SNE launches a petition against Spin & Go format - Page 30 - Poker News

Max Cut beat me to it.

I'm pretty sure a good hyper player(HU mainly) could achieve a 10%ROI while 4-tabling Spin'n'Gos. Mostly due the reasons I mentioned about suboptimal play when spinning low.

Quote

10-18-2014 , 07:26 PM

#727

eurodp

adept

Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 890

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telepat0r

Max Cut beat me to it.

I'm pretty sure a good hyper player(HU mainly) could achieve a 10%ROI while 4-tabling Spin'n'Gos. Mostly due the reasons I mentioned about suboptimal play when spinning low.

Need to be careful with assuming that current conditions of the game while it is new and heavily marketed will be the same later on.

Quote

10-18-2014 , 07:31 PM

#728

Max Cut

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telepat0r

Max Cut beat me to it.

I'm pretty sure a good hyper player(HU mainly) could achieve a 10%ROI while 4-tabling Spin'n'Gos. Mostly due the reasons I mentioned about suboptimal play when spinning low.

Great news if true.

Quote

10-18-2014 , 07:37 PM

#729

Telepat0r

centurion

Join Date: Jun 2014 Posts: 139

Quote:

Originally Posted by eurodp

Need to be careful with assuming that current conditions of the game while it is new and heavily marketed will be the same later on.

Of course you're right and I also was reffering to the game as they are at this moment. As mentioned earlier I also anticipate the game to evolve very fast causing the obtainable winrate to drop signifcantly within a not to wide timeframe.

My guess is that the skill-level will dramatially increase until the time when good players will only be able to achieve a 5-6% ROI and from then it will slowly die.

Quote

10-18-2014 , 07:51 PM

#730

Telepat0r

centurion

Join Date: Jun 2014 Posts: 139

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max Cut

Great news if true.

I'll take that as meaning that you'll give em a shot?

Just PM me when you throw that Vegas party off of the 1000x Jackpot. I really wanna get laid too :/

Not much booty around these days for a 19yo european with a busto bankroll.

Quote

10-18-2014 , 08:05 PM

#731

SantaCruz

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,161

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telepat0r

Try and read the posts again. We were discussing ITM percentages not ROI.

An ITM% of 38 is the equivalent of an 8-10% ROI when it's variance-adjusted.

Would have helped a bit if you hadn't been referring to it as winrate. It is still a ridiculous number though. Even at the $1 level, 10% or 12% is out of reach for those particular games. The high rake makes these games very difficult to beat. These are 3max not 6max games we are talking about. Rec players have no chance whatsoever of beating these games. Both the rec players and the regs are loosers in these games because too much of the money quickly gets burned up in rake.

My criticism of these games is that they lure rec players into games they can't beat while masking the fact that they are loosing money through the high variance casino aspect of it. If PokerStars is trying to get new players this isn't how to do it. If someone decides to give poker a try and deposits $50 (which is actually a common amount for someone testing the waters) and then looses that $50 in one day they are very likely to permanently give up on poker.

Quote

10-18-2014 , 08:33 PM

#732

omybike

adept

Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 944

We are close to 50 pages. there was enough BS said now. I think we as (semi)"reg" community should not go for ban the spin&go because it will not happen and it maybe even bad for poker (because recs seems to like this things a lot).

On the first place i think for hyper i think PokerStars did a great job to have a skillful game with lots of blindlevels. Rake is a bit on the higher side imo for a 3 way hyper.

what kind of players do play Spin& go?
I will make it easy and make 3 groups:

1. total fish who like roulet no clue about what % hit of the jackpot just like the rolling and the sound etc etc (but do have less fun i think because hit too much of time 2x)

2. people who like to be good players/ winning players and want to be the grinders but do not really have a clue

3. reg/ winning players

I think as a (semi) reg community it would be very good if we put our brains together and make the format a way that it is grindebel. But Fish still have to like it as much as they do now.(group 1 because for everyone group 1 have to be happy to play)

