Yes the game is definitely worth playing if you think you can achieve a very high winrate. The variance is similar to MTTs, but if you can get that high winrate then you don't even need the big binks to make some good money.

Doyle also makes the distinction in his super system.

A double gut shot is different to open ended because it is more disguised on certain boards therefore wins more money. Nobody plays J6 for straight potential after all.

Although this example is really a one card straight not open ended. The 6 is useless even when the 7 hits.

Read Doyles super system. He calls that a double gut shot. These are superior to open ended straight draws as most people do not see them.

Although this one is really a one card straight if it hits not a true double gut shot. The 6 cannot make a winning straight and is useless. Is that what you meant?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/17...month-1499928/

is there nobody competent outthere (exept bighusla) who already played a big sample of spins? i think we need more graphs here no matter if pt4 or sharkscope....competent means for me a good hyper 6 max reg or better a husng player.

ofc its beatable.

The issue is if you beat it as hard as possible because you are a good pokerplayer like bighusla it is still a waste of time because you could make the same/more moeny in other parts of the online poker grind.

If you are not that great, and you struggle to beat hu hypers,6max hypers, whatever. Spin and goes are a reasonable alternative evwise you will still make a reasonable amount, however you are no sicko then, sooo u will get hit by the swings alot as you need some of the big spins.


On top of that i dont see this rake ever being sustainable, every 20 games you lose a buyin to rake in a 3handed fast paced game, sounds completely ridiculous to me if you compare it with a 2handed fast paced game where this takes almost 60 games.

I might've misunderstood your wording, but I would anticipate a player that is putting in the effort to beat other games but still struggling to not succeed in spins either.

I might've misunderstood your wording, but I would anticipate a player that is putting in the effort to beat other games but still struggling to not succeed in spins either.

whats the correct payout choice in ICMIZER for spin and gos?

"HU/Winner takes all"?

Yes

Why do you think people should give out free info? its pretty clear why people try to fish for graphs, you wanna see if they are worth playing without risking your own money to do.so. And obv if guys give out information they mostly have other interests than just showing graphs.

Many people have really good results so far, and they are definitely beatable imo.

Currently, I am trying to build a PT4 statistic that is able to make the 'running above or below EV' regarding the lottery factor visible.

For example, for a $1 Spin & Go, the expected value of the prizepool will be $2.79, as 7% is raked by Pokerstars. Presume that the actual prizepool is $2 such that the statistic for lottery EV correction would add $0.79 to the actual winnings or the net adjusted winnings in this Spin & Go. So far so good, but the interesting statistic happens when I play a lot of tournaments. It would be great to see, if I run over "lottery EV" after say 10k games. However, every time I try to build this statistic in PT4, it is not able to add up this lottery EV correction over tournaments. The sum will alsways be way off the actual number.

My question is: Is anyone interested in building such a stat and can post some code? You cna also PM me directly.

isn't it just

I imagine that this just gives the expected prizepool, correct?

The next step would be to compare that to the actual prizepool and to be able to add this correction (difference) to the actual or expected winnings. However, this step does not work for me as it gives numbers that are way off when summing up over many tournaments (in a table or graph).

Is that formula correct for EV ROI:

((ChipEV/500*0,95)/Games)*100-5?

And if yes, how much is it dependant on the top 1/2/3 prize pools? How can i calculate my EV Roi excluding the top 3 prize pools?

Pretend that the top 3 multipliers are not present and are raked completely. Therefore, add it to the rake you implicitly assume.

Ok, this is how far I got:

This is the statistic I created, which substracts the expected from the actual prizepool and divides by the number of players in a Spin & Go.



This is the result that is created by that stat. Note that the amound for each tournament is correct, but the sum of it is way off. However, this sum is very important as only with this you can see the effect of the lottery on your results over a large sample of tournaments.



Does anyone find the mistake?

Ok, I managed to succeed for the graph part and the individual calculations. The sums over the tables are still not ok, don't know why.

Define "Prizepool Lottery EV" as
(cnt_tourney_players * amt_buyin - amt_prize_pool) / cnt_tourney_players

Define "Net Won Lottery EV" as
var_amt_net + (cnt_tourney_players * amt_buyin - amt_prize_pool) / cnt_tourney_players

Define "Net Adjusted Lottery EV" as
var_amt_net_expected + (cnt_tourney_players * amt_buyin - amt_prize_pool) / cnt_tourney_players

If you now add one of these statistics to the graph, you will be able to control for the lottery effect in your net won or net adjusted won. I checked a calculation of one tournament for all three players and "Net Adjusted Lottery EV" adds to the rake amount deducted as a sum of all three players as it should.

The problem of summing over these new stats when tabulating by tournament or by buy-in still remains. Maybe someone else can figure out what has to be changed for the new statistics to work in these tables as well.

check the "summary type" on your columns. also sometimes math needs to be in either the column or stat for it to work properly, I couldn't fathom the specifics of under what circumstance.

Wasn't there an issue with PT4 not knowing the correct prizepool unless you cashed? is this my memory playing tricks on me or was it resolved now.

The summary type should be different from the format type?

PT4 published a statistic that takes the prizepool that is stored in the tournament summary. You are correct in saying there were problems as PT4 took the prizepool info from the aggregated buy-ins.

Can you do that for me? I dont know whats the rake in the formula i got and i dont know how much difference it would make to substract the top 3.

Basically if there was no chance to get in the top3 prizepoolgames the effective rake would be 7% which would decrease your EVROI by 2%, meaning 36% ITM is now pretty much a rakeback pro (~0,5% EVROI pre rb) 37% ITM has 3,2% EVROI pre rb and 38% ITM still sitting pretty with 6% EVROI pre rb

Thanks man

Why is the number of Spin & Go / Jackpot S&G tables actively playing not shown in the client ?