After the initial misfire a few days ago and after many additional hours of robust but constructive discussions between the leaders of the $60s and the $100s Divisions, we decided to do a large amount of research into what could be a more “fair” system for everyone involved.

With the number of games it was taking players to earn the necessary votes, and the much lower number of games that was necessary to get a very high percentage of confidence intervals (thanks Coffeeyay!), we realized it was time to make some major changes.

Effective immediately, there will be a new system to join the $60’s and $100’s divisions.
Although this new system will be in addition to the current voting system, we expect most new players who join will have done so via this method rather than earning their spot through a vote. This new system allows a player to work their way into our respective divisions purely by their EV results. We realize this system still isn’t *perfect*, but it is far better than what we were doing before.

Below are the numbers required to join (Updated on Jan 18th 2015 at request of Pies)

3200 games = +17978
4800 games = +20102
6400 games = +21900
8000 games = +22472

If a player produces those numbers against the group, they will join the group.

For 2 tabling, the compromised proposed by Ryan has been adopted ie the challenger only needs to 2 table if asked.

It’s been a rocky road but hopefully everybody involved can see how fair these figures are and we can now get back to playing poker, talking about spots, etc.
Over to you $200's+

Leaders of the $60's and $100's Divisions

Hopefully people find these numbers to be fairer for all. These make a clear path for any aspiring 60 or 100s reg as well as providing the correct reward once you are there. These also allow for far more dynamism within divisions and into the first division. Hopefully people see that this is not about 'locking' up a stake, but trying to breed the healthy competition these games need to thrive. gl all.

If those numbers were obtained by calculating a confidence level that a player is deserving to get into the group, why would they be different between groups?

because we wanted to be as kind as the confidence intervals would allow us :P

but really coffeeyay would provide best answer to that, I would guess its cos we accept people with a slightly lower confidence interval though.

Its also a slight rake diffrence between the 60s and the 100s.

Oh yes that is it, not quite sure how I forgot that, 0.2% difference roughly accounts for the rake difference (0.22% actual). This means 60s requirements is the same wr as 100s except against worse opponents and over less games which we think is a fair difference.

wow impressive work. this system looks solid. Can you actually just play against 1-2 members who you think are weak for these amounts of games ?

Yes

what is the cap? like 100 ppl? currently there are like 80 members in 60s group right ?

is there a current report for vs60s/100s cartel, can someone share?
also, can the sample of games vs cartel be between any 2 dates?

What period of time is taken into account? For instance since the beginning of this year, or from a specific date?

Games vs div membs since the div started.

is there some list where ppl are sorted into divions? also, does it mean that i cant attack couple of weak members across divisions?

i think we should public the lists next days, yes you can attack weak

Ok thanks, hopefully he can come in here and explain the basis for the numbers.

Thanks for making this fairer guys.

Few questions:

Does that mean you will not always be able to use your last 4K games? For example if you played 10K games with EV -2% but you have EV -0.5% last 4K games you will not get it?

Wouldn't it be fairer to say something like you need EV -1% for the last 5K games vs cartel. This way that players that improve overtime will not be penalised and hard work will be rewarded?

I'm a 30s player and I just want to say that this makes me more excited about poker again. Since I've reached 30s I've almost been feeling like "oh well I guess this is where my journey ends". However now that there are clear goals set out, I feel much more positive about giving moving up a shot in the future.

Good to hear Garlic.


For people asking questions about the specific ev roi's, the reasoning and why the numbers are different by division....
There is an underlying statistical base to the figures and beyond that, it was a negotiated outcome balancing all factors involved. Both parties could have walked away at any point but as discussed previously, we all genuinely believe that this is a great outcome for the game.
Please don't sweat the detail of the numbers too much - the main thing is that if you are good enough, you can make it into either division.

On a related note, I would love to see the same transparency occur for the $200 divisions and all the way up to $1k (saying that, I don't really know how any of those divisions are set up).

I believe the approach the $60's and $100's have taken if translated to the higher divisions and with player movements reported on husng.com/2 + 2 would maximise new entrants and create terrific momentum for our game.

Using a set confidence interval to determine those numbers would indicate to me that you'd be in the group if you could meet any of those requirements.

ie. you could lose some huge amount in EV ROI over any number of games, but as long as you could produce a 2300 game sample of -0.75 EV ROI, then you'd be admitted.

Great progress. Worthy of being called "Division"

Awesome stuff itt!

let the war begin

If you could allow any start point to be picked it would skew the data hugely. Yes it is true at the start of any data set the confidence intervals for certain events are as stated. If you are allowed to pick which starts you have for data (which is what resetting does, or allowing any 2300 game sample) then this is completely changing,

The best poker related news in a long time. Nice work guys!

good job guys