Well, seating is not expected to be random in a live casino. The situation is different online, and the existence of Skype groups hurts recs because they get almost no chance of facing another rec in a spin instead of a pair of regs, as opposed to, say, facing 2/3 of a rec on average if the seating were perfectly random.

My wish is utopian but I wish poker sites found a way to enforce a ban on Skype groups and lowered the rake as a compensation to regs for making them play more games to get the same profit.

As it is, not being accepted into a Skype group hurts and I don't know if there are objective entry criteria other than reliability and an oath to keep the mouth shut (if I hosted such a group, I'd set the bar low and accept everyone reliable over whom my edge would seem to be less than the net rake). But the sole fact that the groups are not endorsed by Stars and have to be stealth makes them look sketchy from a rec point of view.

Alternatively (again, an utopia), a poker site can make queues to spins official, e.g. by introducing two registration buttons, 'Fast Seat' and 'Smart Seat' aka 'In-house Spinwiz', open to everyone.Those who click 'Smart Seat' will be put in a queue so that there are never 3 users of the feature in the same tourney, at the cost of waiting for minutes for a 'Fast Seat' user to have a game started. The two users to match the 'Fast Seat' clicker will be pulled from the queue randomly (not according to the FIFO rule that invites collusion nor to any sitlist rules nor any other meritocratic BS). Those who wish to get a game instantly can click 'Fast Seat', at the cost of usually facing two 'Smart Seat' users. This solution looks as close to win/win as possible.

What are you even talking about? If there were skype groups, recs will most likely have more games with 1 or 2 more recs, not the opposite. Not to mention that to my best knowledge there are no skype groups for coordinated sitting in spins for quite some time now.

Think it's time for me to leave this discussion, getting into witch hunting when we actually don't know if witches exist and how they look if they do is not my cup of tea.

Cannot confirm it, but I believe there is no skype groupe in spins between good regs on any large scale which could significantly infect roi of other weak regs, or rec. Reason for that is because ratio of good regs to weak regs and rec is still quiet favorable. So imo no worth to extend time of waiting for a game just to having slightly weaker competition. I prefer having a games instantly even vs 1 rec and 1 weak reg then waiting 5min+ for a games. It is because even in worse scenario I am loosing 1-2% roi vs reg, and in most case it will be close to b/e, then I can still make profit on fish and fire instantly new games or even adding one more when reg busto 3rd and I am in HU with fish. Look what happen when SpinWizz get banned. Actually profit of best regs exploded, it is because is +ev to play s8away if you are good then waiting 20min in queue. SpinWizz, skype queue on large scale are only good for weak regs which have not enough skill to fight other regs to be at least b/e, and could never play 60$+ without it.

@coon74, by adding my two words in topic I touched subject which I was thinking recently about. What should be our winrate % (and/or chip EV/games) in HU vs reg to overcome rake? I think we should subtract rake from 3 players right?

for 3 way I know we can solve this from below formulas:

*for ROI b/e point:
((x + 500) / 1500 * (0.95 * 3) - 1) * 100 = 0

where 0.95 is 1-5% rake

*for winrate b/e % :
(x + 500) / 1500 = y



could you advise how to solve it for HU please? (if we can solve it, cause maybe I shouldn't think about this that way, but just concentrate on having winrate 50%+ cause results (winnings) coming from HU games are strictly depending of % of time which we reach to HU match..?)

in short words, I would like to know how often should I win vs reg in HU to not playing b/e games vs him?

It depends on your 3-max phase chip EV and the %-age of times when the HU opponent is a reg.

