Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
PokerStars HU Hypers groups thread PokerStars HU Hypers groups thread

01-26-2014 , 07:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssquid
To enforce others you do share with to do the same. Without cartels, bumhunting is maxEV. Something like a prisoners dilemma if you think about it.
+1111
01-26-2014 , 08:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polarized Bear
ty, somehow I missed that lol



Only reason is they don't wanna play with a really good player...so the better players in the group also need him inside (let's say they have - 0,5% EV roi vs him, and +1,5-2,5% EV vs most of the other regs). Only the weaker, lazier players should fear then.
And not really much of an incentive also without CAP to vote someone in. Less recreationals/members that way.
So say you have 90 regs in a group. There are a few good players trying to get, so they are beating up on the 10 weakest regs of the group.

The 10 weakest, as you say, don't like this, so they will try to vote them in. But why do the other regs vote these new guys in who are fighting other regs already in the group (thus helping out the guys that aren't warring double, by freeing up extra slots in the que)?


Quote:
The best is a balanced system. All of the players, who deserve to be in, but as small as a group as possible. This way the group is big enough to controll the action, strong enough to be fearsome, and small enough so the weak players (fishes) per group member ratio will be good.
Wouldn't balance be better achieved by raising a criteria for getting in AND staying in? Not saying they need to be the same, but if there was a fairly objective criteria for getting in and a fairly objective criteria for staying in, and it was a certain level of difficulty, wouldn't the group naturally be maximally efficient (smallest size of best regs and no people upset over unfairness)?

Granted, it may be close to that already, I can't say specifically (hard to tell which specific examples are sour grapes and which are truly legitimate), but what do you think about my overall points here?

Note - Smallest size might mean 60 or 120, I don't know. It depends how good people are relative to one another. I think my point is, if Player John is already in the group, and Player Eric is better than him but not in the group, shouldn't Player Eric be able to get in without some obscene standards of Player John isn't going to be kicked out?

That sort of thing, more or less.

Would it even be terrible to have some statistical requirement that had people that had a bad 6 months out of the group until they improved and people that had a good 6 months in the group (random month examples there, but the point being that it is a sort of rankings formula that rewards the top xx players, and makes the next xx players have to work harder to replace some of those weaker top xx players)?
01-27-2014 , 12:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssquid
To enforce others you do share with to do the same. Without cartels, bumhunting is maxEV. Something like a prisoners dilemma if you think about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by laziale87
@genher

I'll try to answer you. It was designed to get rid of pathetic bumhunters and sit-decliners and that is FINE. But I'm worried it got forgotten. Unfortunately the format of cartel is pathology-friendly and can get really nasty if not controlled all the time by proper, genuine, responsible people.
ok thanks for the answers.

Just so I get my head around this, what happen to good regs that are not interested in joining a cartel?
01-27-2014 , 02:38 AM
Question for people who are taking this in the ethical direction:

Why is it more ethical if the cartel contains only "top" regs? The actual practice of the cartel is theoretically the same regardless of who's in it. Poker has never been a strict meritocracy regardless of how we try to idealize it that way.

Certainly it seems on some level that the best regs "deserve" to get lobbies or something, but weak regs don't have their lobbies protected from being in cartels anyway. And if enough guys are good enough that they "deserve" to get lobs, they can war the cartel anyway.

If I'm missing something, please do expand.
01-27-2014 , 03:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoRy
So say you have 90 regs in a group. There are a few good players trying to get, so they are beating up on the 10 weakest regs of the group.

The 10 weakest, as you say, don't like this, so they will try to vote them in. But why do the other regs vote these new guys in who are fighting other regs already in the group (thus helping out the guys that aren't warring double, by freeing up extra slots in the que)?


They'd let them in, because the group should contain the strongest regs. And the WLs wouldn't be longer. Weakest x player out (as many as they wanna let in), stronger x player in.

Wouldn't balance be better achieved by raising a criteria for getting in AND staying in? Not saying they need to be the same, but if there was a fairly objective criteria for getting in and a fairly objective criteria for staying in, and it was a certain level of difficulty, wouldn't the group naturally be maximally efficient (smallest size of best regs and no people upset over unfairness)?

Well, yeah... that's true, this is why I won't start something like this. Hard to make the correct rules for a group like this

Granted, it may be close to that already, I can't say specifically (hard to tell which specific examples are sour grapes and which are truly legitimate), but what do you think about my overall points here?

Note - Smallest size might mean 60 or 120, I don't know. It depends how good people are relative to one another. I think my point is, if Player John is already in the group, and Player Eric is better than him but not in the group, shouldn't Player Eric be able to get in without some obscene standards of Player John isn't going to be kicked out?

