His bad graph is likely just a preview of what we'll see long term. We've seen much worse graphs over far longer time periods in HUSNGs, and those are lower variance, so we will likely see far nastier stuff at some point.

Yer i can see why these can take forever to show good results. Chicago can you answer my question about chip ev and cnet adjusted with these spins? Is chips the only accurate way to work out roi or is cnet still close?

Chips

In the long run, there is no luck in poker, but the short run is longer than most people know.

Still rofl at this one

Let me know if you win 38% at 15 or 30$

The bottom line is: in spin and go's your results depend largely on what the multiplier is on the tables that you win, something that requires pure luck
This makes them primarily a crapshoot. Of course if you happen to win a 3600x table after 5000 games you will be +EV, but is that what poker is about?

You better take a refresher course in math. Every single hand of poker is almost pure luck, a years worth of poker is almost pure skill. Spin and go's are no different. If you want to reduce the luck factor, you have to be committed to play a LOT of these over a year, because rakeback will be crucial for a player to make a profit if he misses the top 3 payout levels entirely. The $30 game player can earn about 40k in rakeback playing 50,000 games in a calender year, and will earn 100k in rakeback if he plays 122,000 in a calender year which will earn him Supernova Elite.

The key win rate to hit is 35.5%. (if you're going to play at least 50,000 of these in a calender year). Even if you are unlucky enough to get nothing back from the 120x, the 240x, and the 3600x levels, you will still make a profit that's worth your time(depending on what you value your time at). If you can win 36.0%, there's decent money to made in these, but I have no idea if that's obtainable. 35.0% will almost guarantee you wont lose money, but if you get shutout in the top 3 levels, you could find yourself grinding a whole year for peanuts.

The problem is, who is going to put the time and effort in to get so good at these that they'll be able to reach 36%?, and then take a whole year at 10+ hours a day to test the win rates. The math is solid: if you play 50,000 of these a year and win 36%, you will profit between 45k-80k and that's without hitting a single 3600x. If you play 122,000 of these a year and win 36%, you're looking at between 100k-200k a year without hitting a 3600x.

Can someone tell me where my Maths has gone wrong?

So if you play 48k 7d Spin and Goes the rake should be 6% 48,000 * $0.42 = $20,160.

I have created a basic spreadsheet where if I put in the win % this should calculate how much you would win or lose. So if you win one third you should lose $20,160 as this is the rake?

But I calculate this as $21,280 (so rake is $0.4443 per game). More than likely I have made a mistake as can't see Stars getting this wrong.

So for example the $161,320 for the $14 wins is calculated as $14 * 48000 * 33.33333 * 72.018% = $161,320 and so on. Total amount when put across all prizes would be 314,720 - $336,000 (buy in 48000 * $7) = -$21,280 not $20,160.

The reason for this is that by putting in the % for wins I should be able to calculate what % is needed to make profit. Excluding higher wins and replacing with lower ones would mean I could see a reasonable profit expectations (if possible).

I can provide spreadsheet if necessary.

Can't get the details with the correct spacing, but hopefully you get the picture.

$7 Spin and Go
Tournaments 48,000
Win % 33.3333%

Prize Average Prize
14 161,320 72.018% 14
28 89,000 19.866% 28
42 50,400 7.500% 42
70 5,600 0.500% 70
175 2,800 0.100% 175
700 1,120 0.010% 700
1,400 1,120 0.005% 1,400
21,000 3,360 0.001% 21,000
Amount Won 314,720 100.000%
Buy In 336,000
Win / Loss -21,280

Ok, worked it out, the top 3 have prizes for 2nd and 3rd for 10% - so rather than $700, $1,400 and £21,000 this should be $840, $1,680 and $25,200 - with this rake agrees with the $20,160 (6%).

Replacing the $21k with a 14d (as 21k is a 1 in 100k) I have:

48k games per year:
40% win rate $38,172
38% win rate $19,464
36% win rate $755

This would give you SN as 100,800 vpp so add in another 5k to 6k for this.