Let

cb - the breakeven point of the total chip EV where the game becomes profitable, as calculated above
c3 - the average chip EV in the 3-max phase
cf - the avg cEV HU vs fish
cr - the avg cEV HU vs a reg
ph - the probability of Hero advancing to the HU (= 1 - <Hero's 3rd place probab.>)
pf - the probability of the HU opponent being a fish (conditional on Hero advancing to the HU)
pr - the probability of the HU opponent being a reg (under the same condition; = 1-pf)

Then the criteria of profitability is

c3 + ph * (pf * cf + pr * cr) > cb
<=>
cr >= ((cb - c3) / ph - pf * cf) / pr

But the question is somewhat vain because the 3-max cEV also depends somewhat on how good both opponents are.

so seems like is to much variable to take into account to answered truly my question. what if we would assume that in 3way we play always the opponents which have exactly same skill in 3way as we have, so they will be in HU as much time as we are on average, and on average we always starts HU with 750 chips ? I ask this, cause have several regs which I play and would like to know which one I should prioritize when making analyze of my opponents. like what is the boardline line when I should start to worry that the villain own me to often in HU and I loose too much money vs him. in normal husng games I would analyze for example in first place all my frequent regs which beat me in EV over rake - rb. so for 5% rake and 30% rb it would be ((0.965/100)-1)*100=-3.5%

These assumptions are way too pessimistic. If they were true, it would mean that everyone would be solid, then why would the games run at all?

If you insist on these assumptions, then the result is that you need to win 40* or more chips per HU (which is exactly 1.5 times the breakeven point for overall cEV because you'd advance to the HU only 2/3 of the time) in order to win pre-RB.

* This is equivalent to having a 3% pre-RB ROI in HU hyper reg battles. How many regs are there who would sit an average reg and still crush?

yeh man, I know it of course. I asked question just in order to find on which regs games I should work off the tables in first place (who exploit me to the point when it became unacceptable).

And thanks for your answer! I am not geek in math but think I understood essential

The answer is obvious: study those regs who have the highest HU chip EV per game in your DB (this is their HU edge over you as all their recorded HUs are of course necessarily vs you), in the decreasing order of strength. It takes so much time to analyse an opponent that new good regs will pop up in the pool before you have an opportunity to proceed to study weak ones.

Hi there, i've had a quick look but can anybody tell me how the spins have changed over the past few months?

I was in a stable for a short time and got to the 15s and I would say I felt pretty comfortable but didn't get a longer stick at it. This was last year. I had a decent enough 90ish cev over 2K games at the 7s after a bit of work on a previous, probably 60-70ish game. Now I'm coming back to the spins and I've been at the 3s. First spell went well but I tilted for a couple of days. Last 700 games are at 84 cev but I think I'm down like 50 bi or so. I'm just not sure how the rake has affected the games and then also the rb seems pretty different as basically I always just went to the 235 FPP sattys

Is iPoker's Twister that tough now? Or what has caused you to move back to Stars?

It's tough not to read this as a not-so-subtle brag post.

Obviously 84 CEV is still crushing 3s and 7s. Rake is 8% at 3s, or around 40 chips. 7% at 7s.

Thanks but I've had my times of downswinging and playing bad, I don't want to misrepresent the situation. I played app 10K spins at maybe 55-70 before the stable. I can't be sure as I had a new computer with a new OS and I kinda started again with that. But after a month with the stable last year, yeah I won about 300 bi in a month in 2k games at 90 cev at the 7s. This was mostly 4 tabling although sometimes 5

I moved up to the 15s and sat at about 70 cev for the first 500 games and then hit the 3000x but lost. Things were not so compatible though with the stable and I got cut. Not totally sure how I feel about it...

F though 8% at the 3s!! But there is so much splashing in a 2x at the 3s

The Twisters at iPoker were honestly one of the most horrible poker experiences I ever had. Hitting a 20 x, raising on the turn with the nuts at 5bb deep and the sw just cut out and getting just a 5e token etc. No I need the Stars sw if I'm going to play poker, as well as the other options such as to play mixed cash and donk in a tourney. I'm an old man btw and ah I don't want to deal in brags but just a realistic relationship to poker.

It's close to impossible to beat games with only regs with 5% rake.

Regarding which regs to study- imo you will benefit the most by studying smartspin guys. Either join them, or learn how to beat them. They have a huge stable at lower stakes from what I have heard.

