This makes me a bit worried that spins are not random- and it might be +EV to play only after the jackpot hasn't hit for a while. Ofc the average payout of spins can still be the same as the truly random case, but this is not the point.
I hope someone can prove me wrong tho.
they've said its random, theyre just talking about the accounting for it
sooo i wanted to restrict myself on pokerstars from playing SPIN&GOs and i did
now i wonder why do SPIN&GOs fall under the category of SNG?
is it just me
nvm pokerstars support is awesome it can be disabled separately
OK I trust you guys. It looked shady for a second...
this has been discussed here before and as I can recall the conclusion was that they neither release jackpots in batches or steer it manually in some way.
Ive been following the big ones in recent week's and the way they went down kinda supports "random". 15s bit quite a bit recently with 2 happening within almost 1 day. Whilst 30's hasn't popped in almost 3 days.. or think about the 3 millions that popped within almost a week if I recall correctly.
Basically, I just get a tonne more stats just appear all over the table. I disable then enable the hud which seems to work for about 10 seconds then it happens again. It's not all the time, but enough to be annoying. It happens both 3 handed with the spin hud and also heads up with the coffee hud (only in spins).
is the structure optimal?
stacks?
blind length?
blind levels?
uncapped # of concurrent tables?
i assume there are people from 888 following the feedback on spins/twisters and some incarnation of variable payout jpsngs will be rolled out within the year barring some behind the scenes deal, so offering feedback on these questions here prior rather than after they are announced may be a good idea
If the million prize is shifted to higher BI Spins, it will be a smaller fraction of rake there. But I'm not a fan of such an idea either. At least there's enough fish willing to play the $5s, which more than offsets the rake effects.
If the million prize is shifted to higher BI Spins, it will be a smaller fraction of rake there. But I'm not a fan of such an idea either. At least there's enough fish willing to play the $5s, which more than offsets the rake effects.
ya, birrion fish willing to flick in $5 and punt when they inevitably dont spin the milball so decent players willing to bother can have a single digit hourly after crushing cev numbers is whatever it is
the 5s wouldnt exist in any meaningfull way to anyone (5s would just be 7s with worse rake) if not for the:
diverting from or destroying one of the not disgustingly structured limits by diverting $1/table or whatever to a jackpot you cant ever expect to win is very undesirable in contrast
Last edited by 22riverrat22; 04-19-2015 at 09:55 PM.
Lol, someone streams his cards without a delay and is now crying.
Primo, since you are sharing information, what is about LOCK poker?
The company who robbed all player funds and you were making promise after promise in the thread after Jen Larson looked you in the eye?
keeping buyins low is best for the long term health of any game
true. I am surprised they even introduced 60 spins. The buyin vs top prize for a 30 dollar spin is enough to please most rec players and that is clearly what pokerstars is catering to. Only reason I could see 60 spins is to give regs a game to play/chase sne but they are banking on most not making it.
It seems like disaster for stars when a rec deposits 200 bucks, plays a few 5 dollar spins and starts to tilt, then dumps it all at 60 spin regs who withdraw the money.