What you said was

You claimed anyone who said just handle the variance were incapable of understanding it. So you are going around telling people who disagree with you they are flat out wrong. Mr Authority. Perhaps you should realise some people who disagree with you might just understand variance and its long term effect?

Discussion is good and I am all for that, but that is not what the post I quoted was.

I gave my thoughts on why it seems to me some people have been saying "man up" and apparently for you it isn't the case. Giving my thoughts on why I think something is, isn't the same thing as me saying I think they are flat out wrong. Thank you for showing me that some people that say "man up" do understand long term variance with regards to this game type, I only wish you would show that knowledge when discussing the game and its potential problems.

The two sides in this argument, pro spin & go's and con / wanting change, are seemingly so far apart that it just creates arguing amongst people. I think a lot of con/changes people have compromised from wanting to outright ban these games to seeing that there could be a fun potential and at least trying to understand the potential benefits of the games. I see the pro side as really unwavering in trying to understand what the con/change side is trying to do with regards to the problems that exist. They don't even want to acknowledge that the current format has some problems like deal making that even Stars has come out and said it has and to which they have no solution yet. I think there is a middle here but if only one side wants to explore that then there is no point in continuing these discussions much further as it mostly feels like a waste of time.

Someone asked to see a chip graph, here's mine for the $15s, 2725 games in:



37.3% cEV winning percentage. And I'm still looking to find backing for these, possibly be coached to play the $30s at a high level.

On the deal thing you and I have agreement. I think there should be a deal facility in place, especially for the top three pay out tiers. That's pretty much the only change I would make.

Ok fair enough. Where we differ, crucially, is that I think the high variance is what makes this game fantastic whilst you think it provides a problem

im like 60BI down after 300 games or so? variance is crazy, my roi adj in HUhypers is around 4%. It's pure gambling atm.

Dude, whom do you tell... lost like 30 out of 34 games yesterday straight away. I really run like aids in those... Played 1.5k games in total on FTP/Stars and i´m like close to 120 buyins below EV... oh and i start to wonder if those bigger 10x actually exists...

You should be happy, stars are obviously keeping all your rungood for the biggest multipliers. Now you just have to hope to hit one while you still have bankroll.

This is fun! Fun game, plenty room to realize your edge hu and some unique and cool dynamics 3-handed, cant wait for 100s and hopefully higher buyins introduced. Also *** deals, thats not fun at all.

I will go further and suggest stars to do mandatory spin and goes for all players every 1 hour or so. That will make ecosystem a lot healthier: no predatory invironment and sharks preying on weaker players. Pure fun!

Also apearance of pros like DN in those games will help a lot, no sht!

We must have completely different styles. I've won more chips without showdown in these games than showdown winnings. How much of a nit are you in the early levels? Your redline goes straight down diagonally.

dude, post your photo itt, maybe stars will put it into next spin and go advertising, that would be awesome

Im no grinder or have much experience in 3 handed games but i thought these were easy money.

After 110 games i was up over 21 buy ins .. after 148 games im down 2 buy ins.

I think ill retire with my two buy in loss.

Thanks but no thanks.

or maybe one more match?

bink 1000x and run!!

Jesus people come on.

The evidence has been posted several times ITT that these games are like 5x more swingy than 6 max hypers even if you have a ROI of like 5%.

To have a decent sample in 6 max hypers you need to have like 20k games minimum.

So please stop coming in here talking about samples of 500, 1k, or 2k games like it means something, because it doesn't. You can tell almost nothing about your winrate from that, and if you don't realize this, you are in for a VERY rude awakening down the road.

Really? It makes no sense to me that you can't figure out your win rate fairly quickly. Obviously your profit over these samples will mean nothing, but your win rate/ cEV win rate? It's just a 3 man SNG ...

****ty regs often win the battle against me, but I win the war.

so many delusional people ITT. (thinking winrate will be realized in small samples when it has been proven its imposible)

Key to success of spin and gos.

When I refer to "win rate", I refer to the % of the time you win the SNG, regardless of what the prizepool is. The jackpot variance has nothing to do with win rate. So please tell me how it has been "proven" that the win rates in 3 man SNGs is subject to crazy variance?

Or maybe play two more and make it a nice round 150 and bink the x1000 TWICE !

More positive thinking required ITT

Small sample sizes are meaningful....the reason you only need around 3.5K to get into the HU divisions is because such a sample is a very good predictor of future peformance. Although Spin^Go's are 3 handed, they also have more hands per game. It's pretty reasonable to assume that 3.5K 3 handed tourneys are also significant

the problem with this format is that 6 max hyper pros dont have a clue how to play postflop and here you have to, and the hyper husng pro cant bumhunt here aka cartels sorry divisions.

Most LOL statement ITT.

the bitter truth, sorry to hurt your feelings dude.

Well its pretty obvious hu hyper guys would have an edge vs any other format guy in 3handed hypers...

when you reach HU its pretty much the same as a hu hyper (stacks/blind levels etc)