"Chops don't take away the marketability of MTTs either." -> touché. (exactly!)

"Can't even do stuff like force 90% chops, play for 10%, so a "winner" is declared. like force 90% chops, play for 10%, so a "winner" is declared." -> That would work too. Anything that is NOT what it is right now (whole prizepool just for 1st place on the rare big multiplier games), it's gonna be better

Pokerstars, why u let FTP be better than you on this matter? Come on just add the deal button soon pls! Thanks.

Deal option and reduced rake would make this a dream format.

Does PT4 is able to show info about the prizepool in case you didnt won? And is standard tournament/prize graph with ev adj ok for those games?

I'm curious what a good games won % in Spin&Gos is (rather than a good ROI since we have no control over the multipliers). Any estimates as to what % of games a solid player can expect to win at the 7$ level, 15$, 30$ and 60$? Is there a big difference between the levels? The players at all seem very soft. Is 38.82% any good?

38.82% is amazing and likely not sustainable for most people playing spins.

cartels cannot exist because its impossible at spin and go's to do such a thing.

Damn then these games are harsh because even at that win rate this month it feels like I'm getting f'd in the a.

You probably are getting shafted hard this month. Even in hyper HUSNGs, which everyone agrees are lower variance, guys run terrible for months at a time.

Is the "My Currency Net Adjusted" (orange) curve in PT4 an accurate representation of how well a player is actually playing in Spin&Gos? It seems weak in that it just assumes the all ins that happened were certainly going to happen (even if it happened by the opponent making a weak, unjustified call), i.e. it doesn't take into account folding equity - so for a player who tends to shove all in much more often than call all in, isn't he getting short-changed in this graph?

For example, suppose we're HU with even stacks, 750 each, and the blinds are 50/100. We open shove from the button with 22 and the opponent calls with 93o. So now we're in a race situation and our all-in adjusted EV is about 0, but our opponent had to first make this ridiculous call with 93o - my EV in this hand should be approximately +100, as most but not all players will fold.

Yes, it's accurate. But also, no it's not (for spins).

It is accurate. Obviously in this individual hand, the opponent called. Play the same scenario out over a hundred shoves with 22 vs 93o, adjusted-line results will be reflective of the fold equity you usually have, and the All-In EV you have when rarely you are called. As with anything in this area, you need a decent sample. Equity Adjusted needs a smaller sample than actual results to be confident to the same degree, but a sample of 1 hand is of course insufficient to form many conclusions.

For Spins, unfortunately My C Net Adjusted is near-worthless and you should use Chip EV instead (or a custom stat alternative). Reason being it takes in to account prize pool. So if you run good and get your AA vs villain KK in a 100x multiplier, and then My C Net Adjusted will shoot up because of the huge prize. Then next game in a 2x, the situation is reversed and you call a shove with KK, villain has AA. Net adjusted barely moves compared to the previous game, but as far as we'd actually want to know it should balance out to zero (disregarding other hands).

How it is possible PT4 takes into account prizepool if there is no prizepool info in HH if you lose a game? Every lost games are considered to be ~21USD games or maybe 14?

Prizepool info is in your Tourney History and not in your HH bud.
to add, if ur PT4 logs your prizepool inaccurately, you will have to upload the Tourney history for that game vs uploading the HH's for that game.
Cheers

Has anyone got a chipEV/tourney statistic to PT4?

Thanks!

thats why the old structure was so much better (with 4% rake), winnings are quite lower since then. 4 to 3% for the stakes 15$ plus should be mandatory I don`t understand why stars is raking them so much (well yeah profit blabla but in the long run it would be better if more fish wins big multiplier more frequently)

Are you using PT4, and if so, for Chip EV are you looking in Graphs -> Graph For: Tournaments / Winnings in: Chips?

I play 7$ Spin&Gos (6% rake) and I'm thinking of how to translate the Net Expected Chips Won to the Net Expected Currency won by replacing each prizepool with the theoretical average prize pool, which is 3x7$X94% = 19.74$.

Over 1232 games my Net Expected Chips Won is 87033, or +70.64/game. So if 1500 chips = 19.74$ then 70.64 chips = 0.9296$, meaning on average over that sample I would be up 1232x0.9296$ = 1145$. However, my actual Chips Won graph is even higher than the Net Expected over this sample at 113030 and even then I won just +672$.

I understand that the multipliers create a lot of variance, but I wouldn't think they could by as much as a factor of 1145/672 = 1.7 (it seems high) when the all-in luck has been eliminated by using Chip EV (so that the luck focus is primarily on the multipliers) and even the +672$ result was lucky Chip EV-wise.

What do you think - do you see a flaw in my reasoning somewhere?

Rather, more than a factor of 1.7, again because that 672$ came from a Chip EV lucky result.

I think your calculation is wrong. you have 70.64/game so your ev ITM is 570.64/1500 = 38.04%. With 6% rake your evroi is 7,27% giving you 0,509$ pr tourney. You could calculate with 8% rake though, since there is so little chance of hitting the top prizes.

Pokerstars.es just introduced one higher stake spin and go level and changed all the max prizepools to x5000 instead of x3000.

Just sayin' bc everything they tested on .es came to .com later...

thoughts? Their site is very updated and no clue about how the new distribution looks. I guess even more variance? But better marketing ?

on their site they are still displaying the .com 3,000 max multiplier paytables, was v curious how a 5,000x paytable would look, and expect it will suck without a rake break (and for all but 3/100,000 would likely still basically suck with a rake break

kind of suprising they think that the positive benefit of raising the payoff in the extremely infrequent jackpots outweighs the potential benefits of spreading those 2k buyins across lower teirs people routinely encounter to reduce the feeling amongst recs that they are constantly fighting an uphill battle/losing.

doesnt take a mathematical genius to realize that 10 in a million is very few when you are a rec who has played 200-500 tourneys lifetime. and that automatically giving up one third of your buyin 72% of the time so that some other ******* can win 5,000 buyins isnt a winning situation

Rake cut really needs to be taken into more consideration. If this is added which I assume it is would be better if they made the structure so it's 1 in 200,000.

I can see it attracting more fish, and with the right structure would be ok.

Spin & Go XXL

www.pokerstars.fr/en/spin-and-go/

jesus christ, 7% across the board

and for 75.6% 2x spins

**** that noise

2x spin for 25 eur is 40 eur? Good luck with that...

What HUD stats are you guys using for spin and go?