SNE launches a petition against Spin & Go format

http://www.pokertube.com/poker-news/poker-gossip-opinion/players-raising-their-voice-against-spin-goes-on-pokerstars

Looks like the spin & goes might be a quite a controversial move by PokerStars - the analysis of the format by a long-time successful sit & go professional leads him into launching a petition against the format, seems like plenty of players are following his lead.

I get the point there and I agree - no one doubts that Spin & Gos are in the long run as or maybe even more profitable than any other format - the problem lies within the fact that in Spin & Gos you could easily be unbelievably more off the expected winrate than in any other previous poker format, can't imagine playing those for a living.

On October 09 2014 19:31 Scarmaker wrote: I get the point there and I agree - no one doubts that Spin & Gos are in the long run as or maybe even more profitable than any other format

On October 02 2014 14:23 MadeInPolanD wrote: YO DAWG I HEARD YOU LIKE RAKE SO I PUT RAKE IN YOUR BUY IN AND IN YOUR WINNIGS (most of the time prizepool is 2x buy in and 3 players payed that buy in, and then it's raked :D )

On October 04 2014 02:06 Rapoza wrote: 1 each 100x we have a chance to get $10, and 1 each 100x we got $10 there is a chance to get $100 or better... and is still needed to beat 2 other random guys to get something... so... by the time we hit a big jackpot we already lost $700 to rake... well played pokerstars

petition:

http://tiltbook.com/masuronike/blog/p...-petition-against-spingo-tournaments/

I wish they would ban cheating programs such as poker manager etc. All tables should be anonymous. People whining because they can no longer rely on poker managers to make the money for them. Its time to get a real job.

On October 10 2014 00:01 awesomeguy2 wrote: I wish they would ban cheating programs such as poker manager etc. All tables should be anonymous. People whining because they can no longer rely on poker managers to make the money for them. Its time to get a real job.

ip ban plz

On October 10 2014 00:01 awesomeguy2 wrote: I wish they would ban cheating programs such as poker manager etc. All tables should be anonymous. People whining because they can no longer rely on poker managers to make the money for them. Its time to get a real job.

What happened to awesomeguy1? I'll miss him

On October 10 2014 00:01 awesomeguy2 wrote: I wish they would ban cheating programs such as poker manager etc. All tables should be anonymous. People whining because they can no longer rely on poker managers to make the money for them. Its time to get a real job.

lmao, surely stars will listen

This is obviously not catered to regs and pros who make a living out of poker and that is absolutely fine, if recreational players like this then so be it

awesomeguy2 is right. Especially how Holdem manager / trackers are developing now... "you should 3-bet this guy" "you should check-raise turn vs this guy"

bleh

This is stuff you should figure out yourself, not have a program to tell you. Its the same as maphack in brood war

i just doubled my bankroll playing spin and go

On October 11 2014 03:15 VanDerMeyde wrote: awesomeguy2 is right. Especially how Holdem manager / trackers are developing now... "you should 3-bet this guy" "you should check-raise turn vs this guy" bleh

can you teach me how to configure mine to work like that?

ban baal

pokerstars.baal you mean?

Anyway 0 chance they are getting rid of this with so much invested in marketing

On October 11 2014 00:46 Baalim wrote: This is obviously not catered to regs and pros who make a living out of poker and that is absolutely fine, if recreational players like this then so be it

how is it fine that they'll stop losing money on the regular tables to go lose there?

yes it sucks for pro regs when stars keep figuring out better ways to rake in a larger slice of the fish money directly before letting the regs have a shot at getting a share.

the problem is the regs don't have any bargaining position at all. stars need not worry about alienating them either - as long as there's any money to be made there will be regs 24tabling all day to make it no matter how badly they feel the site treats them.

I don't think its good for stars to stop regs from making money. if nobody makes money from poker anymore, people who play it hoping to make money from it will stop. I think the majority of people playing it thinks they can be good enough to make money from it (eventually?), even the fishes.

People making millions on stars is pretty good for the site imo, it keeps people's hopes up.