Ok this in my idea and i hope i can get some feedback (with math/ variance calculations etc if somebody is also willing to make this format better for everyone)

i think for group 2 and 3 it is a step in the good direction and i think group 1 will not even notice the change. Ofcourse what i have made is probably far from optimal but i think it better for everyone then what there is now.
(use 30$ spin&Go in tabel. First is what now, second is my proposal. )

Quote

10-18-2014 , 08:38 PM

#733

Telepat0r

centurion

Join Date: Jun 2014 Posts: 139

Quote:

Originally Posted by SantaCruz

You can apply that logic to just about any format of poker and come to the same conclusion. I'll bet a dollar that more than 50% of rec players playing 6max turbo SNG or MTT's will think they're close to breakeven or slightly winning even if not. The ones that don't are the people who invested in a tracker and they'll know whether they're loosing players or winners in any format regardless of variance.

It's just a natural thing for humans to overestimate their ability/profitability and thus keep playing. It's the key to the succes of poker. The variance is the villain on this particular issue and owning a tracker makes those illusions disappear no matter if it's STT or spin'n'go. If you're a rec player and don't own a tracker the odds are you think you're winning in the long run. That goes for every form of poker maybe with the exception of HU.

Also I think you're way off saying it's not possible to obtain a 10%ROI in the 1$'s. I've been running like **** and I'm a 7% ROI variance-adjusted. It's a humble samplesize of only 250 but I'm confident that it's possible.

Quote

10-18-2014 , 08:46 PM

#734

Telepat0r

centurion

Join Date: Jun 2014 Posts: 139

@Omybike

I think the solution is fairly straightforward. Reducing rake (even if only a little bit) and even out the variance caused by the 1/20,000 jackpots. It could be done by cutting the major jackpot in half to make it x500 and making them twice as frequent.

Of course the remodelling of the jackpots could be done in in many many different ways to even out variance.

Quote

10-18-2014 , 08:55 PM

#735

jfound

banned

Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 2,389

spin and go are so fun; Rake is a little high, but only reason why i still play poker. have a small chance to win something big in minutes.
mtt takes way too long,
cash game is a long grind
sng are tough, rake is too high

Quote

10-18-2014 , 09:24 PM

#736

omybike

adept

Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 944

I would like to explain my proposal a bit better. it is not that i have just randomly change the number. There is some logic behind it. (but still maybe not optimal)

in the current situation goes : (1,8+0,72+0,54)/3= 1,02$ per player to the highest jackpots.

in my proposal there goes: (1,08+0,36+0,36)/3= 0,72$ per player to the highest jackpot. maybe for a lot of you this seems not like a big change but i think in term of variance it is pretty huge and will make a lot of unlucky (winning) players over big sample not lose.

But i hope some variance calculations if somebody can make then will tell if it has a big influence? (i do not know exactly how to do that... )

Quote

10-18-2014 , 09:55 PM

#737

Max Cut

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by omybike

I responded to your post in the SP&G discussion thread with some simulation results.

forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=44972002&postcount=687

Quote

10-18-2014 , 10:00 PM

#738

SantaCruz

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,161

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telepat0r

The problem here isn't whether or not rec players think they are winning or losing. It is the rate at which they are actually losing that is important when trying to determine if this is a good way of bringing in rec players to a site. A rep for the Merge Network told me that their stats showed that players who lose slowly tend to redeposit whereas players who lose quickly don't. I'm sure that fact is true on all of the networks.

They put a spinner on a game that is already a fast loser for inexperienced players. Add to that fact that until the new player hits a big spin he is going to be losing significantly faster than normal. Most new players aren't going to be bankrolled to ride out that variance. Players hit the big 1,000x spin on average of about once every 20,000 games.

My own concerns are what implications will games like this have for California? A balance in poker has been developed over a matter of decades. If a cardroom charges too much rake players can't win and poker ceases to be the game that we know. Too little rake and the cardroom goes out of business. I've been warning folks here in California for the last couple of years that the new sites may tweak the game in ways to swing the pendulum in their favor so that the new sites can more easily cover the expenses of licensing and taxes which will be on the steep side. I never figured that PokerStars would be the network to introduce such games into the state. But then again I never figured that Amaya would buy PokerStars.