It's quite hard to study the best regs (especially with spinlyzer down), and you are better off buying software to study sims.

What a shameless plug

I know no reliable way to determine if a certain reg is in a stable where Hero is not (except when they display it in their avatar). I don't think it's very harmful not to know this, though - stables contain players of different ability anyway. Still, there are benefits to knowing who are teammates - they usually have similar leaks. The biggest concern (a fight against windmills again ) is that teammates may be sharing stats and reads on Hero.

Pretty much every $60s+ reg is in a stable, except myself and the guys who own the stable

At low stakes (15s and 30s) I think you can assume 80% of Eastern European regs are in stables.

EV caught back up! 53cev/tournement overall. 85cev/tournement over like past 200 since i watched some super basic hu videos (before I had no idea what i was doing)

Anybody know why on ACR there's such a big jump from $2-$10? Thats gonna be an absurdly long grind to move up

Whoever was saying that theres good regs at $2, I know sample size, but I actually feel like I'm running pretty terribly in game in terms of cards and have ok results, and I basically have no sng, or HU knowledge at all (used to rec around at plo)

Ironically, it's not going to be as long as the grind up from $10s to $25s - $2 games are so much softer than $10 and especially $25, so one may be comfortably move up to $10s with a $1K or so bankroll, but to move up to $25s, one needs like $5K.

That's not really because there's a high risk of losing 200 BIs, but because the difference in the $ per tourney winrates is relatively small between $10 and $25 games (well, definitely not 2.5x) and there's less incentive to move up and expose oneself to larger variance for a small EV gain. High stakes are for the true rich whose money would otherwise be lying around doing almost nothing.

So I'm generally in favour of the trend of poker rooms making larger gaps between low buy-in levels than between high ones (that's happening not only at ACR but also e.g. at 888 whose levels are currently $0.10, $1, $5, $15 (new!) and $30).

Unless you can put in ~1k games per week at $2s, the grind to raise a $10 roll is made significantly more difficult since your rake return is much less without Sit&Crush prizes (which is 2.5%-5% ROI at $2s).

Why is that?

People who are already skilled, beating the higher games and are decently rolled decide to stay and give away a decent cut of what they make?

The road to 25s will be longer without luck of the spin. I took a look at your graph and you made 10k in ev for your first 300ish games and 16k in your last 200ish. Looks like a nice little heater there. Don't expect that all the time, variance is sick in these games.

As far as regs go, there's only 2 winning regs I've encountered over 3.3k games. Both of them got great luck with the spins early on and made it to the 10s in a month or so. (I did not obviously lol) I see them occasionally, probably when they run bad at the 10s or feeling tilted maybe idk.

The problem with these games isn't the regs, it's the luck. Having a Hud will help dramatically vs. Regs. The luck part is grossly tilting when you spin 4 or 5 4x in a row and lose them all vs fish. The average tourney is 25 hands long. Not much time for skill. On top of that, you have to account for spin luck too. Not trying to be negative but without a huge sample you can't make assumptions about these games. I had a 200 game run of 135evchips/game and a 200 game run at 14evchips/game.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

T hi is is my issue. Can't put in that kind of volume.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Not always decently rolled (recall that real life exists and people spend $ on it way beyond basic expenses). Not always a decent cut, I guess (stakers have so much stray money that they're eager to reduce their cuts to 10-20% when dealing with proven crushers in order to make that money work at all).

Combination of guys being ~broke and not being able to stomach the variance associated with standard swings.

Do you think spins stables share hand histories and soft play each other? I played enough at the 15s to make an educated guess

I understand why someone who is from a developing country and is playing for a living would join a stable but I really don't get why someone from Canada/UK etc would want to lose half their earnings and have volume requirements. I have never played full time for a living but dropping a stake where there the games are softer and you can have 100% of the wins seems much more +EV than playing over your head, stressing out over variance and forking over half the wins.

The idea of stables seems silly to me but then again I work in an office and grind heads up on the side gl all