On October 11 2014 13:37 Floofy wrote: I don't think its good for stars to stop regs from making money. if nobody makes money from poker anymore, people who play it hoping to make money from it will stop. I think the majority of people playing it thinks they can be good enough to make money from it (eventually?), even the fishes. People making millions on stars is pretty good for the site imo, it keeps people's hopes up.

thanks for sharing your view, it was interesting but i actually think the opposite.

I think fish keep playing when they get the great feeling of winning from time to time, it's what keeps them coming back. if they're playing a game closer to pure gambling with the same illusion of control through making decisions and pressing buttons, they get to have the winning feeling at a decent frequency. If a fish sits in something like hsnl cash in 2014 they'll get their eyes ripped out instantly and have no chance at all. there's a limit to how often a fish will keep coming back into a game in which they _NEVER_ win.

lastly you're not going to see a situation where you never hear about anyone win, no matter how tough things get for regs. there will always be big winners visible no matter what. in statistical terms the right tail of the distribution will always extend into big winner territory and this is what's visible to fish, not the location of the mean (e.g. start with 10,000 coin flippers, move the 5000 winners of the flips to round 2, 2500 winners round 3, etc, until you find the best coinflippers on earth)

fuck baal and his logic

yeah like psychological flow? but there are also lots of fishy rocks who are super zombified and probably also dislike this kind of format. also irrespective of how they feel hyper turbo will suck money from their wallet faster no? it's like a natural resource if you suck too much of it it's less sustainable

--- Nuked ---

--- Nuked ---

On October 11 2014 21:28 Rapoza wrote: I believe "Spin&Go" target are players who make small deposits($10~$50) and wants a lucky shot to get huge ROI over minimum time. Since $2 prize pool will happen over and over again... even recreative players over time should "feel" like the spin is rigged.

thats actually nice :D

On October 11 2014 14:16 Romm3l wrote: Show nested quote + On October 11 2014 13:37 Floofy wrote: I don't think its good for stars to stop regs from making money. if nobody makes money from poker anymore, people who play it hoping to make money from it will stop. I think the majority of people playing it thinks they can be good enough to make money from it (eventually?), even the fishes. People making millions on stars is pretty good for the site imo, it keeps people's hopes up. thanks for sharing your view, it was interesting but i actually think the opposite. I think fish keep playing when they get the great feeling of winning from time to time, it's what keeps them coming back. if they're playing a game closer to pure gambling with the same illusion of control through making decisions and pressing buttons, they get to have the winning feeling at a decent frequency. If a fish sits in something like hsnl cash in 2014 they'll get their eyes ripped out instantly and have no chance at all. there's a limit to how often a fish will keep coming back into a game in which they _NEVER_ win. lastly you're not going to see a situation where you never hear about anyone win, no matter how tough things get for regs. there will always be big winners visible no matter what. in statistical terms the right tail of the distribution will always extend into big winner territory and this is what's visible to fish, not the location of the mean (e.g. start with 10,000 coin flippers, move the 5000 winners of the flips to round 2, 2500 winners round 3, etc, until you find the best coinflippers on earth)

Sounds like you sir have no idea what variance is.
There ya go: http://pokerdope.com/poker-variance-calculator/ or just flip a coin 20 times, tell us how it went.
You can see the "VISIBILITY" of winrate as high as 4bb/100 ( quite high for 6max higher stakes, or any stakes for that matter ) for lets say 20k hands - and how much fish sit for one session?

This is my favourite part:

there's a limit to how often a fish will keep coming back into a game in which they _NEVER_ win.

It's like you never played this game or hasn't seen how many bad beats can occur in one session.

