You r coming back to high stakes again?


Sent from my Nexus 4 using 2+2 Forums

inb4 stars implement battlenet

Screw getting in. IMO the sitlisters should make an own group that just targets the 3-5 weakest div regs. Not caring about getting in. Just make it impossible for these guys to get action from recs and to hide behind their group. Basically make life hell for these guys and force them to eventually move down because of financial reasons.

No you won't. For people that have already started and got games you don't have to hit the exact rule. Just make a reasonable effort to act in the spirit of this rule. There is no specific criteria people like you have to get, but as long as it isn't deliberately trying to act against this rule (ie only play 4 people you have already played a lot with) then you aren't gonna get screwed over and said no to because you don't have 25 people). If you were just starting now the expectation would be 25 different people.

This hasn't just randomly arisen because some people were sat more often than others, trying to boil it down to an oversimplification like that is ******ed. There was suspected abuse by group(s) in targeting and sharing notes/reads/HUD stats on certain players, these complained, this was one of the ideas that was thought of to try and minimize the impact of such behaviour, then it got voted in by 51%.

Fwiw having reads/notes/HUD stats is bigger advantage over 25 guys starting all of them supposedly readless, playing over small sample, than playing 3 guys for 1.5k games each (or whatever random big number).

Some really solid reasoning itt, soon I'll believe that the black is actually white. What's next? "Think he is super user and is seeing my cards, no way he folded there".

Choqi also brought this up.

My understanding is that this was reviewed and publicly stated by the leaders that this was not the case. If so, why is this being continually brought up?

Rule doesn't create a new issue there though. Getting in probably means playing 40 or so players anyway, albeit some very briefly. So you likely play the same guys you would've done anyway, the only difference is instead of playing one for 120 games and one for 80 games, you play two for 100. It certainly doesn't increase the advantage of note sharing. I think it would be more accurate to say the effect is negligible.

I don't like the intention behind the new rule as it seems designed takes pressure off weaker players, but in reality it changes very little, so I don't think it should be made out to more it is (as I say, I was about 150 games off having 25 diff players and that was with just naturally playing and not even trying to have a wide range of players).

Even if we accept that in that particular case there was 0% chance it happened, it still brought up a possible angle for people to work. Whether it is accepted as a response to that to minimise the advantage if it occurs again or as a pre-emptive move to minimise the advantage if it occurs at all, the stated reasoning can be the same. Whether it has actually occurred or not in that specific instance is a non sequitur.

Although I would add that even if it didn't occur then, the chances that note sharing takes place is pretty much a certainty anyway. I would think the question is more, is this an effective solution to deal with that, rather than do you think it happens, which probably would be a 99% yes as oppose to 51/49 split.

1) the thing people brought up when defending the new decision didn't actually happen
2) even if a group did want to share reads and databases this new rule would not actually hurt that at all as Kobmish pointed out
3) there's really no reason to think something like that would happen, it would require a lot of organization and work and it would be better in the first place for those people to focus their work on actually getting better

It's introducing a rule that protects weaker players while scaremongering about something that didn't & won't happen, and it wouldn't even help protect against that kind of thing anyway, so of course it pisses people off.

There's no reason for this rule to exist, maybe it won't do that much harm but it'll do some harm while not doing any good.

I fail to see why if the initial reasoning for the rule was admittedly not correct (don't see anyone arguing about it) and actually here even you saying I quote "it seems designed takes pressure off weaker players", the rule should stay.

It doesn't counter in any way what it was announced to be against, it actually protects weaker guys, but hey, no biggie....

The rule in theory protects weaker players, an that is why I have said I don't like it. In reality it changes very little though (as pointed out several times, would've been 150 games diff for me). you still have 1500 games extra to play against people you think are weak, so if you think 5 are very easy to play, you can play an average of 400 games each v them and still hit requirements (without this rule in place, nobody has played 400 games v 5 diff players anyway).

On the contrary. Starting with a strategy designed to maximally exploit your opponents readless strat will lead to destroying him in small sample. If you continue playing him though he will adjust and you will lose your supposed advantage.

I am talking from personal experience here, I've played guys that started by exploiting me knowing what I do readless. This can be pretty quickly countered however.

