Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Omaha_53, post: 6923828, member: 1034185"] Barring odd exceptions like "flip" MTT formats, it is [B]exactly[/B] that simple. You've made a series of incorrect assumptions here: --- "In spin-n-gos you get 25BB to begin with, and blinds go up every 3 minutes" That's only the structure of a regular speed spin on Stars. In flash spins, the starting stack is 15 BBs, and blinds are 1 minute in length. In Omaha spins, the starting stack is 50 BBs, and the blinds are 3 minutes in length. But none of that really matters...all that matters is that you have free will to make decisions. --- "After all if the only decision is to push or fold preflop" That is not the full range of options. You've imposed your own approach as an absolute input, which it is not. --- "In MTTs on the other hand you get at least 100BB to begin with" No, not necessarily. But more importantly...late registration exists. Most online MTTs these days allow late registration up until the starting stack becomes <10 BBs. The majority of registrations take place after the start of a tournament. --- "So per hand you actually pay way less rake in MTTs" Rake in MTTs is measured per buy-in, not per hand. The number of hands played - or the total elapsed time - has zero impact on the amount of rake paid, and vice versa. Number of hands played is not a factor which determines profitability in either spins or MTTs. --- "and you play with deeper stacks" There are many MTT formats which play is shorter-stacked than a regular-speed spin. --- "Both of which is far more important than the amount of rake per game." Again, imposing your own approach as an absolute input. Try taking yourself away from your own experience, and viewing the situation from an objective standpoint. It will become more clear. You'll find that the rake % is the dominant variable for all games in which players have decision-making rights. (i.e.: non-flip format) NOTE: My statement was made under the assumption that a player is: a) playing the same buy-in level across an infinite sample b) not collecting anything from rakeback programs Using staggered buy-ins, a player can be still be profitable in an infinite sample despite having wayyyyy lower than the ~42% win rate normally required to be profitable in the former. I'm sure someone who actually enjoys spins (not me) could do better, but I've personally produced significant samples where 23% win rate was profitable using a staggered buy-in approach. I have a few Excel sheets I can share if you need more help with this concept. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us