That sort of thing, more or less.

Would it even be terrible to have some statistical requirement that had people that had a bad 6 months out of the group until they improved and people that had a good 6 months in the group (random month examples there, but the point being that it is a sort of rankings formula that rewards the top xx players, and makes the next xx players have to work harder to replace some of those weaker top xx players)?

My only concern is with unlimited members, is that there'd be a lot of players who'll only get in because they got some friends inside, or whatever. But if getting in isn't that easy, and they monitor their members well, it shouldn't be a problem
Yeah...so it's a delicate matter, and imo if the rules are right, regs will start to look at this thing as a good thing (maybe after a while). Even those, who aren't in right now. If it flawed, a lot of people will have concerns. I think it's all new at the 100s, 60s levels, we'll see in a couple of month, how good the system is
01-27-2014 , 04:55 AM
would you pleeease remove that stupid term "cartels" in the thread title. no matter if its accurate to name it cartel or not - such a name won't be good for HU SNGs in general!
01-27-2014 , 06:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by genher
ok thanks for the answers.

Just so I get my head around this, what happen to good regs that are not interested in joining a cartel?
i have the same question
01-27-2014 , 06:11 AM
lol at all you noobs whining in this thread. if you are good enough you are happy to play the regs at ur stake and make money of them just like rams waring every day and living of it (or me obv).

Everyone whining in here is weak. Man up cowards.
01-27-2014 , 07:25 AM
Glassofbeer so you basically say that everyone must accept unfair competition system because a macho like you does?

I can't understand how someone can accept the fact that a bunch of people decides who you can play against and limits your freedom ("join us or get sat for life by us").
01-27-2014 , 10:30 AM
[QUOTE=ChicagoRy;41866171]I agree, I don't like the name cartel, it is such a poor name for what this is.

The problem is that people called the higher level one(s) cartels before (mafia is another one used), so when people make a group at a lower level, naturally they copied the name when describing it to one another.

If you guys want to suggest some new names or feel it should stay cartel in the title, post now. I don't want to change just bc of my own opinion and two others, but if some others chime in "hey, name cartel is pretty poor, lets drop it" I'm certainly supportive of changing the thread title (just leaving it as group or calling it a collective or something else).



Call it like 100s or 60s or whatever stake professional players association for sustainable profits. That at least looks ok
01-27-2014 , 04:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by laziale87
Glassofbeer so you basically say that everyone must accept unfair competition system because a macho like you does?

I can't understand how someone can accept the fact that a bunch of people decides who you can play against and limits your freedom ("join us or get sat for life by us").
So what if you play $15s, where there is no group, and every time you play PlayerA or PlayerB sits you when you sit first? This is the same thing as these groups, except it is two players instead. Would you also have an issue with this?

If people are upset that it is a larger group, ask yourself what is the difference if people did this on their own or coordinated it a bit in order to hold each other accountable?

I can understand if people feel some of the rules are unfair, there are too many friends and not enough objective criteria to get in.... to those people I think that these are great arguments for improvement within these groups (not arguments against the groups existing... as those problems still exist when individuals decide to sit each other).

But if you would feel the same way about one or two guys sitting your life bc they feel you are not that good and they want you to avoid getting access to weak players when you sit a lobby first, then we have a fundamental difference in views of how heads up sit and gos should (and do) work on every single poker room. And non zoom cash games might be an environment that responds more to your desires then as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amph
would you pleeease remove that stupid term "cartels" in the thread title. no matter if its accurate to name it cartel or not - such a name won't be good for HU SNGs in general!
My posts on this topic are extensive in this thread, but enough people have posted their opinion that the word cartel remain that it will remain in the title.
01-27-2014 , 06:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metonezajima
Call it like 100s or 60s or whatever stake professional players association for sustainable profits. That at least looks ok
Nahh, call it Regs Associated for Sustainable Profit, and we could call it RASP, which would pretty cool imo, it's like the SHIELD in the Marvel comics
01-27-2014 , 07:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polarized Bear
Nahh, call it Regs Associated for Sustainable Profit, and we could call it RASP, which would pretty cool imo, it's like the SHIELD in the Marvel comics
I vote for "DA CLUB"
01-27-2014 , 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glassofbeer
lol at all you noobs whining in this thread. if you are good enough you are happy to play the regs at ur stake and make money of them just like rams waring every day and living of it (or me obv).