So you are saying that you battle the short term readless advantage, by giving it more times to be effective. This lacks any logic.

I am starting to think that some guys want to keep their strategy to OS 55% below 16bb deep, open fold 45% and stay at their level. Sorry it's late 2014 and this doesn't work anymore. Before any 100s reg attacks me on this - I am not saying anyone at the 100s does this. Have seen it at the 60s though in hundreds of games.

In reality it really doesn't do much protecting though.

Last part is irrelevant. Nobody at 100s plays like that and where you say you have observed that, they don't have this rule.

Not 100% sure, but i think 60s leaders decided not to take dropouts from 100s in anymore because of this rulechange

I have not quoted you to confirm that, I quoted you to confirm that it protects the weak. The other part I just failed to see any argument presented to defend it. You know I respect you, and I'll start repeating myself soon so let's leave it like that.

I thought it was pretty clear it was figurative speaking. I explicitly said I don't expect that at the 100s. Anyway, not gonna argue about it anymore.

As I see it, in HUSNG You make money from recs and weaker regs (new guys taking shots, moving up and so on). Therefore, chasing weak regs from your lobbies is a bad idea anyways. You are just getting rid of a source of income.
The fishes might be shared between less people but because of the stupid 2 lobbies only stars rule, I bet you guys are not getting that many more fishes anyhow.

Now we see the $100 regs having to play the $30 to get enough games and the $30 regs are pissed off because it's now much more expensive and long for them to move up!

You have taken over the lobbies and decided on everyone's behalf how they were going to be run, self regulate, piss off lots of HUSNG players and for what...? is the situation better now? No

/rant

Come on, now you're disagreeing just to disagree.

Yeah i agree with many of this and i dont think this whole cartel idea took into consideration the long term consequences it will have...

Well i heared there is a new game format coming up soon, which will take many fish and many pissed off regs from HU hypers away (either to this format or to other formats) and Hypers will be the new Turbos...

So the whole idea of bringing longetivity to Hypers via cartels might actually backfire...

The 1st rule is a negative for both sitlisters and any decent player in the division that doesn't suck enough to be a target. The only player it benefits is those that have been identified as weak, and are targetted by the sitlist. This rule is counterproductive to creating a stronger division, if you are worried about sharing with people who can beat these players then why are you sharing with the weak members of the division in the first place?

The 2nd rule is a gem and props to implementing that.

A cumulative 1500 games over 100 games v people do count.
Still, u have to play so many different people, and in 100 games you really hardly break someone strategy (when they are decent). Real edge comes after 100 games... Of course u can play more than 100 games vs someone but u can not do that wit everyone from group 25 players unless you want to have 10k games vs division

No, not everyone shares notes. And even if they did, it would make no sense to make it easier and more profitable to do so.
It does, in first games guy wit reads, stats have bigger advantage, when opponent is read less. Longer you play more is about edge and skills. So sitlister will have 20 guys with 100 games and maybe 5 with over 500 games. Result is thinner edge, lower adjusted roi. For sure playing 4 guys, each one for 1k games gives bigger edge, or let say higher possibility to achieve criteria. New rules making harder for sitlister to come in

You realise 49% of division do not want this right? And almost definitely none of stronger ones do. Don't blame the whole division.
Yea i do, i do not blame them, i do feel sorry for best division regular, cause they need to share lobby wit those who are hiding behind rules and also feel sorry for best sitlister, cause they are pushed away from lobby for too long and and the same time i feel sorry for all regs, cause so much money going to stars.

Also you say way harder but its not even that much of a change. To get in I played 15 people for 100+ games, and would've took only 150 more games to get to 25 people for 100+. If I had known that from the start, I would've easy done that, especially with ability to request games now.
Is not only about numbers of game, but also number of players, you have to arrange battle and study them

If they are only there because of that, they wont last.
true, but they are in for too long

50.1% wr is not enough cos nobody has any incentive to share with somebody who is a heavy loser. Not too mention the uncertainty about their true wr if they only have 50.1%
I talked about itm % vs division. Is not good enough to better, division guys need to lose 3/4 rake to let someone in. So sitlister has to be way better and than share lobby with the same guys

Thanks Bluenowhere, i appreciate your effort for discussion.

