Variance is good for the recs, bad for the regs.

In the very long run it makes no a difference provided you have the stomach and bankroll to ride it out.

Some regs ITT need to man up.

I imagine they perhaps dont withdraw 100% of their jackpot winnings 100% of the time. Also if someone withdraws and spends the money, and considering that money gone from the poker economy could be extremely shortsighted. That guy who withdrew the money is probably going to deposit and play more, and is very unlikely to just quit at that point imo.

yeah..thats not far from the truth

:P

actually plays on unibet..where i can change name as i please, i like that.

also heard of a site that will start up with tables where ppl cant multi table, that will be where ill play.

i play for fun..would like that the players i play against also having a good time.

you Guys wants to prey on our fun..offcourse i dont like that..wouldnt anyone hate that?

These are fair points but the lower ROI is offset (partially at least) by the fact that SPNGs are much faster than MTTs so ROI is prolly not a good metric to compare.

And even if you were (in the worst case) 10k buyins under EV, if you had a decent ROI you would still be a winner. I understand its bad for steady income, but its prolly not as bad as live MTTs where someone could be hugely under or over EV for his whole life.

I am also not convinced that 500k games in 4 yrs are the limit. Didnt someone recently offer a prop bet that he could do 100k SNGs in 30 days or something?

there s no doubt you can play alot more spin and go than tournaments in the same ammount of time.

you dont understand that you can lose way more buy ins in spin and go, you need a ******ed big ammount of buy ins + life expense to sustain the time you wont cash in that can be insanely long

Also winning players are killing the economy so what we should do is install a bunch of high variance hyper turbo gambly games which have a huge lottery element which makes them all but unbeatable except for a select lucky few. Oh and lets rake them as well. Yeah those things are super great for rec players.

Negraneau posts and his followers cheer their support..

I here I thought the point of twoplustwo was about beating poker.

poker is about winning money

I think so to, it'll be interesting to see what recs experience losing money quickly in hyperturbos while also putting equity into a jackpot they'll never realize. I can't imagine it being #superenjoyablefunhappytimes over the long haul once the delusional nature of gambling loses its lustre and the losses amass more quickly than they would with any other format of poker gambling.

There's plenty of sites that have very low max tables, there were several sites that didn't allow HUDs and that segregate winning players from losing players etc. If that's what everyone wants all the time, tell me why those companies are doing so badly compared to Stars in terms of traffic.

You're stereotyping regs so hard now and talking about things you have no clue about, it'd be the same as if I said that every rec player is a drooling idiot when it comes to playing poker.

Lol at people saying SNEs shouldn't get mad at Stars for making last min changes that screws everything up and that SNEs should be prepared to jump ship to other games at a moment's notice and in the same thread people saying regs should man up and prepare to just ride out the variance train for 5-10 years..

twoplustwo are for all pokerplayers?

im just stating what i ,as the fish i am, feels.

im nobody's fanboy

well actually..i like that colman guy..but only for the free palenstine t shirt he wore.
that was pretty nice of him to show support

Thats not what Negreanu said. It was about who he would give bonuses.

By far the best post ITT.

Roi in these games which attainable will be low single figures at best if at all actually (depends on how u run in the multuplier games u get)

MTT roi can range from 20-100% Yes u can get in more volume in sngs but it doesn't come close to offsetting it when the most you win is 2x buy ins. Very low roi games = redic variance

Add in the rake model which is tough to beat with this format and it's a train wreck not just for the reg, but recreational players will get bled dry in this format far quicker than others.

I don't play sngs and have no interest in them other than the occasional HU for fun.
This format reduces a skill game to slots and is a killer for everyone.

I think the idea is ok actually but they need to change the multipliers to make it a sustainable format.

I don't really agree with this. I played massive volume online for 6 years for a good profit. I couldn't even tell you what the rake is online and I couldn't then....didn't care.

I play live only now and nobody I've spoken to has a better hourly than me and I don't give a rats about what the rake is.

FWIW if they added a deal button and lowered the rake just a small amount, I would withdraw all protest and welcome the games, would probably even play them myself. I don't hate the format, but as they currently are, it's just ridiculous

This point I am in agreement with the regs with. There should be a deal button. After all, it is the players money and if they all want to lower the variance when a big prize pool hits then fair enough imo.