Spin and Go is fun. It made me deposit and burn 200usd in two days. Sng guys are getting fucked though but you have to take the good with the bad

I thought normal SnG's were completly dead anyway

On October 11 2014 13:37 Floofy wrote: I don't think its good for stars to stop regs from making money. if nobody makes money from poker anymore, people who play it hoping to make money from it will stop. I think the majority of people playing it thinks they can be good enough to make money from it (eventually?), even the fishes. People making millions on stars is pretty good for the site imo, it keeps people's hopes up.

explain vegas casinos please

On October 12 2014 01:54 MadeInPolanD wrote: Show nested quote + On October 11 2014 21:28 Rapoza wrote: I believe "Spin&Go" target are players who make small deposits($10~$50) and wants a lucky shot to get huge ROI over minimum time. Since $2 prize pool will happen over and over again... even recreative players over time should "feel" like the spin is rigged. thats actually nice :D   On October 11 2014 14:16 Romm3l wrote:   On October 11 2014 13:37 Floofy wrote: I don't think its good for stars to stop regs from making money. if nobody makes money from poker anymore, people who play it hoping to make money from it will stop. I think the majority of people playing it thinks they can be good enough to make money from it (eventually?), even the fishes. People making millions on stars is pretty good for the site imo, it keeps people's hopes up. thanks for sharing your view, it was interesting but i actually think the opposite. I think fish keep playing when they get the great feeling of winning from time to time, it's what keeps them coming back. if they're playing a game closer to pure gambling with the same illusion of control through making decisions and pressing buttons, they get to have the winning feeling at a decent frequency. If a fish sits in something like hsnl cash in 2014 they'll get their eyes ripped out instantly and have no chance at all. there's a limit to how often a fish will keep coming back into a game in which they _NEVER_ win. lastly you're not going to see a situation where you never hear about anyone win, no matter how tough things get for regs. there will always be big winners visible no matter what. in statistical terms the right tail of the distribution will always extend into big winner territory and this is what's visible to fish, not the location of the mean (e.g. start with 10,000 coin flippers, move the 5000 winners of the flips to round 2, 2500 winners round 3, etc, until you find the best coinflippers on earth) Sounds like you sir have no idea what variance is. There ya go: http://pokerdope.com/poker-variance-calculator/ or just flip a coin 20 times, tell us how it went. You can see the "VISIBILITY" of winrate as high as 4bb/100 ( quite high for 6max higher stakes, or any stakes for that matter ) for lets say 20k hands - and how much fish sit for one session? This is my favourite part:   there's a limit to how often a fish will keep coming back into a game in which they _NEVER_ win. It's like you never played this game or hasn't seen how many bad beats can occur in one session.

the bad beats and low winrate visibility occur to you with your 4bb/100.

what you forget is you and four other regs are each making 4bb/100++ all from the same fish, whos negative winrate becomes pretty extreme and the fact (s)he is losing badly becomes pretty visible pretty fast.

another thing you don't consider is that while you might guess a fish lossrate and stdev, it probably is incorrect to assume their results follow a gaussian distribution (a central assumption in that basic simulator). You can use central limit theorem to say their observed result after a huge sample of 100 hand blocks will be normally distributed around the true expectation, but that doesn't tell you anything about the fish's actual experience in any given session. fish get a lot of money in in situations where they're drawing stone dead multiway, consistently lose small amounts of money on early streets in ways that pose no risk to the person exploiting them, and a bunch of other possibilities that all lead to a skewed results distribution with a fat left tail and thin right one.

scout326 is a good experimental example of a fish at hsnl ring since he has a big sample size. he made something like -60bb/100, his graph looked like y=-ax and he hardly ever came out of a session in the green.

On October 12 2014 08:48 Skoal wrote: Show nested quote + On October 11 2014 13:37 Floofy wrote: I don't think its good for stars to stop regs from making money. if nobody makes money from poker anymore, people who play it hoping to make money from it will stop. I think the majority of people playing it thinks they can be good enough to make money from it (eventually?), even the fishes. People making millions on stars is pretty good for the site imo, it keeps people's hopes up. explain vegas casinos please

pokerstars doesn't send prostitutes to your hotel

On October 12 2014 09:08 Santafairy wrote: Show nested quote + On October 12 2014 08:48 Skoal wrote:   On October 11 2014 13:37 Floofy wrote: I don't think its good for stars to stop regs from making money. if nobody makes money from poker anymore, people who play it hoping to make money from it will stop. I think the majority of people playing it thinks they can be good enough to make money from it (eventually?), even the fishes. People making millions on stars is pretty good for the site imo, it keeps people's hopes up. explain vegas casinos please pokerstars doesn't send prostitutes to your hotel

apparently you havent received live trny ticket -_-

I suppose they can spread whatever game they like it does suck that the fish always tend to flock to the shittier games whether that be cap tables or now these spin n gos.

