https://www.facebook.com/americascardroomnet/?fref=ts

Just saw this on my feed. Looks like its Sngs and jackpot smashed together???

www.americascardroom.eu/online-poker-promotions/sit-and-go-2-0/

Winning_TD / WPN Rep, is this going to replace the current Jackpot Poker or run parallelly with it?

Anyway, I'm very excited to see it when it comes out (especially because I adore the family that's backing it).

As can be seen in the video, the greatest common divisor of the prize pools of (presumably) the top stake is $10, and as the pools are supposed to be an integer number of buy-ins each, I guess that the top buy-in will be $10 (higher up, there would be just not enough traffic for 9-mans).

No way they can replace JPs with a max $10 bi game c00n! Would make it impossible to make a living in a first-world country playing the games. I really really hope they don't kill jps with the introduction of this format.

Tbh I wonder why they're going with full 9man sngs, I feel like 6max might be a better choice given playerbase but maybe 6m sngs are less popular?

Should be interesting, at any rate.

I meant that, if 3-man JPTs and SNG 2.0 are allowed to live together, then the top BI of SNG 2.0 will be $10 and the top BI of 3m JPTs will still be $40. If SNG 2.0 replaces JPTs totally, then of course its highest BI will be more than $10.

you need any beta testers i can put in serious volume lol

I've watched the promo video many times in slow motion and I think I've figured out the process of prize pool selection.

The starting deck has 55 cards - the standard 52-card deck plus 3 gold cards. Spades and clubs are green for some reason. The color of diamonds and hearts isn't shown, let's assume it's red.

At the beginning, each player is randomly dealt one card. Then they start turning cards over, one by one. If a gold card is opened, it goes into one of the three slots in the center, and a new card is drawn from the central deck (it does have 46 cards at the start of the video - I made a screenshot and counted the cards!) to replace the gold card taken away from that player. The process stops when either any red card or 9 green cards are opened.

If a red card is revealed, or 9 green cards in a row are opened without any gold card, the prize pool is determined by the number of green cards that had been opened by the end of the process.

# of green cards	Prize pool in $	Places paid
0	$50?	3?
1	$90	3
2	$100?	4?
3	$120?	5?
4	$140	6
5	$160?	7?
6	$180?	8?
7	$200	9
8	$250	9
9	$300?	9?

(Only the values with no question mark appeared in the video; those with question marks are guesstimates.)

When 9 green cards and at least one gold have been opened, then a chunk is taken out of the progressive jackpot to become the prize pool of this tourney, with all the 9 places paid. Namely, if only 1 gold card has been opened and placed in the center, then the prize pool is 10% of the JP; if 2 gold cards, then about 20%; if all the 3 gold cards, then about 75%. The rest of the jackpot is left for future tourneys.

With this info, we can calculate the probabilities of prize pool sizes (the one of the minimum prize pool - the only one that is <9 BI assuming that the BI in the video is $10 - seems to be <50%). I'm just a bit too busy for it now.

Sick! Had no idea tables were possible.


JPP will still be around.

Assuming that the prize pool selection process is as I've described above, the biggest ones will hit with the following probabilities:

10% of the JP ('mini') - once in ~3467 games;
20% of the JP ('midi') - exactly 12 times less often, once in ~15602 games;
75% of the JP ('maxi') - exactly 54 times less often than the 'mini', once in ~187218 games.

So most (63%) of the money won from the united JP will be won from the 'mini' chunks, 28% - from the 'midi' and only 9% - from the 'maxi'. This is surely good for the 'grindability' of the games (i.e. the risk of ruin of a winning player is small enough). Also, it means that the size of the total JP will be fluctuating smoothly enough, as it will seldom experience big shocks (be reduced by 4 times) and, most of the time, it will only be suffering from small 10-20% 'bites'.

The average JP size will be ~21897 times the total contribution per game. E.g. if, in each $10 game, $5 is put into the JP (so the JP contribution per player is $5/9 ~ $0.56, or ~5.56% of the BI), then the JP will be ~$109.5K on average.

Anyone who's interested in the details of how the math is done may ask me convincingly so that I put the details into a thread in the Probability forum.

Speaking of, I was wrong above - the probability of the minimum prize pool is exactly 50%. Indeed, if we ignore the gold cards altogether, the smallest pool hits if and only if the first non-gold card is red, and there are 26 such cards out of 52 non-gold.

Assuming the paytable of non-JP tiers I've given above, the sum of the rake and the JP contribution will be ~14.5% of the BI, thus the rake itself will be 9% (a quarter of that will be feeding Sit and Crush as usual, while 6.75% of the BI will be earning loyalty points). It's a realistically pessimistic scenario - that's how iPoker's 6-man JP SnGs are raked.

Once again, that's all pure speculation based on the promo video.

I originally suggested this format to WPN and I know when I chatted with them we talked about making the bottom prize in such a format $70 (given a $10 buyin). That way the bottom prize could be a pay 2 could be something like $44 1st $26 2nd which is very similar to how the pay 3s currently are $45 1st, $27 2nd. Whether the final version is like that I do not know but maybe that'll give you more to think about c00n (2+2 wants to censor your name).

Just use the full coon74.

Now we know whom to blame

Actually, I'm surprised that the $90 doesn't pay for 4 places - there would be enough room for that, and the bubble factor would be still less than in a 'pay 6'. From the way higher prize tourneys are structured, it seems that the objective is to provide as many players as possible with a net win (or at least give the BI back). I don't see why they'd want the lowest prize tier to pay only 2 players.

I might be very wrong among the number of places paid at those tiers that aren't seen in the video. But it doesn't affect the rake calculation anyway.

