I don't understand how NOT adding 60s and 100s is a FU to SNE guys. Seems like the opposite. If they added 60's and 100's which subsequently sucked up all the volume at those stakes then they would force SNE guys into the spins for their volume. That's not what they've done.

Because it's the same recreational players that are playing 60s + 100s sngs, 200 zoom, etc that are playing the 30 spin n gos right now. It's redistributing the recreational player pool to lower stakes games where it's impossible to make good vpp's. If there were 60's and 100's for Spin n Go, then there would be a preservation of the number of recreational players at these stakes.

So what you're saying is that you think that adding higher stakes spins would have been better for the SNE players? Maybe, but I think the vast majority of SNE players would be a lot more angry than they are now had the higher stakes games been introduced and they were forced to switch games in October.

Youve always seemed somewhat intelligent in these forums so Im surprised by your flippant attitude. This isnt Turbo regs complaining because hypers came along and stole their traffic and fish. Stars created the conditions in which SN and SNE grinder played under and is now pulling the rug from under them before they can realize their equity. It's a classic bait and switch. If Stars wants to move towards games like this in the future that's fine but doing it at the end of the year and saving themselves untold millions in bonuses they dont have to pay out is just wrong. If this doesnt worry you about the future of Stars and their other implicit agreements with players I dont know what to say. Just hope you dont have too many FPPs saved up if they decide to decrease their value or cash online if they decide to start vigging cashouts, so it doesnt suck for you too...

. And lets face it if your a sng reg your skill set is almost always going to be higher then the standard MTT regs.

Hate to rehash this old argument but Ive met hundreds of online professionals in person and more online and without a doubt on average SNG players are more intelligent and better at their craft and crossover to MTTs more successfully than vice versa. The ICM mistakes MTT regs make at MTT FTs, let alone SNGs, is atrocious.

Maximizing your hourly at SNGs usually requires a higher table count and hands/hr so I think youll see a lot of SNGers taking shortcuts and making mistakes that may lead you to believe what you do.

Ruse,

I wasn't being sarcastic in my remark towards the effects these are having on SNE grinders achieving their goals. I do think it stinks for them.

Although I'm an advocate against high volume incentives and promotional VIP plans that I think have a negative effect on the long term health of the games , I do realize that many of my peers and other players take advantage of these promotions and VIP plans to their benefit.

At least pokerStars warned about the pending release of these Spin and Gos. Either way, you'd think they could have held off until the new year. Hope it works out for your guys and "yes", your skillset is better than the vast majority of MTT players. The "top" regs in MTTs are very skilled at their craft though. I've learned a lot of "new" tricks since crossing over and my postflop play has increased exponentially.

The point I was trying to make is that it stinks for anyone hoping to have a future playing on Stars that they would pull something like this.

I actually agree with on the bolded and have said before the way Stars' rakeback is structured is one of the main things regging up the games. But I, and a lot of other players, played the hands we were dealt and tried to maximize our income. Stars in essentially shifting the goalposts mid game. Id have little pity if we grinders had done this to ourselves and killed games by our rakeback whoring. Hell I learned the hard way end of last year what happens when a bunch of regs are chasing huge end of year bonuses. But the amount of hours it takes and the amount of prerb losses you incur along the way being affected by an end of year move from the site is unacceptable business practice. Especially when this change is netting the site money in unpaid bonuses.

Eh mixing my metaphors a bit. Not exactly shifting the goalposts; maybe the slope of the field...

I´m pretty sure they dont add higher buyins for the risk of collusion imo. In HUSNG we discussed this, it would only be a matter of time before groups would form (they probably still will tbh...) to do some nasty stuff... And since the seating algo. is really bad and kinda exploitable this makes it even more easy.

With respect to Spin and Goes the huge majority of Stars customers would be thinking 'great, a new fun format'.

People grossly overestimate the importance of the regs point of view to Pokerstars IMO.

No, just no.

Sorry if I missed it - has anyone heard PokerStars' justification behind not having deal making?

The only comments I have seen from PS reps were in favor of deal making.

How is it worthwhile to collude in a format where winner takes all?

This.. lol at colluding at a format where winner takes all and where you get random opponents. I mean, sure its still possible, but less profitable and less likely than on most of the other formats. If you are so paranoid dont play poker at all, or only hu if your paranoid only about collusion

You could share hole cards and you could potentially whipsaw collude to steal chips. Also dumping chips to the better HU player would provide an advantage. No idea how easy or profitable any of that would be.

Blind registration tho.

My guess is the number of deal request would overwhelm support. You also have people agreeing to nonofficial deals and screwing people over. And then those people thinking Stars owes them money somehow.

Cash games are winner take all. Numerous ways to collude in that. You could have equity chop agreements with certain players, which would lead to you softplaying and colluding with them early so you can get HU. Along with more nefarious ways. 3 handed games with insane swings are the perfect environment for collusion.

Thought this might be of interest to post here with regard to bankroll requirements for these.