I don't play on PokerStars so this particular game has no effect on me. But PokerStars is a leader in the industry. Games like this that draw players away from the general play pool could have a very serious negative impact in markets with small player pools.

Quote

10-18-2014 , 10:08 PM

#739

Telepat0r

centurion

Join Date: Jun 2014 Posts: 139

I doubt it. You're over-interpreting the situation too much. If the rec don't seem to like the format then the vast majority would just move on to the other selection of games which they enjoy more. Spin&Go are nothing but an ingredient to an already wide selection of poker-variants offered at their sites.

Quote

10-18-2014 , 11:47 PM

#740

SantaCruz

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,161

No one is saying that the recs don't like the format. That's the problem. The format is designed to be addictive in nature. I think that it is pretty obvious that many recs are going to burn their entire bankroll on these games. If the spinner were put on a regular sitngo I doubt that we'd be as inflamed against the game.

Quote

10-19-2014 , 12:01 AM

#741

cneuy3

veteran

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 2,330

Quote:

Originally Posted by SantaCruz

Recs have larger negative ROIs in regular SnGs than in hypers. That's one reason hyper tourneys are so popular for Stars to run. There is a much smaller gap between Reg and Rec ROIs in this format; top to bottom

Quote

10-19-2014 , 12:10 AM

#742

SantaCruz

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,161

Quote:

Originally Posted by cneuy3

It's not the ROI that matters; it's the winrate. Rec's can lose money at a much faster rate in the hypers. Not to mention that a larger proportion of recs will lose money to begin with playing hypers.

Quote

10-19-2014 , 12:28 AM

#743

cneuy3

veteran

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 2,330

This is maxcut's variance simulation of a negative 7.8%ROI player. The one graph is a simulation of the player playing $30 Hyper Turbo Six Max at 65%/35% payout while the other graph shows that same player playing $30 Spin and Gos.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=3077

If I'm interpreting these graphs correctly and I think I am after a 2000 game sample size(not unreasonable for a rec) we have only 1% of them showing profit in the six max hypers while conversely close to 8% show a profit in the Spin and Go format.

There also doesn't seem to be much difference in the worst case scenarios.

Personally I don't understand all this talk about Recs losing money quicker in this format. I haven't seen any simulations show as such. Certainly doesn't seem like it's much worse off for them in comparison to playing standard hypers.

Quote

10-19-2014 , 12:56 AM

#744

cneuy3

veteran

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 2,330

The question that is most on my mind is what do these Recs do with their newly found bankrolls?

It's to early to tell but hopefully we eventually start noticing an influx of Recs into other games that they were previously under-rolled to play.

Quote

10-19-2014 , 12:58 AM

#745

Max Cut

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by cneuy3

For completeness, here are some numbers that accompany those particular simulations. The "low point" results seem to support the theory that a losing player might bust a fixed roll slightly faster on average. However, I would caution against over interpreting results from a single simulation comparison of this sort for the question at hand, especially without validating the assumptions first.

Spin&Go:

