Still not optimal but way better than the old system in place! So props to members of the 60s and 100s Division for being wise and being able to adjust!

bump

or you still havent decided, thought about it?

No you wouldn't get in with that, we will just use the milestones.

So to get in 60s cartel its enough if my last 2300 games have better roi than -0.75% ev?

+1, exactly the same thoughts

no, you have no chance to be in, dont know anything about "cartels"

That actually makes it really tough to stop people from cheating, since at an arbitrary number of games you can't confirm by comparing inverse graphs.

If people reset at a certain date, it's just as easy to check since everyone knows when the date is.

Imo there should be optional reset since the new admission rules. Some were fighting strong regs to get votes and are quite a bit disavantaged vs new guys that are trying to move up and willing to play weaker regs.

we discussed "resets" during last days, but coffeejay calculated, we need then higher targets, thats why we will dont use this now

It wouldn't be against TOS if someone sends you hand histories that you agree will only be used to verify something.

However, it is not the best solution to the problem.

I think previous posts of having the EV breakdown vs each player, and then asking the players to verify over those samples if the EV matches, makes sense.

Then, if there are issues, it can be resolved via teamviewer (and via 3rd party if necessary).

That, combined with harsh penalties for cheating (1 year ban from all groups, assuming all groups agree?), would make it pretty risky and a poor idea to try to cheat your way in.

What if I have some games against some players who are in the division at the moment, but those games were played like 6 months ago, when there were no divisions at 60s or 100s? Logically, those games do not count, right? Or some random simulsits at 30s that occur from time to time against 60s/100s division players? The only relevant games are the ones that are played at the very same level that the division is located at and when it is clear that I am trying to get in...right?

If I understood correctly the new rules are based on confidence intervals for win rates, so you might be interested in this PT4 stat I made some time ago:

https://www.pokertracker.com/custom/...terval.pt4stat

This stat gives a better estimate of your EV. Explanations here: http://www.quantitativepoker.com/201...ation-and.html

In other words you can get a 95% confidence interval of your EV BB/100 against cartel members if you add this stat to a PT4 report.

P.S.: If mods find this interesting please crosspost to the 100s thread.

Only 60s since jan 27th count, 30s nothing

If it is set up as the last 8,000 games played, we can see who you played over those games and how many games vs each of them. If you have 200 games against ChicagoRy, all we need to do is to set his PT4 to look at the last 200 games, and then set you as the player being watched. Your numbers and his will now match.

It's just as easy to do on Pt4, it'll just need # of games set up by the player in the group and not the date.

The confidence interval is based on random samples. If you work off a specific period you chose to make the numbers better, it is no longer a random sample and isn't accurate.

I think people should question how these numbers were produced.

Take as an example 60s 4800 games = -1.28% EV

It appears that whoever chose these numbers made it so that the 80% confidence interval is [0.498, 0.510]. However it is much more usual to use a 95% confidence interval which would require 4800 games = 0.18% EV.

In other words, the rules were made by lowering the confidence level, while using the standard 95% confidence level would require much bigger samples or demand higher EV...

Imo allingirl777's system would be much better than this: a self-regulating system preserving individual freedom, where each member of the group is required to play x% of other members. Also less hassle managing the group and no need for these arbitrary EV requirements.

Of course everyone should question everything, not only the old system, but why so many were hanging on to the old (flawed) system. And also the new system. Questioning everything is always good.

That said, two main points:

1) EV ROI is going to result in a higher confidence than regular ROI. So if you use binomial to come up with 80% in your above example, it's actually far higher when you're talking about EV ROI, and it's not really 80%, more like 90%+.

2) When you're moving up to a new level and beating an opponent, is it really fair if you can't take his place or get into the "club" if you are 85-90% likely to be beating him? What is this "standard 95%' that you speak of? I've never heard of that. Imagine if pros waited until they were 95% certain that they beat a new level to move up. Nobody does that, it's absurd, and it's over conservative to insist that 95% is the minimum % required for someone to prove they are better than you.

All that said, I love Hester's system. It's pretty obvious that there isn't enough support to run with it, so improving the current system drastically is the very best solution that is out there, and I believe that has happened in the $60s and $100s levels.

Didn't want to sound negative: this is an improvement over the previous system.
When I say the 95% confidence level is standard is because it is widely used in statistics applications and I don't want to stress this point and make life even more difficult for aspiring "division" members

I understand for studies and medical and such.

But when deciding who is better, between 2 poker players, I think 85-90% (the current system is probably closer to 95% with EV ROI, but I'm not 100% sure on the math here) is superior to 95%.

In poker, you have it tugging both ways, if someone is 90% likely to be better than another guy who is enjoying advantages and is 10% likely to be better than that outsider, you're participating in a worse system than if it's 95-5.

Of course nobody wants a guy 60% likely to be better to get in, but 90%+ isn't exactly light.

Be a bit more creative and you'll see how easy it is for someone who wants to cheat that

I actually work with PT4 quite often. If you know a way to cheat your EV #s against a specific person and get away with it when the other person is willing to show his EV #s vs you I would be very interested in seeing that. I mean that with zero sarcasm or cockiness.

One could use a corrupted database for the overall EV adjusted results and an uncoruppted database for the graphs vs certain specific players. But that could obv be prevented by a teamviewing-session.

Hello guys,
Great news! HuSNG seems to be getting back to poker and not all the politics and negotiations around it. New system is way more transparent and fair.
I've read all the topic very carefully, and all in all i got how the system is supposed to work, but there are still some questions that have not been addressed yet:
1. Starting point, 27th of January only games from this date count, right? I agree that all the games should count, you can't just choose a period when you run hot.
2. Can you provide updated list of cartel. Also imagine the situation, i've been playing some members from the cartel for many games and i'm doing great, i'm about to post my results, but many players who i've played with are not part of the cartel anymore. Do all those games still count? Cause they were in cartel when i played them, how could i know that they will be kicked out? It's not my fault. And if your answer is yes, those games count if they were members of cartel when i played them, then you need to provide current list of members very often, at least once a week i would say. And again... it can be a lot of problems with counting, and you need to save all those different lists for all the dates, can be a lot of work. Explain this situation please.
3. It's really a question how to filter those games. I mean i have 1750 games for this year on 60s, and probably most of those games count (they are from February and March), but there is some small percent of randoms, who are not part of the cartel. So, how to really filter, select those games which count? Maybe someone can come up with a script, program or smth. And it has to be dynamic, cause cartel is dynamic.
And just to say who i am, i'm sure i've played with many of you. Pokerstars: LoveOnlyLove, 30$ reg.

@ khalifa:

We don't need graphs.

We get a player report for each player the challenger has played form the division in their sample (this can give ev and actual chips won). We publish the whole list to the rest of the division and ask people to try and verify the results against them, games, ev and actual.

@LoveonlyLove:

Yes all from 27th January v members played at 60s (fish games people got at the start don't count). Yes if they since got kicked your results still count v them, good or bad. This doesn't mean a list needs to be regularly put up though, I don't know why you think that. If someone isn't appearing in the lobby they probably aren't a member anymore. If a specific example comes up where that information is absolutely necessary the required information can be dug up from skype chats most likely.

I've never really used pt4 for much more than looking at graphs so I'm not really sure how filtering out the randoms works. I imagine some custom reports will start to become available though that allows you to filter correctly.

What is the procedure for when the cap is reached but a player has achieved the criteria, will there be a waiting list?