Thank you

Not sure what's so funny. I'll let you know if I manage 38% once I reach those levels. The reason it can't be a crapshoot is because after the random draw there isn't a random winner so I think your just upset you had too many 2x in a row. I think poker is about enjoyment and making money well for me it is. Gl

What is funny is that believing that you can attain a 38% winrate in these at the 15 or 30 buy-in level is just ridiculous

Also, if you finish in the money 36 percent of the time your profit may still be minimal if you don't hit and win several of the top three prize pools. 3-max tournaments are extreme variance, and the rake is extreme too

Then we haven't even talked about the time you would need to play say 100 000 spin and go's. Also, you seem to think that because there is 1 out of 100 000 tables which is a jackpot table you are guaranteed to hit one if you play 100 000 games. You may well be at 150 000 games and still not have hit the 3600x

You must laugh a lot at your own jokes that's fine.
I don't seem to think I'm going to get any big multiplier, I'm playing for the grind and if I manage to bink a big multiplier then great but I don't plan my year where yer I have to put a 3600x in the schedule that's laughable. I'm also not going to HAVE to play 100k games I think I can do ok playing what I am capable of. I'd like to post my graph with a mix of 1s, 3s, 7s, and 15s but my sample is tiny. Gl

(((Net Expected Chips Won/500)*0,95)/#Tournaments)-0,05=Expected ROI

Let's say that you won 2M (Net Expected Chips Won) over 25k tournaments playing only 30$ level.

(((2000000/500)*0,95)/25000)-0,05=0,102=10,2%

Could some of reg players confirm that these calculations are right? Does it mean that expected ROI pre rakeback after this 25k games is 10,2%? Is this the best measure to know if you can beat this games?

Hello all,

On Sunday, February 1st at 06.00 ET (11.00 GMT) we are replacing the $5 Spin & Go with a $60 one. The complete offering will then be $1, $3, $7, $15, $30 and $60.

The $60's will have the same payout structure and rake (5%) as the $15 and $30 Spin & Gos currently have.

Thanks,
Baard

higher buyin
5% rake


please reconsider

Spin and go's have nothing to do with poker but all with lottery and bingo, but it's funny how in a relatively short period of time after their launch people are already convincing themselves that these things are grindable

I agree that your chances of hitting the jackpot table is higher in spin and go than your chances of winning the lottery, so for people who want to gamble without much skill involved they are not a bad deal

stop complaining and enjoy your lobbies.

+1 this is gonna affect the other lobbies so much.. pretty much ANY change that has been proposed has been countered with the argument of "no it will affect gametype X too much". Like this it will be only a matter of time and the spin and gos will be on any regular buyin.

Yes this will affect the lobbies a lot imo, e.g. higher buyin HUSNGs as well as 6max hypers and quite a few other lobbies as there will be a big player shift happening imo.

Looking foward to seeing how these 60s go. I think call me very right where a lot of 60 - 200 regs may consider switching and I guess I'm thinking with 60s the 30s will be a little softer? Hope so.

The variance on the multipliers is brutal. I just played 32. 31 were 2x and 1 was a 4x. It certainly squeezes the fun out of the games.

5% rake at a $60 hyper, nice.

You sound suprised, that's very standard. If that wasn't possible this format wouldn't exist.

The funny thing is that if PS just altered the multiplier slightly and added a deal button spins would be the GOAT game. I don't understand PS's reasoning for not doing this even fish complain about the massive amount of 2x multipliers that they get and the lack of a deal button.

Think of all the people you know that complain when their lottery ticket bricks off. Do those people keep coming back for more?

The chance at a "huge" win is the major selling point for the system. PokerStars attracts a lot more people from the general population to a format which can boast that player A won $90,000 rather than constantly promoting it that three people chopped for $36,000 or one-third the prize of some of these top multipliers.

It's best if you look at these games outside the perspective of what would be most profitable for you and instead take on Star's perspective and that of the casual gambler and then you'll realize why these games are set up with the current structure.