What is extremely shady of them is to rake them twice. They rake the buyins and then they also rake 7% out of the top 3 prize pools...

Pokerstars have the complete monopoly over the market and they can do whatever the fuck they want to do, thats the problem, microgaming, ipoker,ongame and enet are the only other networks left im if accurate, and I doubt they got more than 10% of the market combined together

They re pretty aware of all their doings -> double rake here, the temporary 235 FPP tournament problems. They ll just try a bunch of mega user unfriendly stuff, if many people complain about it they ll just w a comment like "whoops we didn't mean that " all will be forgiven & repeat.

I see games raked once and if I counted right rake is for the $1 spinngo is 7.56% (based on prize pool distributed)

zoom and spin and go is all the fishes need when playing poker online. add casino games and sporting bets and you will have a very profitable site. they honestly dont need regs at all now, they've already built a world reknown brand name and created a gigantic user base (built by regs from the ground up) to work with

On October 12 2014 01:54 MadeInPolanD wrote: Show nested quote + On October 11 2014 21:28 Rapoza wrote: I believe "Spin&Go" target are players who make small deposits($10~$50) and wants a lucky shot to get huge ROI over minimum time. Since $2 prize pool will happen over and over again... even recreative players over time should "feel" like the spin is rigged. thats actually nice :D   On October 11 2014 14:16 Romm3l wrote:   On October 11 2014 13:37 Floofy wrote: I don't think its good for stars to stop regs from making money. if nobody makes money from poker anymore, people who play it hoping to make money from it will stop. I think the majority of people playing it thinks they can be good enough to make money from it (eventually?), even the fishes. People making millions on stars is pretty good for the site imo, it keeps people's hopes up. thanks for sharing your view, it was interesting but i actually think the opposite. I think fish keep playing when they get the great feeling of winning from time to time, it's what keeps them coming back. if they're playing a game closer to pure gambling with the same illusion of control through making decisions and pressing buttons, they get to have the winning feeling at a decent frequency. If a fish sits in something like hsnl cash in 2014 they'll get their eyes ripped out instantly and have no chance at all. there's a limit to how often a fish will keep coming back into a game in which they _NEVER_ win. lastly you're not going to see a situation where you never hear about anyone win, no matter how tough things get for regs. there will always be big winners visible no matter what. in statistical terms the right tail of the distribution will always extend into big winner territory and this is what's visible to fish, not the location of the mean (e.g. start with 10,000 coin flippers, move the 5000 winners of the flips to round 2, 2500 winners round 3, etc, until you find the best coinflippers on earth) Sounds like you sir have no idea what variance is. There ya go: http://pokerdope.com/poker-variance-calculator/ or just flip a coin 20 times, tell us how it went. You can see the "VISIBILITY" of winrate as high as 4bb/100 ( quite high for 6max higher stakes, or any stakes for that matter ) for lets say 20k hands - and how much fish sit for one session? This is my favourite part:   there's a limit to how often a fish will keep coming back into a game in which they _NEVER_ win. It's like you never played this game or hasn't seen how many bad beats can occur in one session.

hes played high stakes for years, he knows what hes talking about.

fish have ridiculously high lossrates. go play with a variance calculator for a fish with a -30BB/100 loss rate and 100BB/100 standard deviations over 20k hand samples. the best they can hope to do is something like -40 buyins.

hell, check the 95% confidence areas on 5k samples. fish with those winrates win over 5k hands ~1%.