Code:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100000  simulations of  2000  games
Expected ROI (with 0% rakeback): -7.81%  (-156 Buyins)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
99% 	had ROI below   42.45%	(849 Buyins)
97.5% 	had ROI below   36.95%	(739 Buyins)
95% 	had ROI below   2.75%	(55 Buyins)
90% 	had ROI below   -1.95%	(-39 Buyins)
80% 	had ROI below   -5.40%	(-108 Buyins)
70% 	had ROI below   -7.25%	(-145 Buyins)
60% 	had ROI below   -8.60%	(-172 Buyins)
50% 	had ROI below   -9.75%	(-195 Buyins)
40% 	had ROI below   -10.85%	(-217 Buyins)
30% 	had ROI below   -11.95%	(-239 Buyins)
20% 	had ROI below   -13.20%	(-264 Buyins)
10% 	had ROI below   -14.80%	(-296 Buyins)
  5% 	had ROI below   -16.10%	(-322 Buyins)
  2.5% 	had ROI below   -17.20%	(-344 Buyins)
  1% 	had ROI below   -18.50%	(-370 Buyins)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  99% 	had a downswing greater than   89 buyins
  97.5% 	had a downswing greater than   105 buyins
  95% 	had a downswing greater than   120 buyins
  90% 	had a downswing greater than   140 buyins
  80% 	had a downswing greater than   169 buyins
  70% 	had a downswing greater than   190 buyins
  60% 	had a downswing greater than   208 buyins
  50% 	had a downswing greater than   226 buyins
  40% 	had a downswing greater than   244 buyins
  30% 	had a downswing greater than   263 buyins
  20% 	had a downswing greater than   284 buyins
  10% 	had a downswing greater than   314 buyins
  5% 	had a downswing greater than   338 buyins
  2.5% 	had a downswing greater than   358 buyins
  1% 	had a downswing greater than   382 buyins
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  99% 	had a low point lower than   -19 buyins
  97.5% 	had a low point lower than   -43 buyins
  95% 	had a low point lower than   -69 buyins
  90% 	had a low point lower than   -102 buyins
  80% 	had a low point lower than   -142 buyins
  70% 	had a low point lower than   -169 buyins
  60% 	had a low point lower than   -191 buyins
  50% 	had a low point lower than   -211 buyins
  40% 	had a low point lower than   -231 buyins
  30% 	had a low point lower than   -251 buyins
  20% 	had a low point lower than   -274 buyins
  10% 	had a low point lower than   -305 buyins
  5% 	had a low point lower than   -330 buyins
  2.5% 	had a low point lower than   -352 buyins
  1% 	had a low point lower than   -376 buyins
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6 max:

Code:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100000  simulations of  2000  games
Expected ROI (with 0% rakeback): -7.8%  (-156 Buyins)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
99% 	had ROI below   -0.36%	(-7 Buyins)
97.5% 	had ROI below   -1.55%	(-31 Buyins)
95% 	had ROI below   -2.59%	(-52 Buyins)
90% 	had ROI below   -3.76%	(-75 Buyins)
80% 	had ROI below   -5.17%	(-103 Buyins)
70% 	had ROI below   -6.16%	(-123 Buyins)
60% 	had ROI below   -7.03%	(-141 Buyins)
50% 	had ROI below   -7.85%	(-157 Buyins)
40% 	had ROI below   -8.63%	(-173 Buyins)
30% 	had ROI below   -9.48%	(-190 Buyins)
20% 	had ROI below   -10.50%	(-210 Buyins)
10% 	had ROI below   -11.85%	(-237 Buyins)
  5% 	had ROI below   -12.93%	(-259 Buyins)
  2.5% 	had ROI below   -13.89%	(-278 Buyins)
  1% 	had ROI below   -15.03%	(-301 Buyins)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  99% 	had a downswing greater than   66 buyins
  97.5% 	had a downswing greater than   80 buyins
  95% 	had a downswing greater than   93 buyins
  90% 	had a downswing greater than   110 buyins
  80% 	had a downswing greater than   133 buyins
  70% 	had a downswing greater than   150 buyins
  60% 	had a downswing greater than   165 buyins
  50% 	had a downswing greater than   179 buyins
  40% 	had a downswing greater than   194 buyins
  30% 	had a downswing greater than   209 buyins
  20% 	had a downswing greater than   228 buyins
  10% 	had a downswing greater than   253 buyins
  5% 	had a downswing greater than   274 buyins
  2.5% 	had a downswing greater than   292 buyins
  1% 	had a downswing greater than   314 buyins
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  99% 	had a low point lower than   -37 buyins
  97.5% 	had a low point lower than   -55 buyins
  95% 	had a low point lower than   -73 buyins
  90% 	had a low point lower than   -93 buyins
  80% 	had a low point lower than   -118 buyins
  70% 	had a low point lower than   -137 buyins
  60% 	had a low point lower than   -153 buyins
  50% 	had a low point lower than   -168 buyins
  40% 	had a low point lower than   -183 buyins
  30% 	had a low point lower than   -200 buyins
  20% 	had a low point lower than   -219 buyins
  10% 	had a low point lower than   -245 buyins
  5% 	had a low point lower than   -266 buyins
  2.5% 	had a low point lower than   -285 buyins
  1% 	had a low point lower than   -307 buyins
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by cneuy3

That is the hope.

