for 2500x, 200x, and 100x). The option is for 40/30/30 versus the non-deal payout of 75/15/10.




Looks like 888 will be joining the party soon.

888 are rake machines though, they probably come out with like 9% rake (and/or some ******ed super top heavy prize pool).

I didnt read it all, but having a 300-400k br and hitting a x12000 at 1M, there is no way that I will go chop, except if Im playing vs Hyperdonk and some other crazy random spewtard like me (stalagmita, I love you ).

200k more is probably 1 year of hardcore grinding, but 1M more is no grinding at all. The projected value of the million is way more than 300k-100k (200k only).

So I get ChicagoRy point, and there is no way that I will chop. I could get the point if you have like 0$ at your name, because 200k more in net worth is way more than having 0$ than having 300k$.