Quote:
Originally Posted by callme
Not exactly...There is a certain cutoff in loyalty ranks in regards to SN and SNE - which is probably somewhere in that region... if you have a guy that achieved SNE and is weaker than a guy he is batteling who only is SN you can guess who endured this battle longer... Cuz the battle of endurance and attrition is a big part of all that business of moving up and down. And obv. bankroll and previously achieved wins/statuses provide a solid fundament in this. And since most people cannot achieve highest loyalty status at the lower stakes they have a big disadvantage to begin with.
So that would give even the weakest 50% of this group some advantage.
Yes, if the weakest half of the theoretical group all had SNE and the best triers had SN, the #s would skew because the SNE would have better return.
People talk about bankroll and endurance, but 4k+ games at double your stake vs 100% of regs while those regs are playing 50%+ of their games vs bad players... I think that's pretty solid endurance and bankroll hurdles skewed against the triers already.
This need to make it 5-10k games when the results are already telling is just unnecessary. We know who is better, it's the guy that has done better despite having to play double his stake vs 100% regs.
Maybe my lack of understanding is that I see divisions as a chance for the very best players at each level to earn spots, rather than whoever can get in to stand behind a wall and only move once that wall is broken + they are broken.
When poker players lament about why taxes on poker suck, why political situations suck, why countries segregate or outlaw online poker, it's the deep rooted political favoritism and lack of caring about a fair system that creates this. A lot of what has happened with divisions (especially up until major changes a few months ago) can be a microcosm for what happens politically with poker.