Please note: the number of buyins isn't actually a recommendation, but simply the value calculated as per the Kelly Criterion (ie: don't attempt to play SNGs with a 5% ROI and 38 buyins, etc!!!). The ratio of the increase between the two types of SNGs is of interest though and should be a pretty good guide of roughly how much you would need to scale your existing BR requirements up (or hopefully put you completely off playing these if you expect a very low ROI...).

(X-Post from Probability & NVG threads) Here are the results with 4% rake included for each game type, for 1%, 2%, 3%, 4% and 5% ROI players:



So:

1% ROI player needs P(1st) = 0.350694
2% ROI player needs P(1st) = 0.354167
3% ROI player needs P(1st) = 0.357639
4% ROI player needs P(1st) = 0.361111
5% ROI player needs P(1st) = 0.364583

1% ROI player's optimal bankroll fraction for 3-handed "winner take all" SNG = 0.0053185 (~188 buyins)
2% ROI player's optimal bankroll fraction for 3-handed "winner take all" SNG = 0.0106388 (~94 buyins)
3% ROI player's optimal bankroll fraction for 3-handed "winner take all" SNG = 0.0159576 (~63 buyins)
4% ROI player's optimal bankroll fraction for 3-handed "winner take all" SNG = 0.0212764 (~47 buyins)
5% ROI player's optimal bankroll fraction for 3-handed "winner take all" SNG = 0.0265952 (~38 buyins)

1% ROI player's optimal bankroll fraction for 3-handed "Spin and Go" SNG = 0.00047093 (~2123 buyins)
2% ROI player's optimal bankroll fraction for 3-handed "Spin and Go" SNG = 0.00140016 (~714 buyins)
3% ROI player's optimal bankroll fraction for 3-handed "Spin and Go" SNG = 0.00302398 (~331 buyins)
4% ROI player's optimal bankroll fraction for 3-handed "Spin and Go" SNG = 0.00533822 (~187 buyins)
5% ROI player's optimal bankroll fraction for 3-handed "Spin and Go" SNG = 0.00816306 (~123 buyins)

1% ROI player's optimal bankroll fraction increase ratio = 0.0053185/0.00047093 = ~11.3x
2% ROI player's optimal bankroll fraction increase ratio = 0.0106388/0.00140016 = ~7.6x
3% ROI player's optimal bankroll fraction increase ratio = 0.0159576/0.00302398 = ~5.3x
4% ROI player's optimal bankroll fraction increase ratio = 0.0212764/0.00533822 = ~4.0x
5% ROI player's optimal bankroll fraction increase ratio = 0.0265952/0.00816306 = ~3.3x

I'll see if I can re-do this with the top 3 prize-levels split 80/10/10 tomorrow (got killer backache from sitting infront of computer today and off to chill for a bit now...).

Juk

Quite awesome, thanks Juk!

NP!

BTW: the reason some of the values changed quite a bit from the first NVG post(s) is because I assumed that the prizes returned didn't include the rake (ie: I was comparing unraked "WTA" to raked "Spin & Go", thinking they were both unraked...) and it was only when I looked more carefully I saw that the rake was taken as part of the prize structure: I can only imagine that most recreational players playing these will have no real idea what is being taken from them as compared to normal $X+$Y type SNG buy-ins... This will also open the door for Stars to sneakily increase the fees on these without recreational players realizing...

Juk

In their defense, they do announce the effective rake percentage on the website where the breakdown of payouts is listed; not that many players would see it there. But even better, they list the games in the client as $28.80+$1.20 (for example), at least as far as I know.

Ah, that's OK then.

Juk

Didnt someone point out that Kelly Criterion is not directly applicable for MTT style formats?

Yeah, in reality you don't have a fixed probability of winning for each SNG you play so no it's not directly applicable (hence why I tried to emphasize not to blindly follow the listed bankroll requirements!).

That said, even with this unrealistic assumption, I still think it's useful/interesting to look at the difference (and especially the ratio of this difference) in bankroll requirements between the two types of games.

Juk

Because of what?
Knowing nash for -12bb, and playing ABC before?
Maybe due to all the same spots, and same ICM-situations you get into?
Or due to the fact that you only ever play nlhe-hypers in SnG's nowadays?

...

Now that I think of how terrible my opponents in MTT's usually are... I think you might even be right, lol... SnG's are the easiest form of poker, but likely exactly due to that, the competitions is so tough. Lowest edge games avaible, and so much information out there, for all those frequently repeating spots...
Yeah whatever, **** it, you are right...

Thats how typical MTT player views SNGs and thats where he is insanely wrong. High level SNGs feature plays which are far from ABC and knowing Nash is nothing compared to what SNG players know.

That said, MTT players usually feature worse ABC than SNG players and are awful in push/fold. They can keep being bad because MTTs feature insane amounts of fishes, compared to SNGs. Another feature of MTT players is inability to know the true ROI, which is also different from SNGs where a year sample can be pretty representative.