Is there too much gamble in Spin & Go?

Are Spin & Go tournaments too much like regular casino games? Is that a bad thing? Barry Carter shares his views.

We have seen a lot of new formats being introduced to online poker in recent years, but I think Spin & Go has maybe had the most attention since Rush Poker first hit the online felt.

I must say, I quite like them. I’m a big fan of SNGs and generally quicker forms of poker, and the opportunity to win bigger than standard prizes appeals. I’ve noticed that they are popping up in mainstream TV advertisements, which suggests to me that this really will be a big push from PokerStars to get new players to the tables.

However, not everyone likes them. A Supernova Elite has started a petition saying that the 1,000 times multiplier was too much of a gamble. He argued that it made them unsustainable to beat long term, and they were too much like traditional casino house games. He is not the only person to share this viewpoint, and many in the poker community have echoed his concerns. 

If PokerStars have introduced a new format which is not beatable no matter how skilful you are, is that a bad thing?

A boost in liquidity?

Spin & Go has already proved very popular in its early stages. PokerFuse have reported that revenues are up in Italy since the game was introduced. Indeed, the whole point of this format seems to be to introduce new players to the game with the chance to win 1,000 times their buy-in.

I just don’t see how that can ever be a bad thing. The pro players will not touch Spin & Go, but if it means that more new players are coming through the doors, that is surely a good thing? Yes, it might take some recreational players away from the other SNGs, but if the goal is to introduce more new players overall, then invariably they will filter through to all the other games after testing the waters with Spin & Go.

Good for the game?

The same players would, in theory, be much looser too, given that they have come into poker with a gambling mentality. Spin & Go is also still pretty low stakes (Maximum buy-in $30) so recreational players will lose much more slowly than they would at a roulette table with no maximum bet. This is also good for the poker ecology in general. 

Daniel Negreanu posted on 2+2 this week saying the same thing. I didn't agree with everything he said on the topic about poker rooms not needing professional players, but did like this sentiment:

The move towards casino gambling?

I think the bigger problem the poker community has is how closely PokerStars seems to be heading towards becoming a traditional casino. The news reports suggest it is a matter of when, not if, the PokerStars client offers house games (It already is in some regions). As a site that has built itself on being poker only, I can see why this upsets serious players.

However, I’ve never had a problem with the close marriage between poker and traditional forms of gambling. Sports betting and casinos have always been an entry point to poker for most people. I probably would never have tried poker had I not already enjoyed betting on football, and I dare say the majority of poker players also discovered the game after first sampling other forms of gambling.

I understand why the poker community does not want to have casino games on PokerStars, because the worry is that the recreational players would leave the poker tables to hit the blackjack felt instead. However, I think one mistake almost everyone in poker makes is overestimating the size of the poker market. The fact is the sports betting and casino industry is many times bigger than the poker industry.

It won’t make me popular to say, but long term I think introducing more ‘gamble’ to sites like PokerStars is a good thing. It will see more new players joining the poker tables from the casino market, rather than seeing the current poker players migrating to the house games.

Are lottery style games like Spin & Go bad for poker? Should we encourage more, not less, gamble on poker rooms? Let me know in the comments box.