New SpinNGo's at PokerStars

[Nade]

Read all about it here http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/spin-and-go/?brand=PokerStars#utm_medium=Internal&utm_source=Client&utm_campaign=1 Has anyone played these yet? I've played a few hundred at the 7's and below, the biggest I hit yet was 10x multiplier. They've received a fair amount of criticism for being more like a casino style game but honestly I do like the concept a lot because anyone can hit a big score with very little fuss and they're not straight push-fold gamble games like some perceive. So there's room to play poker, no game selection and chance to win a lot of cash so I can't fault PokerStars too much here.. apart from the rake (as ever). Other complaints are they take away traffic from other games and that includes my own games, but if that's the progression then so be it. As ever in the poker landscape you adapt or you die and one thing we all experienced over the years is the need to adapt, change games and learn new approaches because the scene is constantly evolving and this is no different imo.

[repton3]

Re: New SpinNGo's at PokerStars I've played about 10 at the lowest stake. Got 4x twice and the rest were 2x. I quite like them, although the poker played is crazy, at least in the lowest ones. At least there's a variety of strategies going on from people who shove every single hand to others who limp every single hand. I get the impression they would be difficult games to get a very consistent roi from, but maybe I'm wrong or the higher level ones are different - but on the other hand I think they seem reasonably even to break even on over time so could make profit from rakeback and vpps. I used to play the equivalent games on Winamax (called Espresso on there), and I felt with those I got 3x+ multipliers much more regularly. I've not looked at the odds compared between the two, perhaps on there they highest multiplier is less or something. I'd quite like to see the same format but with longer blind levels/bigger stacks, although I don't see that happening cos it's probably missing the point.