I'd love it to be $70, but if the procedure of prize selection is like I've outlined, the probabilities of prize tiers decline roughly like in a geometric progression with a factor of 2, i.e. a 50% chance of 0 green cards, 25% of 1, 13% of 2, and so on. (I'll figure out the exact probabilities later.) If there's a $70 prize pool half the time and a pool of at least $90 the other half, that's already at least $80 on average, the sum of collected BIs is $90, and there's not much room for both the rake (plus the JP contribution) and the surplus money awarded by higher non-JP multipliers.

The most optimistic scenario imo would be a $60 bottom prize pool, 6% rake and 3.33% JP contribution ($3 total per $10 game; I can't totally dismiss this conjecture, but don't you think the JP is much 'rounder' if it grows in $5 ($1 for the $2 buy-in) increments than in $3 ones?). However, I don't believe that the WPN would want to rake the 9-man JP games (that are much longer) only as much as the 3-man ones.

So English for us ******ed people who can only count to 13, what does this all mean?

9-player SNG with a pre-game draw to determine the prize pool and number of places paid.

got it thank you. And judging by the 500 chip count, hyper sng yes? Meaning variance is going to be more of a bitch...

If they weren't hypers, then the waiting time for a game to start would be too long and recreationals would get disgruntled and quit. I reckon that the way it is, a $10 game will start about once a minute at peak, so I'll barely be able to fill the screen with 9-12 tables anyway, might even get bored because each of these 9-mans will require me to click buttons far less often than a 3-4-man hyper does...

While I'm sure it's a neat concept Jackpots are way more fun for recreational players. I don't see many players switching to this format outside of the first few weeks that they are launched. I understand these are kind of a jackpot format too but it's just not as good as what they already have in place

better start learning them icms bros

Well, let the author of the idea - Thrash370 - comment on why these SnGs may be more attractive to recreationals than traditional 3-man jackpots.

Strange that they didn't actually give any more info on how the game actually works, making people speculate - but yeah, if coon84 is right it's now not only slot machine poker, but progressive jackpot slot machine poker.

I actually don't necessarily mind the format (jackpot style), it might be interesting for like 2 games before moving on to something else.

Though I do question the continued development of gimmicky forms of poker when they have so many other site issues that I would think should have a much higher priority - cashier issues, software freezes and bugs of all types, sporadic server lag + freezing, still no promised hand showdowns years later, etc. Even simpler things like deal it twice or a decent tournament dollar system should take like 5% of the development effort of a new gimmick poker.

Hope, at the very minimum, they're not actually paying someone to license any sort of gimmick poker (there's something on the page about a partnership with some tourney player who wrote a book that like 1/10k players actually cares about.)

Shrug.

I'm not sure me or anyone expects these to overtake the popularity of jackpots. The main question is will they be more popular than current SNG offerings. I doubt if spin n gos were just 3 man hyper turbos they'd be enjoying their current popularity to this extent so it makes sense to toy around with it in sng formats. That being said i'm very disappointed to hear they might be 500 chip hyper turbo games I was hoping they'd come out in a turbo format.

The whole poker industry is now shifting away from deepstack turbos. I'll tell you why.

A rec usually doesn't like to wait for a game more than a couple of minutes. He'll just sit in a cash game if an SNG fails to start soon. Even in the prime years of the iPoker network, when it was patronized by thrice more players than the WPN currently, its €20 6-man jackpot SNGs would start only once in 2 minutes at peak hours when the progressive jackpot was above average, let alone offpeak and small JP times.

When Twister (a predecessor of Stars' Spin & Gos) appeared on the network, it cannibalized the old-style JP SNG lobby big time even though the top stake of Twister was $10 at the time and its JPs were much lower in terms of the # of BIs than the typical ones of the 6-max games. One of the main reasons for the popularity of Twister was that the games were starting much faster.

Not only are turbos too slow to fit into the modern quick pace of life, but they're also uncomfortable for a site in terms of player dropout times. Usually, hardly anyone goes bust in the first few levels, and then people start dropping out quickly when the blinds are high. This means that the variance of the waiting time for a new game is high because the game start often relies on people who drop out and register for this new game.

In hypers, people start dropping out quite early, so the lobby receives a more consistent influx of players willing to start a new tourney.

Besides, hypers allow for a better rec-to-reg ratio because regs' table counts are lower, while recs tend to only play at 1-2 tables regardless of the game speed.

wait what... no where did I state I didn't understand why hypers are so popular for 3/6max. 9 max is a completely different beast though, hyper 9 mans almost never run when compared to their 6 max counterparts. 9 max on average takes longer for a hand to complete so the amount of play you get in a 9 max before it's truly push fold is much less than in 3 max/6 max. It's overall a terrible format for 9 mans although obviously some would disagree.

Also while there may be demand for 9 man hypers there is still a subset of recreationals that don't want that or turbo/non turbo 9 mans wouldn't run.

It seems to me that a significant part of the people who prefer 9-mans do so because they hate variance. The hyper speed aren't going to appeal to them no matter the table size, and neither are any jackpots, especially progressive ones. The reason why MTT players prefer 9-max - they're reseated less often there - is irrelevant for SNGs.

Hopefully o8 gets included this time, jackpots were a disappointment for me and some others. Only thing jackpots did for us was drag many of the recs away from our games which keeps o8 sng traffic down artificially.

9-mans sound cool, but not so sure about hypers though. I think a fair compromise would be 1500-chip turbos with a few blind levels removed, mainly some of the early ones. This would speed up the games but would still leave plenty of time for the most important stages of the game.