As i said is not only about skills but also about politics (200s division+ is even worse)

Take a look guys how many rules you have created, for what? U think u own lobby, do you think you have some special right to play your limits, cause you are old regs and u are in the game for years? Get a reality, you deserve nothing. You think you have rights making all that silly rules to make a hell for talented/hard working new regulars to move up. In beginning of creating those groups you were arguing no games in poker are like that as hu sng, where regulars can move up and bumhunting straight away. Am telling you now no games in poker are as hu sng world, where newcomer has to be way better comparing to old regular, so he can be allowed to play also vs recreational players on higher limit. You are bringing injustice and negativity to our games. Do you realize poker is all about recreational having fun and gambling illusion they can earn dollars fast? Poker needs big stories, big players as greenie is. How can someone being really talented making from 3 usd to 500usd in hu hypers when he has to deal wit all those rules and playing strictly regulars for thousands of games. His skills might do it but can he survive variance? Oh yea old reg will offer him a stake, oh yea here u go, another piece of cake for old regs. What about a really talented micro zoom player. Sure he can have aggressive bankroll approach with shots of 20 buy ins and move up straight to top without politcs. Someone might think that divisions pushing regulars from other games out. Nah only weak, average regulars and recreational players have second thoughts, good regulars do not care about and will make it anyway.

I know is hard to make solution which will satisfy everyone. I believe you have to simplify your rules. System as it now, does harm almost to everyone. Do you know what are direct cost of holding good sitlister back with your politics. Rake for 4000 games at 100s is 15 000 usd. So at least 15 000 usd. That are cost for reg community here. Indirect cost are even higher, cause u are grinding for lower or in many case for negative hourly , while you could play better reg/recreational ratio for higher hourly

System should be dynamic and simple. Anyone from lower limits should be able to request hu4rollz higher guy for 1000 games. Winner has right to open sit 100s. Instead of pumping rake to stars you can put money in side bets. Many times division regulars have poor hourly cause they are sit by weak sitlisters. Yea they beat them, but really there is not a lot of money in battling regulars. Why not to create hu4rollz system, where better regulars can actually win a lot money in reg wars and keep good hourly. Cause is about politcs, and not only about skills

And also think how much popularity of hu sng would increase with having constant hu4rollz. All that personal wars, side bets, jokes on forum and so on...

Of course this makes it harder. I've been having a hiatus from poker and grinding up a roll from scratch again. My intended approach to the 60s is simply to mark a few players who I think are weak and play 30s and let sharky sit them in the course of my grind. Not in a mad rush so quite content to play 1k games vs just one player. Obviously I won't do this exclusively but it's my main battleplan. So although bluenowhere makes some interesting points his example applies to him only and not to everyone. You are of course innately by your rule system.now protecting the weaker part of the cartel.

Also if top guys from 60s decides to band together say 15 of them and play at the same time and attack 100s your cartel would fall apart imo. There's not much difference regarding skill level between 60s and 100s imo apart from ego size. Though I played pre cartel days so maybe the 100s cartel really are glorious.

Cool. Thanks for clarification

[QUOTE=djerikas;44273044]U r coming back to high stakes again?

Well to be fair I never was at high stakes but I hope to be soon at the same stakes before I quit.

This is the key point here. You could argue that the Splitting rule would help weaker players but with the Requesting rule to go with it, that just goes away completely. Sure now you might end up playing 1000 games vs the 16th worst member to the 25th worst member that you might have preferred to split between the 10 worst only, but then you can play the remaining 1500 exclusively with the worst member without being avoided (extreme example). A week ago you would have serious trouble actually getting 1500 games worth of action against your favorite targets (unless they are also very fearless).

Any comment about protecting the weak is pretty silly. You can't attack one rule and ignore the other one, they were put in place simultaneously. A week ago the weakest member of the group could just get by unnoticed and putting a few games here and there and making short battles against people that sit him and just avoiding those people, now with Requesting they are less protected than ever.

Also bluenowhere (player that recently got in) correctly pointed out how little it would change for him if he had to abide to this rule before entering, and this would be the case for most if not all the triers (the ones that already got in and the ones still trying).

We won't be extreme on the ones that already have games played, and judge case by case. In your case for example, I'd say its fine if you have 20x100 only based on those numbers.