** Official Spin and Go's Discussion Thread **
10-18-2014
, 06:11 AM
10-18-2014
, 04:37 PM
10-18-2014
, 08:48 PM
We are close to 50 pages. I think we as (semi)"reg" community should not go for ban the spin&go because it will not happen and it maybe even bad for poker (because recs seems to like this things a lot).
On the first place i think for hyper i think PokerStars did a great job to have a skillful game with lots of blindlevels. Rake is a bit on the higher side imo for a 3 way hyper.
what kind of players do play Spin& go?
I will make it easy and make 3 groups:
1. total fish who like roulet no clue about what % hit of the jackpot just like the rolling and the sound etc etc (but do have less fun i think because hit too much of time 2x)
2. people who like to be good players/ winning players and want to be the grinders but do not really have a clue
3. reg/ winning players
I think as a (semi) reg community it would be very good if we put our brains together and make the format a way that it is grindebel. But Fish still have to like it as much as they do now.(group 1 because for everyone group 1 have to be happy to play)
Ok this in my idea and i hope i can get some feedback (with math/ variance calculations etc if somebody is also willing to make this format better for everyone)
i think for group 2 and 3 it is a step in the good direction and i think group 1 will not even notice the change. Ofcourse what i have made is probably far from optimal but i think it better for everyone then what there is now.
(use 30$ spin&Go in tabel. First is what now, second is my proposal. )
On the first place i think for hyper i think PokerStars did a great job to have a skillful game with lots of blindlevels. Rake is a bit on the higher side imo for a 3 way hyper.
what kind of players do play Spin& go?
I will make it easy and make 3 groups:
1. total fish who like roulet no clue about what % hit of the jackpot just like the rolling and the sound etc etc (but do have less fun i think because hit too much of time 2x)
2. people who like to be good players/ winning players and want to be the grinders but do not really have a clue
3. reg/ winning players
I think as a (semi) reg community it would be very good if we put our brains together and make the format a way that it is grindebel. But Fish still have to like it as much as they do now.(group 1 because for everyone group 1 have to be happy to play)
Ok this in my idea and i hope i can get some feedback (with math/ variance calculations etc if somebody is also willing to make this format better for everyone)
i think for group 2 and 3 it is a step in the good direction and i think group 1 will not even notice the change. Ofcourse what i have made is probably far from optimal but i think it better for everyone then what there is now.
(use 30$ spin&Go in tabel. First is what now, second is my proposal. )
10-18-2014
, 09:52 PM
Quote:
We are close to 50 pages. I think we as (semi)"reg" community should not go for ban the spin&go because it will not happen and it maybe even bad for poker (because recs seems to like this things a lot).
On the first place i think for hyper i think PokerStars did a great job to have a skillful game with lots of blindlevels. Rake is a bit on the higher side imo for a 3 way hyper.
what kind of players do play Spin& go?
I will make it easy and make 3 groups:
1. total fish who like roulet no clue about what % hit of the jackpot just like the rolling and the sound etc etc (but do have less fun i think because hit too much of time 2x)
2. people who like to be good players/ winning players and want to be the grinders but do not really have a clue
3. reg/ winning players
I think as a (semi) reg community it would be very good if we put our brains together and make the format a way that it is grindebel. But Fish still have to like it as much as they do now.(group 1 because for everyone group 1 have to be happy to play)
Ok this in my idea and i hope i can get some feedback (with math/ variance calculations etc if somebody is also willing to make this format better for everyone)
i think for group 2 and 3 it is a step in the good direction and i think group 1 will not even notice the change. Ofcourse what i have made is probably far from optimal but i think it better for everyone then what there is now.
(use 30$ spin&Go in tabel. First is what now, second is my proposal. )
On the first place i think for hyper i think PokerStars did a great job to have a skillful game with lots of blindlevels. Rake is a bit on the higher side imo for a 3 way hyper.
what kind of players do play Spin& go?
I will make it easy and make 3 groups:
1. total fish who like roulet no clue about what % hit of the jackpot just like the rolling and the sound etc etc (but do have less fun i think because hit too much of time 2x)
2. people who like to be good players/ winning players and want to be the grinders but do not really have a clue
3. reg/ winning players
I think as a (semi) reg community it would be very good if we put our brains together and make the format a way that it is grindebel. But Fish still have to like it as much as they do now.(group 1 because for everyone group 1 have to be happy to play)
Ok this in my idea and i hope i can get some feedback (with math/ variance calculations etc if somebody is also willing to make this format better for everyone)
i think for group 2 and 3 it is a step in the good direction and i think group 1 will not even notice the change. Ofcourse what i have made is probably far from optimal but i think it better for everyone then what there is now.