Where can i find info that most fish are -30BB/100?

you dont "find " such information, you google for a good poker variance calculator , put in the expect winrate in the long run and the standard deviation and you get XX amount of graphs of how they could run in a given sample

for example :
http://pokerdope.com/poker-variance-calculator/


and -30bb/100 winrate for fishes seem about decent if not even exaggerated

depends on the fish and depends on how tough the game is. someone like guy who isnt that bad of a player in general but plays in the toughest lineups probably has a -10BB/100 to -15BB/100 winrate in really tough games. some fish are just shooting it off like scout and are huge losers. some fish that are loose passive play in soft lineups and are still losing at a steady rate, but not that high.

i used to look people up when i grinded party and there were lots of huge losers, and these were soft lineups to begin with. cant even imagine how big of a loser someone can be in a really tough HSNL lineup

On October 16 2014 18:39 Daut wrote: like guy who isnt that bad of a player in general but plays in the toughest lineups probably has a -10BB/100 to -15BB/100 winrate in really tough games.

Most fish nowdays arent"that bad" and most regs are no Galfond. ( as most games are no HSNL) So i'd say most of the time the scenario is not that "fish never win", but for their "session" of couple hundreds of hands / week some (not insignificant % ) can "win" for weeks ;o

For -15bb/100 (big blinds) in 2k hands, ~30% of the "area" of 95% confidence interval is in the plus.

I'm curious how Daut would do 4-6 tabling 600nl over 100k hands on pokerstars these days.

Not a challenge, just curious.

edit - not a slight at all on the mathematicians' skills (he rocks), I'm curious how he'd do in todays games is all.

PS. fuck nlhe. plo is dollar dollar bills yo

edit - now that I'm more sober. I really am wondering, do you think you'd be able to pull off a ~4 bb win rate at nl600? What *are* you doing pokerwise these days anyway. Screw it, make a well already. Holy monopoly balls.

On October 17 2014 05:38 devon06atX wrote: I'm curious how Daut would do 4-6 tabling 600nl over 100k hands on pokerstars these days. Not a challenge, just curious. edit - not a slight at all on the mathematicians' skills (he rocks), I'm curious how he'd do in todays games is all. PS. fuck nlhe. plo is dollar dollar bills yo edit - now that I'm more sober. I really am wondering, do you think you'd be able to pull off a ~4 bb win rate at nl600? What *are* you doing pokerwise these days anyway. Screw it, make a well already. Holy monopoly balls.

+1 on a Daut Well. He prolly moved on to solving chess manually or something.

On October 17 2014 05:38 devon06atX wrote: I'm curious how Daut would do 4-6 tabling 600nl over 100k hands on pokerstars these days. Not a challenge, just curious. edit - not a slight at all on the mathematicians' skills (he rocks), I'm curious how he'd do in todays games is all. PS. fuck nlhe. plo is dollar dollar bills yo edit - now that I'm more sober. I really am wondering, do you think you'd be able to pull off a ~4 bb win rate at nl600? What *are* you doing pokerwise these days anyway. Screw it, make a well already. Holy monopoly balls.

at this very moment id probably be a small loser doing that, like -1.5bb/100. seems like lineups are pretty tough these days and the regs are definitely better than me now, especially since i moved to PLO/MTT the last few years (shit maybe id be a bigger loser even?). dont really know how id do at 3/6 plo either, those lineups vary wildly depending on what fish are sitting. if i put in some work id probably be a very small winner, but its really hard to imagine beating those games up vs very few fish and guys who have millions of hands and are always sitting. and if im losing, how are these awful fish doing.....

the fish ive played with in the past year sometimes run it up to like 3-4 stacks, but generally bust it before they leave the table. they are giant losers. maybe the "fish" on stars are guys who play like 26/9 and play ok but just lose at like -6bb/100 and can go on 20k hand winning stretches. but most of the fish ive seen are either super loose passive (so low standard deviation) or just spewtards who are way too loose to win over more than a tiny sample.

besides, romm3l explicitly talked about HSNL, not mid stakes cash in his post so how people play lower is irrelevant.

Make a well.

Liquidpoker loves you.