Quote

10-19-2014 , 01:40 AM

#746

SantaCruz

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,161

Quote:

Originally Posted by cneuy3

Personally I don't understand all this talk about Recs losing money quicker in this format. I haven't seen any simulations show as such. Certainly doesn't seem like it's much worse off for them in comparison to playing standard hypers.

What I mean about recs losing money quicker in hypers than in regular sitngos despite the fact that their ROI might not be as low in hypers as regulars has to do with the games per hour. When we get down to it, winrate is all that is really important in poker, not ROI or ITM.

In a dollar game a rec might lose a dollar in half an hour. In a 3max hyper he might lose a dollar in a matter of minutes. There is the potential of a losing player to lose much more money per hour in a 3max hyper than in a regular sitngo despite that player having a higher ROI in the hypers. This is also why I scoffed at the idea of a 10% winrate in the 3max hypers. The winning players would win so much money playing these games that no one would ever want to play anything else. In the hypers the ROI's of the winning players and the losing players aren't so far apart, which is what makes having a low rake so important.

Since Spin and Gos also hold on to part of the prize pool to be given back to the player at a later date the question also arises as to whether the player's bankroll can weather the delay.

Quote

10-19-2014 , 03:29 AM

#747

bjsmith22

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 2,235

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alobar

If stars came out with a game that was like crack to fish, so thats all they wanted to play, and it was also unbeatable, so that the only games fish played were that game and all the other games completely dried up, meaning it was no longer possible to play poker for a living for 90% of the current pros on stars. Yeah I would be upset and pissed and all that. The difference is I wouldnt take to the internet to start a campaign and try to act like stars owes it to me to put fish in my normal games so they are beatable and I can continue with my life as a pro, id either get better or move on. Thats what poker is, you adapt and you plan for the future because you never know when youll have to adapt or move on.

Its just completely ******ed and ugly the way most regs act, time and time again make poker **** for the fish, then act like they are owed everything by the site they play on. If most of them weren't such ****, maybe less fish would be looking for something with more excitement, because "normal" poker wouldnt be abusive and boring as ****, and maybe the sites wouldnt keep looking to put in new ways to generate revenue because more fish would be playing and playing more because the environment was more friendly and fun. Or maybe not, but at least that is something we as group can actually control

+1
Pretty much sums up the thread and the poker economy for the last 3 years

Quote

10-19-2014 , 03:43 AM

#748

22riverrat22

veteran

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,447

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alobar

well how much can regs collectively hurt stars by leaving/quitting?

because this format isnt helping any existing segment of pros make a decent year to year living and alot of them were struggling prior to its release

if they move on to better things and other formats dont run as much, gtds get dropped, fewer tables per limit of cash... does it hurt stars more than their new casino game rake helps them? what about 5 years from now?

obv if stars will rake more for the average sum of potential forseeable futures with spin and goes as is, stars will keep them, and its on players to adapt/find other options

but id assume the optimal line from stars is a middle ground to modify the pay and rake structures to something grindable to encourage regs diversifying, rather than just leave it as is, hurting the other economies and giving nothing back

i mean why rake the hell out of these games as they are, when they are 6 minute duration games, why not put more of that rake in the low teir multipliers like 4/6x so the thrill of hitting a good game is more frequent, that money is just going to be recycled back into the game anyways. fish are already whining in chat about how its always teh 2x..........

Quote

10-19-2014 , 05:40 AM

#749

Cooozy

banned

Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 532

I bet longterm these games are bad for everyone. The fish will get frustrated quicker and be less likely to redeposit, the other games will have less traffic for regs, and it will hurt chances at legalization.

Seems like no matter what, it's going to be terrible for regs. *sheds single tear*