+1 re: directing effort to increasing viability rather than removal.


Looks like some more discussion started here:

forumserver.twoplustwo.com/36/stt-strategy/spin-goes-overview-solution-1480832/

Hypers were not as profitable for them....

"Earlier today (Friday), PokerStars released figures relating to the Spin and Go games that have been player on their .com and .eu sites since the game was first launched on 1st October. Incredibly more than 7.3 million games have been played in the first ten days, with 377 games spinning the 1,000x multiplier.

Despite the remarkable results, PokerStars believe that it is still important to spread the word about their new Sit n Go format, and the site has launched a series of promotions, deposit bonuses and daily challenges that will award more than $100,000 in Spin and Go tickets and cash prizes from now until Sunday October 19th."

http://www.pokernewsreport.com/poker...-results-17367

Yeah but I heard that their next big campaign for the deep stacked no blind increase games will be so f****** hardcore that it'll blow your f****** mind.

Seriously though, a deal button would be a major improvement, right? I mean it would only happen if all players want it, its not forced on anyone, although I assume it would probably be used in most max multipliers.

No deal button. Have you seen the fish go crazy railing the max multiplier SNG's? Entertainment for fish>>>>>>>>>reducing variance for regs imo

the deal button is a really small part of variance of that format.

They need to make the minimum price higher than 2X and reduce the higher payout portion to compensate , current payout structure is the biggest problem.

Old time MTT reg here, occasionally login and play something for fun and gamb00l while in the mood. Obv these got me a little hooked again. Played a bunch, and gotta say that variance can be quite tilting when you hit some decent multipliers and the variance hits you while you're running over the 2x's. puke

Ok just one more round.. then i'll go to bed..

Is it possible for pokerstars to create a "ChipEV payback program" similar to rakeback for regs or anyone interested?

After signing up you get payed according to your ChipsEV in "SpinGo Tournament dollars" (that only work in spingos). If you are running hot you get nothing if you are +ChipsEV you get payed accordingly in T$. Once per month or whenever it is best technically you trade spingo $$$ into real dollars.


This would keep in game mediocre/good regs with low ROIs that play thousands of games per month. It could also make easier the addition of higher stakes with even higher prizes.

Fish that want to gamble would get sick prizes. Regs would get practically variance free income generating even more rake for pokerstars instead of quiting.

Everyone is happy: fish/regs/stars.

It would be too big rakeback for regs if their excess winnings weren't taken after their hot runs.

It's possible to make it like InsuredPlay used to do: take the player's excess $ above the EV if he runs hot and pay him the EV difference if he runs cold, so that his winnings are exactly his AIEV. InsuredPlay took a fee for that (because that was significant risk to their BR obv and they had to take a comp for that), but Stars' worth is so huge that it's gonna be peanuts to them, so they can afford to take no fee, like they don't for Run It Twice.

Of course regs or stakers can make such agreements themselves, but there will be ToS compliance issues; I don't have enough money to do it for $30s, sorry.

is it possible for people who are against the format to unite and take couple days off at same time or something?

Only regs really seem to care. Even if 10% of the population (which would be like 100% of regs) quit for a month, would it matter?

Pushing for positive changes with a factual argument would be best.

Comparing payouts to MTTs (like top 5% of registered games making up 90% of profit) is not an effective argument. MTTs are pretty much the best poker format, and have been for years. Legitimately breaking even for a year in a format you're best at is a great argument though.

Separate fact from fallacy and build an argument and push reasonable changes that work for both the player and the poker room. Banning the games is so far extreme it shouldn't be taken seriously (given the promotional push for them + the known # of games played so far). Editing prize pools could be taken seriously, but there needs to be some factual comparative analysis.

Remember, many, many guys claimed hyper HUSNGs were the death of HUSNGs. They were the opposite.

I'm not suggesting Spin and Gos are great for SNGs, I'm just mentioning that there will always be noise that you need to filter from your arguments if you want a strong argument. Ignore the noise and develop a very strong argument.