You're probably the favourite person on lp. Besides spets soft porn. Your shit is gospel

On October 17 2014 14:29 Daut wrote: [ besides, romm3l explicitly talked about HSNL, not mid stakes cash in his post so how people play lower is irrelevant.

As i understand, he was referring to Floofy's post that was about fish in general.

doesn't make a huge difference what game as long as there are mainly regs in them. I did mention hsnl since that is my main experience in watching fish toss money into a black hole

it's simple logic to guess fish's lossrates, you don't need to find evidence or something. let's go through some assumptions and deductions:

1. regs that are longterm winners play more hands, more tables and more hours, and stay around more often than the average player

2. it follows from (1) most tables running at any given time are full of regs

3. high volume regs might be making 0-5bb/100 pre-rakeback on avg, let's say the avg reg wins at 2bb/100

4. it follows from (2) that a table with a big fish at any reasonable stakes that professionals find it worthwhile to grind will be considered a greater than average table

5. from (3) and (4) it follows that regs win more than 2bb/100 in a game with one big fish. Let's call it 5bb/100.

6. poker is a zero sum game after rake.

7. from (5) and (6) it follows that:

X + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + R = 0

Where:
X is the fish winrate at a table of five regs and one fish
R is the bb/100 going into rake

Rearrange this equation and plug in whatever R is at your stakes to get the (LARGE) fish lossrate.

Who cares. As long as they keep depositing.

edit - I'm curious the % of true winners on this site. In general I've read it's something like 5% winners total.. I'm certain this site has a much larger ratio, but still.

btw tt, I know you got the star a while ago, it was long over-due. You should write a little essay/beginners guide on how to crush. I think it would be applicable to all micros. I don't remember what.. cariadon (I think), people are over thinking the shit out of of it. Tell the masses what sites you're playing on man.

1. Pick a good deal with 50%++ rb @ prima/ipoker/enet

2. Dont level yourself cause at least in prima you ll mainly play vs fishregs

3. Profit


Can I have my green star too now?

rekrul said 19% are winners 14% win some 5% win a lot

You've got my vote.

Winner winner chicken dinner.

On October 18 2014 15:05 Romm3l wrote: doesn't make a huge difference what game as long as there are mainly regs in them. I did mention hsnl since that is my main experience in watching fish toss money into a black hole

I disagree. On HSL there are much better players that exploit fish better.

I'd say most regs win 0-2bb/100, 4bb/100 longterm is unsusual in 6max ( i rememeber when PTR was available on PS and i was marking midstakes regs winrates like crazy )

And that's where your math and my math dont add up, cause i think its more like:

X + 0.2 + 0.5 + 1.5 + 2.5 + 1 + R= 0

X = -5,7bb/100 - R

rake is what? 8bb?

so its -12,7bb/100

And since we talk about majority of fish, majority plays below NL400, so i understand you have main experience in HSL, but its not the majority. Also big fish are exceptional nowdays.

On October 20 2014 05:07 MadeInPolanD wrote: Show nested quote + On October 18 2014 15:05 Romm3l wrote: doesn't make a huge difference what game as long as there are mainly regs in them. I did mention hsnl since that is my main experience in watching fish toss money into a black hole I disagree. On HSL there are much better players that exploit fish better. I'd say most regs win 0-2bb/100, 4bb/100 longterm is unsusual in 6max ( i rememeber when PTR was available on PS and i was marking midstakes regs winrates like crazy ) And that's where your math and my math dont add up, cause i think its more like: X + 0.2 + 0.5 + 1.5 + 2.5 + 1 + R= 0 X = -5,7bb/100 - R rake is what? 8bb? so its -12,7bb/100 And since we talk about majority of fish, majority plays below NL400, so i understand you have main experience in HSL, but its not the majority. Also big fish are exceptional nowdays.

lets say its NL200 and your winrates are correct. isnt the rake like 4bb/100 per player? so it would be -5.7-24=-30bb. at PLO the rake is even bigger. IIRC, 11bb/100 at 100PLO, 7bb/100 at 200PLO, 4bb/100 at 400PLO

lol, it sounds right LOL