Indeed, it's all chips... I forgot how dumb HM2 is.

Crossposting this thread here : http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/45...ftware-1632026.

Hey, just a question here.
In PT4 how can I see my Ev ITM? Don't find that stadistic anywhere.

Thanks.

How long does a standard contract last with some of the spin stables? 10,000 games? more? less?

It is time based, you make a contract for a year and a monthly/yearly volume.

Seldom. Most are game based and are anywhere from 10k -50k games sometimes more (With an agreed monthly volume).

60s vs 100s, is there some truth in that 60s are harder to beat than 100s, because of worse reg/fish ratio at 60s?

I'm curious to hear the answer, but would imagine it's very unlikely that it would be the case given the large % of players backed by stables that would quickly move them up if they noticed that in their data.

No way 60s are harder than 100s

It varies. Some days during the week the 100 games are almost unplayable and other days they are probably just as good as 60s. In general though you have to play more competent regs at 100s than at 60s and a lot of regs have to move back down.

what is better to get low variance in spins ? more tables to get more x10+ and rb or less tables to maximice the chipev?

More cEV=Higher EVROI=Lower variance over the same sample.

Yes, I do believe the regs at 100s are much better, but old stats on spinlyzer showed better reg/fish ratio on 100s, it showed same amount of games run at 60s as on 100s, but at 60s there where more active regs. Not sure if those estimates are accurate and still apply.

It used to be the higher SNG you play, the lesser % of rake you paid. In this case it stays at 5%, so there is no rake incentive to move up. Also many top regs only play 100s, highstakes guys from HU hypers/6max, even top cash game players that only play 100s. Combined with already insane swings at 100s it might be that most regs play 60s, resulting in worse reg/fish ratio.

But then again if that was the case it would obv result in regs moving up again, so I guess it varies indeed from time to time.

I thought the same thing a few months ago but now I completely disagree.

100s are way harder than 60s unless you are in a very specific niche of reg population which is constantly changing over time and hard to gauge.

Don't forget the "move up to where they respect your raises" mentality. There are some regs who like to bluff but whose bluffs might get called too often at lower stakes due to too many calling stations. This type of reg would be better suited to higher stakes where people are less stationy and would give him more credit when he bluffs with a line that shows strength.

there may be more regs at the 60s than the 100s but the regs at the 100s are alot better and they seem to be there longer, grinding more tables and hours so i think you play regs more at 100s than the 60s short sample anyway, but thats initialt thoughts, wonder were if it will be the same after SNE is gone, be interesting to see for sure. had rams85 and koh1990 at my 2x table yest :| [ ] fun

but more tables= more games = better quality of multiplayers = more $ hourly = less variance in the long run ?

I'm willing to buy the "Crushing Hu hyper turbo" pack by zztilt and phl500 but 200$ seems too much for a pack that came out almost 4 years ago. Would you still recommend it to improve my hu play?

200 is a steal for the content in that, dont think about the price of a pack when buying it, think of what it can make u in the future

If the only goal is to minimize the expected downswings, then you should maximize expected ROI after rakeback (as long as the interval for receiving rakeback is not too long). So you should be willing to sacrifice a little per-game cEV if it gets you a higher rakeback percentage.

There is some benefit from the increased expectation of hitting more high tiers by playing more games, but the effect is slight until you start looking at many tens of thousands of games. Perhaps a more substantial benefit of increased volume is that, whatever downswing you do have to endure, it will last for fewer total days. The cost (in terms of expected downsings) will depend how much the incresed volume impacts your expected ROI.

With the SwongSim software you can plug in various win rates and rakeback percentages to see how the trade-off affects expected downswings.

It's a good buy for decent learners (I'm a terrible learner) but there are factors reducing its value.

1. A lot of time is needed to internalise the content properly - at least 15 total hours of study for the 6 hours of video. For some people, that's worth extra $200-300 that they'd earn by grinding during these hours.

2. It's not clear how long the future of non-MTT online poker is. Perhaps there are around 6 months left until the sky falls (i.e. Stars change the VIP program again taking extra money out of the poker ecosystem*), so I estimate that the positive effect of learning will last for ~20K games for grinders.

This means that studying the pack now is +EV if it adds 2 cents per game to the winrate. Well, I feel that it adds 10 cents at least. I'd spend $200 out of a $1K roll in a heartbeat if I were a decent learner because then I wouldn't need to move down to $3s and suffer from a temporary decrease in the per-game winrate. Whether it's +EV to spend $200 out of a $500 roll is not so clear, though starting to look for a real job seems more +EV in this case anyway.

* I'm probably more immune to the collateral damage than other regfish of smaller sites because the networks whose fields are going to toughen up the most are those that offer big rake-based rewards, i.e. Party, iPoker, WPN and Winamax, but I'm still a bit worried about my 'career' past March 2017.

Worth noting that the absolute variance increases the more games you play. IE it's more likely you're 100BI below EV after playing 1k games then playing 100 games. It's the relative variance compared to expectation that decreases--ie Variance/Total Profit--so that 100BI below doesn't "feel" as bad because you have a lot of profit at the end of a large sample as opposed to a small sample.

Simple question, I was looking at calculating my Chip Ev for spins and I was wondering if I am looking at the correct stats to do so. I have HM2. I have a Spin and Go tag count of 80 and Chips (EV Adjusted) of 14,7k which would equate to 183 chip ev per game which seems alot (lol at sample size this is just to start keeping track.

My net won chips is 3886 or 48 per game.

Is such a high diff from EV and net won just the nature of Spins or am I just lost when it comes to stats?

Those numbers are plausible because it's only 80 games. But they don't mean much, for the same reason. It's a good illustration of why we don't want to rely on small samples.

Baring the silly sample size they are the right ones to use?