Everyone whining in here is weak. Man up cowards.
are you cro magnon or Neanderthal?
01-27-2014 , 07:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoRy
So what if you play $15s, where there is no group, and every time you play PlayerA or PlayerB sits you when you sit first? This is the same thing as these groups, except it is two players instead. Would you also have an issue with this?
No thats not an issue, but the thing with such groups is, in order to achieve their goal they might use business practices that are clearly against the term and regulations of Stars (read sharing/database sharing/ghosting and so on...). In your above example one has to assume player A and player B act independently from each other. Now when people start to hide behind closed forums and in private skype groups all of the above can happen without PS being able to do much about it.

But then i assume this has been going on for quite a bit already, yet on a more limited scale. But by allowing such large groups to act together, these practices might catch on a lot. So maybe PS should just update their Terms and allow it and not try to sell an image that is simply not true. Then everybody know where he stands and can act and choose accordingly.
01-27-2014 , 09:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by callme
No thats not an issue, but the thing with such groups is, in order to achieve their goal they might use business practices that are clearly against the term and regulations of Stars (read sharing/database sharing/ghosting and so on...). In your above example one has to assume player A and player B act independently from each other. Now when people start to hide behind closed forums and in private skype groups all of the above can happen without PS being able to do much about it.
The stuff you bring up (ghosting, sharing all your HHs vs a player, etc.), if it happens, it's against the terms and conditions and those players can be punished.

Compared to a group of ~90 people, it's probably far more likely to happen undetected than with a group of 5 people. With a larger group, it just takes one guy to screenshot/report/tell others about it.
01-28-2014 , 07:39 AM
I think at this point it might be fairer (and better for Stars and the majority who aren't Cartel members) to introduce a Battlenet system that allows rematches and add another table feature.
01-28-2014 , 07:40 AM
And if Baard gets on the case it might even be implemented by 2040.
01-28-2014 , 08:20 AM
Honestly when i first read this thread i felt like you guys seemed kinda shady. Partly because the word cartel brings to mind LiveLeak beheading videos and boatloads of coke. But also how poorly it was explained up until ChicagoRy really explained it clearly. All i know is if i were new to poker and i was checking out HU Hypers on the forums. I wouldnt have gotten to page 6(where ChicagoRy explains it well) before i said **** it and started looking at other formats of poker. Yall really know how to alienate recreational players. Either explain it clearly on the opening post or don't post it at all, thats if you want newer players to play your game.
01-28-2014 , 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkrtkr
Honestly when i first read this thread i felt like you guys seemed kinda shady. Partly because the word cartel brings to mind LiveLeak beheading videos and boatloads of coke. But also how poorly it was explained up until ChicagoRy really explained it clearly. All i know is if i were new to poker and i was checking out HU Hypers on the forums. I wouldnt have gotten to page 6(where ChicagoRy explains it well) before i said **** it and started looking at other formats of poker. Yall really know how to alienate recreational players. Either explain it clearly on the opening post or don't post it at all, thats if you want newer players to play your game.
i think the whole reason people started this discussion is because they dont get to play these newer players anymore?

besides i dont really think recreational players come on 2+2 to decide if they are gonna play hu hypers or not

and as you can see most people are in support of this cartel(atleast on 100`s) as long as everyone skilled enough has an equal chance to get in
01-28-2014 , 09:18 AM
Maybe ur right but i dont see why youd want it to be called a cartel. 99% of people would think of a violent gang, not its technical term.
01-28-2014 , 09:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuTchMen

besides i dont really think recreational players come on 2+2 to decide if they are gonna play hu hypers or not
In a world where everyone has countless devices to get online and loves to be online; this is flawed imo.

Just type poker forum in google and look what it gives as first link ...
01-28-2014 , 09:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic
I think at this point it might be fairer (and better for Stars and the majority who aren't Cartel members) to introduce a Battlenet system that allows rematches and add another table feature.
Of course you are right but I'm afraid you won't have many supporters in here, because: 1. the vast majority of regs are playing stakes they can't beat without bumhunting, 2. they think being able to bumhunt is one of their human rights.
01-28-2014 , 01:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nyul86
2. they think being able to bumhunt is one of their human rights.
The sense of entitlement these cartel members seem to have is what is so galling about these guys. The fact that PS give these guys their full endorsement to carry on is just another reason not to play there. Glad I got out when I did.

Also can I assume that it is their average 52% win rate (while mainly playing bums) is why the best HUHT players are not given the same respect as the top players in other forms of poker.
01-28-2014 , 01:31 PM
whole thing is bull**** because of stars AND cartel group being intransparent!

      
m