fyp

Yeah.. But spam is playing highest stakes as possible and 4% roi.

IMO 10's - 35's are beatable with 5-7%, but it just needs some kind of skill.

The fact that some very good players have gotten killed in these should be enough indication that you can run bad or good over long stretches and not reach your true ROI.

It is SO easy to tilt in these games. I am not sure that they got killed only thanks to bad run. Tilt -> Bad play in super turbos = suicide.

pretty sure the higher rake in lower games will make the roi about the same as highest stakes

I continue to think these are beatable long term for about 3%. If you expect more than that you will be disappointed unless you run like god (which is possible for a thousand game stretch easily, you can also run like the devil just as long).

One factor I just thought up though was that because of the torture these can put on your emotions from the ups and downs and because it is very difficult to tell if you are actually any good, we will possibly see far fewer people grinding these as full time pros. Thus I think on average there will be more fish. The other HU sngs still do get plenty of fish though so it might not be that big a factor. Oh and also because these can "ruin" your pretty sharkscope stats, people might also be deterred.

Yah I think the higher rake and slightly worse average player will even out.

as spamz suggests, I think the rake structure is set up pretty well so that peak ROI is going to be fairly similar.

But why u need like 1million game volume to see something?

Game is regular end-game like in reg speed and turbo's. Just higher level and bigger stack.

E: Ok, cool with that. But lower levels = brainless idiots (there are a few exceptions ofc. ). What gives extra ROI.

does anyone remember the exact date these came out?

Yeah not really I guess I wasn't factoring in the 1-2 hand games that go on at these pretty regularly, that brings down the avg game.

Why would you even answer the question when you have no clue? This is what's wrong with 2p2.... all sorts of people spouting off crap that is totally wrong and actually worse than useless.

chill

Lol

it would be so easy to have a 10k game break even stretch in them. i doubt there's anyone that's played enough of them to get an accurate idea of a sustainable winrate. really sucks in my opinion that the sites keep introducing forms of poker that cater more towards recreational players entertainment that at the same time decrease the skill factor, or at least make it harder to obtain making it to the long term without them making more $ in rake

Should be in that FTP improvement thread that Sejje started.

5% sustainable ROI in the 350-1k games sound pretty sick considering how many games you can get in per day. Must be like printing money :O

Can you inform me of your name so that I can scope it for super turbos? I've looked up a few of the others you mentioned and they are not running 5% in them though I can't tell if they played before the new structure.

One day this week, I played 300 games and ran 42 BUYINS UNDER EV in all in pots. I still don't think 2000 games is anywhere near close enough to be judging long term ROI. We'll see in a year of playing them if you change your tune or give up before that point.

and don't you *******s forget it.

i demand a vig!

in other news, i'm playing STs to win my niece. how's that for high stakes?

Yea and I'm still waiting for my vig on the Stars rematch button!

i played around with husng variance calculator

with WR of 54.5 - biggest figures i could produce in about 100 tries:

BE 2500 games
80BIs biggest down

so max must be around there.

may i ask if u did adjust your (short stack) play compared to normal HUSNGs?

What's the lowest level you can be a sustainable winner at? The rake dips starting at the $5s, am I correct in assuming that the $1s and $2s are unbeatable even with rb? Or is the play actually bad enough that these limits are beatable for 3-5% despite the rake?

If the biggest winners in a game are at say 8%, isn't it unlikely anybody actually is a true 8% winner?

Like, if you took a few dozen true 5% ROI winners, isn't it likely (of course sample matters, but there's a lot of variance even over big samples) that all these equally talented players will experience results from say 3-7% ROI?

I'm being general and making up numbers, of course, but I'm just asking if my main point is likely correct.

how many BIs for your niece?

hope you crush man

lol reading this makes me want to play 'em again.

thanks a lot ****ers.

I think that is right especially if we aren't talking about 100,000,000 games per player or something where everyone should converge to their true ROI.

One other factor at play is that the players running at the higher end of the range of experienced ROI are more likely to keep playing these games (and possibly continue to get more skilled) while the people at the lower end are more likely to stop playing them so we only hear about the "lucky" ones. Maybe Crimon is running at 5% ROI but bizarro world Crimson ran at 1% for his first 5k games and quit.