Nope they are fantastic and one of the best ideas for online poker for a long time (since RUSH launched on FTP imo)

"‘masuronike’ expressed his concerns about the introduction of this format a couple of weeks back as he believed that these would take away a significant portion of action from the hyper SNG tables and / or cash games."

Keep crying. When hypers were introduced and it took away a lot of my action in HU SNG/Turbo HU SNGs where was masuronmike to save my action?

Right, we are not comparing ROIs. We're talking about swings. Quicker games do not offset swings and the corresponding bankroll management requirements.

Slightly off. 30k 6max hypers were successfully completed in 30 days (a beastly accomplishment). The 3max format is less multi-table friendly, so talking about 100k+ games completed in a year is probably looking at an extreme case at best..

I think it is shortsighted to see them as bad for the pokereconomy. I usually play the $1 ones, and if I win I will not cash out. Instead there will be a new fish at the 5-10 draw tables for a while A win doesn't neccesarily mean that money is removed from the economy.

For the sne wanna bees, just accept that you didn't consider all the risks with grinding out so much volume at a single site. This might be a sign that it is good to learn other poker games and other formats, because if you had then this wouldn't have affected you very much at all.

Don't give yourself a headache... Seriously, calling it a zero sum game trying to sound smart and not even thinking it through is ridiculous. Let's give an extreme example (in an easy structure):

2 -25% roi fish deposit $1k and play $100 hu sng's. In the current structure they are broke within 40 games on average, and stars can rake $172.40. The reg(s) that win them get $1827.60 profit and cashes it out.
Remove all the regs, these 2 fish now sit one another. They're both equally bad so on average they will go broke in roughly 232 games PURELY to rake. Stars gets ALL the money.
So yes, do tell me, how is this zero sum? Sure this scenario may pop up nowadays too, when 2 regs are battling one another. Oh wait nevermind, that almost never happens. Hundreds of regs just waiting for fish in almost any format. Pure reg battles with only people of similar (higher) skill are scarce.

Yes, removing all winning players will probably turn those -5% roi fish into winners because now they are the best (let's say 5% winner). And yes they may cashout just as much as the current regs. However by cutting all winning players, instead of a [15%,-25%] spread on expected roi (for a 95% confidence interval, numbers pulled out of my behind just as example), you now have those bottom [-1%,-25%] of only losing players. So the difference in skill between players is now smaller, and those losing players will evolve into something like a [5%,-15%] spread. How does this help stars? 2 ways:
-One I've already given with the previous extreme example: if 2 players are closer in skill between one another, money is going to move back and forth a lot more, which means stars can rake more.
-Another reason is the one you mentioned. Right now a bad player at -25% roi is almost solely meeting regs and he'll lose money in no time. If you'd remove them, he'd go up to (let's say) -15% roi and actually have a fairer shot at winning now and then, ergo enjoying the game more, ergo possibly depositing more. Yes, fish DO notice the difference between 9/10 losing sessions and 7/10 losing sessions. They may not be the best at poker but that doesn't make them idiots irl.

Really all professional poker players do for stars is keep all possible game structures running 24/7, more specifically the bigger field structures. Unless you want to argue that winning regs battle each other every day without the pressence of fish, which would be funny given the looks of most lobbies.

Ding ding. We have a winner. Surprise, regs...the sites don't care about lining your pockets with money. They care about attracting new gamblers who will pay higher rakes and not bitch about it.

+ 1

SNG regs crying that poker isn't seen as a skill game while whining at the same time that Stars is opening a new game that will be full fish because it's a LOLLOTOGAMBLING game are quite funny.

If poker was a skill game (i mean in the perception of the majority of the players) every whining winning reg would be at McDonalds or at College.
That's exactly because for most people it's not a skill game that you can win money.

(I don't even know why i'm explaining those captain obvious things, but yeah some people don't realize Stars don't give a *** about your games as long as you rake, and for regs to rake they need rec players.)
They could make you play 1.5BB deep poker with only one card shown to the player if it's the best way for them to get rake.

The fish that become winners probably take the money out slower than the regs did though, meaning more rake for the site and making it more likely the losing fish redeposit as they get more value for money. I guess that's the site's view anyway.

Then you have to weigh the reduced volume stars gets and how that adds up in rake. Recs very rarely are the first to open sit sngs. This is why start up sites and many casinos have props. It is bad when you fail even with pipe dream unrealistic examples.