Your right,
Back to rooting for 100 or 200x buyin TP then

(I'm responding to a post from the STT suggestion thread.)
I don't think it's viable this way (it's possible, but with a somewhat increased fee to offset the effect of different 3rd place frequencies for different multipliers I'll discuss below).

The player can send HH files requested from Stars via email while sharing the screen via Teamviewer, then the staker can import them to see the graph and then delete them while also sharing the screen, so authenticity of HHs is not a problem.

The problem is that the prize pool isn't shown in the HH for a Spin where the player finished in the 3rd place. Hence the staker has to be sure that the player won't have a significantly lower 3rd place frequency in high multiplier tourneys than in low multiplier ones, which is alas almost impossible to predict.

As for all-in insurance described two posts above, I'm not really sure if it can be done on mutually satisfactory terms; the problem is again that prize pools are irretrievable and finishing 3rd seems to be correlated with running below EV, so cases when the player runs below the EV get underreported.

So until Stars start writing the prize pool in 3rd place finishers' HH / summary copies (which I have requested in the STT suggestion thread), insurance is less possible.

The problem with these games is that they are really fun to play. I haven't had so much fun playing in a while TBH (I played about 1000 of them at $30 so far)

Coming from HU hyper, having the extra position and ICM considerations added to the mix is quite interesting. Also, often you start 25bb deep and then play deeper (35bb) and then back to shorter stacks. Strategies are quite different from HU Hyper but for what I have seen, HU Hyper players should do pretty well in these as they are more used to play at these stack sizes (esp. post flop)

At the moment, a lot of the people playing them are pretty terrible (so rake is not even an issue yet), there is 0 wait between games and none of the reg wars and cartel politic BS to deal with.
it's seems that they have attracted a lot of cash players. No doubt that in a few months some of these guys will have adapted, but for the moment this is where the money is.

The format is also guaranteed to attract a regular supply of fish (because of the possible BIG win).

I was dead against them when PS announced that they were thinking about introducing them but now I don't know what to think TBH. They will definitely take players from the other traditional formats. is that bad or not? I can't make up my mind.

There are still zero ICM considerations, it's winner take all.

man those variance graphs for spin are soooooooooo beautiful <3<3

like rainbows

Yeah, I agree. I don't like HU sng/cash too much, because I like somewhat of an edge :P Although I do like the HU play. 3 handed gives me more of an edge early game to be able to exploit that HU. Add some fish to the pond, and chasing the jackpot dragon and you have an addictive game.

I've been gone too long from the scene. What tool can I use
I have a Holdem Manager 1 license, but not sure this is the best tool for these.

Can anyone recommend a good SnG stats tool? not too expensive. Basic features, pretty much want to graph and analyze -EV plays. No hud needed.

I can see how games are really soft reading some of the posts itt.

fyp

Yes you right, I meant that your stack size compare to the other 2 can have an influence on your strategy. That's not ICM, you are correct; wrong choice of word.

And yes it is high variance, the same was said of hyper when HU hyper started. But IMO those games are not going to go away so...

This sums up my thoughts too.

Do you mind posting a ChipEV graph? The reason i ask is because if ROI >8% prerakeback the variance is almost acceptable. So if solid regs like you can consistently keep up with such ROIs we will have a nice new mini poker boom. If not it will end in a disaster for everyone (6max/HU/MTT regs).

Also how many tables at the same time?

Don't see MTTs being impacted
By those at all. They lure fish in just as much with their big top prizes

WTF is a HUSNG "cartel"?

cartel/devision

Regs form a group, create a list of regs they think they can push down from a limit and add them to a constantly changing "sitlist". Rendering the sitlisters unable to get fish.

To get into the group sitlister has to produce X% roi against the group over a sample usually 4-10k games for hypers.
Many ways to get kicked once your inside, not playing sitlisters enough, going busto or whatever other reasons they can come up with.

There are devisions on 30s+ and its good for regs per fish ratio.
When we lose traffic it creates more demand for these groups
.

Wow, I had no idea. Thanks for the info. It all sounds awful. Does anyone support blind lobbies?