if that's your conclusion, you have only come here to troll and it's now clear that myself and others have wasted a **** load of time trying to explain something to someone who never had any intention of trying to understand how it all works

I don't want name calling just sensible logic please.

1. The cartels are not run like football leagues. In a football league teams in the same division only play each other !

2. If the cartel is run on merit then anyone should be able to get in by being better than the the worst existing member of the cartel.

Since when is poker skill transitive

Dude, just start playing if u wanna get there its easy as that. Nowdays its definitely not unfair.

I would actually bet some money on good odds on a chance that you are a girl IRL since u make stuff so complicated.

We all tried to explain why unblocking sharkscope is never gonna happen. I think we can stop answering the same question over and over again and give him some months to re-read and hopefully understand the reason behind it.

It's too risky to be associated with your group. I think you will all get banned when players complain about being cheated to Pokerstars and the gaming commission if Pokerstars keep supporting you.

we pay so much rake, its okay if we hit a few more of our flushdraws. no need to bitch about that!

You are missing the point. Under the terms of their gaming licence Pokerstars must ensure that everyone gets a fair and equal game for their money. Obviously this doesn't happen with cartels operating.

As long as you have the same thought process for 6 max+ ring games with seating scripts then that seems like a good place to wrap up this extraordinarily insightful debate.

This is another "football league divisions" type argument from you. Players can leave ring games at any time whereas tournament buy-ins are a sunk cost. And are there any organised cash game cartels ?

just start the shots and stop the nonsense!

Pretty sure he has no interest in playing the game - he's just come here to share his wisdom

I didn't answer back to this because your arguments were so badly flawed I could barely be bothered but considering you seem to leveraging off this post, I guess I have to spell it out for you
1) teams are promoted and relegated every year
2) that's exactly how it works - much like soccer, you just have to prove by playing games at the table.

I want a fair game without cartels. I imagine a lot of people do. Playing a mix of regulars and recreational players has got to be better than playing against cartel players all the time.

Yes - it's a lot more random as to who is allowed to play at higher stakes without being bombarded by regs
For HUSNG we have clear criteria
By the way, you havent come back with an example of a cartel which constantly includes and excludes companies based 100% on performance - funny that

Rly how much pattience can u have to still answer:

So what ? Your "division" isn't there to enable "division" members to play each other ! It's a list of people who are "allowed" to play the recreational players. Everyone else is targeted by your "division". It is irrelevant whether or not it consists of the best players who are interested and know about it that just makes it a cartel of the best players who want to be in it.

If you still think it's like a soccer "division" then where's the division table ranking your members ? It's only fair that those who are facing "relegation" should know about it so they can play to get above other members.

I'm not sure you understand what a cartel is - cartels are anti competition. Divisions create competition -basically no one reg battled before divisions existed.

People are advised when they are facing relegation and put forward for a vote. At that point, the people on the relegation list put forward their arguments as to why they should be retained - the more statistically robust their defence, the more likely they will be successful.The perceived weakest is kicked out based on that vote.

Btw, any luck coming up with cartel examples where the group is constantly evolving based on statistically provable merit?

Your cartel is anti-competition. You attempt to drive everyone outside of it out of the games by targeting them.

"cartel - a coalition or cooperative arrangement between people/parties intended to promote a mutual interest."

Do your "divisions" meet that definition of cartel ? It makes no difference that you try to be democratic it is still a cartel.

You are missing the main point that Pokerstars is organised for ordinary players not professionals. When players sign up to Pokerstars they do not sign up to your rules at the same time and they do not expect to have to play against an organised cartel of professional players who will prevent them from playing anyone else.

No ordinary non professional is subject to any division or "cartel" rules.

It has nothing to do with non professionals.

In fact, it's very pro competition. There used to be no divisions or cartels, and no professionals would compete against each other, they would just take turns sitting first and all the non pros would have to sit them.

Now the professionals are competitive with each other, unlike previously, due to these organized groups.

The only people that understand the situation and are still upset are people that want easy games and are willing to wait a long time to get those easy games. Those are generally not customers that most poker rooms care about at all (high edge, low raking players, nicknamed bumhunters). These divisions you gripe about were a self organized group of players that decided they would form their own game selection habits in order to wipe the games clean of the pure bumhunting that was going on.

seems like you adjusted the definition from the oxford dictionary which says
Definition of cartel in English:
noun

1 An association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition:
the Colombian drug cartels

1.1 chiefly historical A coalition or cooperative arrangement between political parties intended to promote a mutual interest.

Maybe read the first definition - you know, the one that talks about restricting competition.

Still keenly awaiting your cartel examples where the group is constantly evolving based on statistically provable merit. Or are you just avoiding that question?

You really don't understand how husngs worked before divisions happened, do you?

Basically no rec player ever got another game vs a rec player.

Regs solved the collective action problem (too many regs at each stake, but no incentive for any individual to sit a reg) on their own, and now we're here.

There's absolutely nothing unethical about this. Husngs are a 1 on 1 poker format where collusion is literally impossible. Nobody can be colluding against you. Competition is encouraged (even mandated), not restricted. Husngs at a bunch of stakes are super close to the pure meritocracy almost any player striving to make money at the games long term should want them to be. It's understandable to be skeptical of these things at first, but if you actually think through everything, the positives of divisions become pretty clear.

That is a possible defence but I don't think it holds against the broader principles by which Pokerstars are judged by the licensing authority (Isle of Man Gambling Supervision Commission)

"The core principles the Commission upholds are :-
.... To ensure that the services offered by licence holders are fair"

http://www.gov.im/gambling/

I look forward to seeing the results of your report to the Isle of Man Gambling Supervision Commission, then.

Good luck?