(use 30$ spin&Go in tabel. First is what now, second is my proposal. )
Structure as is:
Code:
ITM 36.0192% --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 50000 simulations of 50000 games Expected ROI (with 0% rakeback): 3.61% (1806 Buyins) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had ROI below 9.79% (4893 Buyins) 97.5% had ROI below 8.56% (4280 Buyins) 95% had ROI below 7.61% (3806 Buyins) 90% had ROI below 6.54% (3269 Buyins) 80% had ROI below 5.36% (2679 Buyins) 70% had ROI below 4.55% (2277 Buyins) 60% had ROI below 3.92% (1962 Buyins) 50% had ROI below 3.38% (1691 Buyins) 40% had ROI below 2.84% (1422 Buyins) 30% had ROI below 2.30% (1151 Buyins) 20% had ROI below 1.76% (879 Buyins) 10% had ROI below 1.11% (555 Buyins) 5% had ROI below 0.66% (330 Buyins) 2.5% had ROI below 0.30% (151 Buyins) 1% had ROI below -0.08% (-40 Buyins) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had a downswing greater than 152 buyins 97.5% had a downswing greater than 165 buyins 95% had a downswing greater than 178 buyins 90% had a downswing greater than 195 buyins 80% had a downswing greater than 220 buyins 70% had a downswing greater than 240 buyins 60% had a downswing greater than 261 buyins 50% had a downswing greater than 282 buyins 40% had a downswing greater than 306 buyins 30% had a downswing greater than 335 buyins 20% had a downswing greater than 376 buyins 10% had a downswing greater than 441 buyins 5% had a downswing greater than 504 buyins 2.5% had a downswing greater than 567 buyins 1% had a downswing greater than 647 buyins --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had a low point lower than 0 buyins 97.5% had a low point lower than -2 buyins 95% had a low point lower than -5 buyins 90% had a low point lower than -11 buyins 80% had a low point lower than -23 buyins 70% had a low point lower than -37 buyins 60% had a low point lower than -52 buyins 50% had a low point lower than -71 buyins 40% had a low point lower than -93 buyins 30% had a low point lower than -122 buyins 20% had a low point lower than -163 buyins 10% had a low point lower than -233 buyins 5% had a low point lower than -305 buyins 2.5% had a low point lower than -379 buyins 1% had a low point lower than -474 buyins ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed structure:
Code:
ITM 36.01152% --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 50000 simulations of 50000 games Expected ROI (with 0% rakeback): 3.64% (1820 Buyins) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had ROI below 8.62% (4308 Buyins) 97.5% had ROI below 7.61% (3805 Buyins) 95% had ROI below 6.83% (3414 Buyins) 90% had ROI below 5.95% (2976 Buyins) 80% had ROI below 4.97% (2487 Buyins) 70% had ROI below 4.35% (2174 Buyins) 60% had ROI below 3.81% (1903 Buyins) 50% had ROI below 3.33% (1665 Buyins) 40% had ROI below 2.92% (1461 Buyins) 30% had ROI below 2.56% (1280 Buyins) 20% had ROI below 2.18% (1088 Buyins) 10% had ROI below 1.71% (854 Buyins) 5% had ROI below 1.36% (679 Buyins) 2.5% had ROI below 1.07% (533 Buyins) 1% had ROI below 0.76% (378 Buyins) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had a downswing greater than 121 buyins 97.5% had a downswing greater than 130 buyins 95% had a downswing greater than 139 buyins 90% had a downswing greater than 151 buyins 80% had a downswing greater than 167 buyins 70% had a downswing greater than 182 buyins 60% had a downswing greater than 195 buyins 50% had a downswing greater than 210 buyins 40% had a downswing greater than 226 buyins 30% had a downswing greater than 245 buyins 20% had a downswing greater than 270 buyins 10% had a downswing greater than 312 buyins 5% had a downswing greater than 353 buyins 2.5% had a downswing greater than 394 buyins 1% had a downswing greater than 449 buyins --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99% had a low point lower than 0 buyins 97.5% had a low point lower than -1 buyins 95% had a low point lower than -3 buyins 90% had a low point lower than -6 buyins 80% had a low point lower than -13 buyins 70% had a low point lower than -21 buyins 60% had a low point lower than -31 buyins 50% had a low point lower than -42 buyins 40% had a low point lower than -56 buyins 30% had a low point lower than -73 buyins 20% had a low point lower than -98 buyins 10% had a low point lower than -140 buyins 5% had a low point lower than -182 buyins 2.5% had a low point lower than -224 buyins 1% had a low point lower than -279 buyins ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-19-2014
, 01:37 AM
Did anybody use custom AutoHotkey scripts assigning hotkeys for quick registration in Spin & Go tournaments with different builds of PokerStars client? If yes, do your scripts require changes after every PokerStars client update?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olpD...ature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olpD...ature=youtu.be
Spoiler:
10-19-2014
, 02:51 AM
10-19-2014
, 01:07 PM
One button - 'Register' - is more than enough. I'd write an script doing all the job after one keystroke - unminimising the lobby, clicking 'Register', minimising the lobby, searching both players when the tourney pops up, maybe detecting whether the prize pool is $18K and sending a message 'I want 7K total, otherwise won't deal until 40/80' in the chat if so - but I'm too lazy now 
Last edited by coon74; 10-19-2014 at 01:13 PM.
10-19-2014
, 10:49 PM
My script activates the main lobby window before process of registration, there's no need to search and open that window manually.
10-20-2014
, 11:45 AM
10-20-2014
, 03:51 PM
Well, I prefer not to disable the prize display, as it gives important info about how tight the opponents are going to play.
On a side note, yesterday, when I launched a few tourneys yesterday and didn't hear the spin sounds at the beginning, I started panicking (suspecting a software bug)... and only an instant later recalled / noticed that those were 6-max FPP satellites... the spin sounds themselves are addictive
On a side note, yesterday, when I launched a few tourneys yesterday and didn't hear the spin sounds at the beginning, I started panicking (suspecting a software bug)... and only an instant later recalled / noticed that those were 6-max FPP satellites... the spin sounds themselves are addictive