I think these 3.2 k games make perfect sense, not too much, less would say close to nothing

Hello guys! I've done some calculations, here are a bit more behind those mystical numbers to get into cartel. I guess it can be a good starting point for anyone who is going to battle their way up. It shows that for any number of games you have to be better than cartel, but … most likely even in this case you'll end up losing money (unless you're SkaiWalkurrr). So be prepared for it, cartel loses even more but those losses are spread between them and it doesn't affect them that much.
I clearly advise you all, aspiring regs, be wise with selecting regs from cartel and be able to see a bigger picture, not just mechanical grinding. In long run the only winner in those reg wars is Pokerstars, so do your work outside from the table, play smart and becoming a 60$ reg will be much quicker!

Jep for Stars everything is +EV lol

if u count with RB its not that terrible

yep like 40% of those figures gets returned to players. Also saying unless your skai be prepared to lose money is a ridiculous hyperbole. If you are a good player you can probably have 1% and if you are good but try to get in asap you could probably have very limited game selection and get 0% but be accepted in <10 days.

Players have beat the rake over thousands of games vs group players at most levels before.

"Stars is the winner" is kind of silly, Stars is always the winner, they offer games with a rake per game. Anytime anyone plays on any poker room, the poker room earns some rake.

Well, except for Lock Poker, they used to give away their money to the highest rakers, something like $1.20-1.50 for every $1 raked. But that obviously wasn't a viable strategy given that cashout issues started immediately after that ~2 month "promotion."

Guys, you got me wrong! My idea, when i put those figures, was not to complain or say how difficult it is. It is just easier when those entry criterias are explained. Cause, at least for me, when i saw this -1% EV it seemed super easy, i didn't really understand it then. Now, after i thought about it for a while and done those calculations i see that it's not that easy, but not super difficult either. Current system is way better then it was before, it's really objective, when the previous one was very personal and subjective.

Fair enough and thanks for the clarification, maybe we were premature in criticizing you, though we obviously misunderstood your intent.

To be clear, you thought that the negative number just meant it was going to be easy, right?

That can make sense, and not something I had thought of before. A negative ROI is likely going to be associated with "not that hard" by a regular, at least traditionally (turbo-reg speeds), but in hypers, vs other regs, with 1-2% type rake rates post rb, it definitely does change the difficulty quite a bit.

I still think the -1% is very easy. Yea when you work out the cost of playing 3.2k games at -1% it may seem like a lot you have to lose to get in. But if you only have a -1% its a pretty big gamble to try getting in unless you don't mind risking quite a lot with a real chance of not making it. In reality though most people trying to get in should be at worst 0%, especially with game selection, so realistically you just look at being BE for a few week, although still making $1600 with rb anyway.


I think its worth noting as well that for all the complaining about how unfair it was at the 60s, in the 4 weeks since we deployed this new method of entry, only 1 person has produced a valid report that has met the requirements. So given how many people outside who weren't in before this complained about how unfair it was, only 1 of them who hadn't yet been accepted has managed to play with a >-1% roi in 3.2k games. Not to say I don't think this system is a significant improvement, but I do think it shows how fair we had been in getting most of the players in who should be in, and that most of the complainers were pretty clueless

Just curious how many have tried to get into the $60 cartel since the new rules?

Before the new rule I'd guess there were like 10 or so actually trying to get in. Since then I haven't really noticed much change in the amount of them playing, maybe a few extra ones, but it is not many more.

I don't think it makes sense to say a good player could get 3200 games in <10 days. To get 320 games per day you'd have to be 4-tabling multiple regs at a time (if you just do one reg at a time they may well decline to play 4 tables and even if they accept it'll take too long for them to get 4 lobbies) for ~9 hours per day. 320 per day is barely achievable and even for the few people who could achieve it it wouldn't really make sense to (since they could probably get 1% more ROI if they just took it a bit slower).

60's wasn't fair before the new EV requirements. People weren't getting in with 6k games with good EVROI, etc. Then you guys as a 1-off thing decided to let in the top 4 or 5 sitlisters in terms of # of votes, leaving out spirem for whatever reason, not too long before the EV system was implemented, so it's not surprising there weren't too many people with a large # of games played + good evrois when the ev system was implemented. But that isn't the sign of a good system since it was very random and stopgap.

Also there's at least a couple people who are very close to getting in and will probably get in not too long from now. Just because someone doesn't get in in the lowest volume requirement doesn't mean they don't deserve to be in, a 0% ROI player who runs bad in card distribution could definitely miss the 1st requirement but hit the 2nd.

Lastly the person doing most of the complaining was me i think and i was the one who did get in

Since the requirement for getting in was number of votes at the time I was trying to get in I sometimes 6-tabled 2,3 different regs which surely didn't help my ev roi, but if i just chose to 2 table 4,5 regs it would been much easier.
And therefore it makes more sense to just go for the 100s now if you have the roll and the skills

ofc they can run bad, but if they truly deserve to be in that wouldn't matter. I mean if they just did some work on their games and became 1-2% players instead of 0% they could run disgustingly bad and still make it in 3.2k games

I was more meaning your complaints had a snowball effect with people who knew little thinking some great injustice was done, when in reality it was one example of someone who had an argument to get in but it wasn't like he had to grind a ridiculous amount of games or anything anyway.

If you are good enough to 6 table multiple regs, it shouldn't be too hard with game selection to just correct your ev in a few k games
Depending on how many games you have and the confidence you have at making 100s I would tend to agree. In reality most people who try to get 60s don't just have the roll and ability to do that though.

it doesn't worry anyone that no one is even trying to move up stakes anymore?

it doesn't worry anyone that Russia is nuking anyone who doesn't bow to Putin?

it doesn't worry anyone that 90% of people have converted to Islam?

it doesn't worry anyone that there is no water left on earth?

it doesn't worry anyone that [insert bad scenario here that hasn't actually occurred]?

Ah, loaded questions, what fun we can have with them.

Genher, there's a handful of people trying to move up to 60's and a handful of people trying to move up to 100's, it doesn't seem worrying to me. At any one time you wouldn't expect there to be that many people moving up.

Yeah but I disagree, i'm pretty sure they were playing significantly less than 320 games per day even though they were playing when you got in by votes which was all about volume and very little to do with your ev results; now that it's a volume + ev requirement it's even less likely they would have put in that much volume over that short of a time.

People keep throwing out "oh 200 games per day is easy, 300 games per day is doable", can anyone point to an example of someone playing that kind of volume vs 100% regs and getting good results? Maybe there are a few people who managed 200 games per day with good EV results but i'm pretty sure it's really uncommon.

I don't think it makes sense to say they've had "nearly 5 months", most people currently shooting $60's haven't been shooting for 5 months.

Speaking as someone who's currently a "2% player" vs regs (altho ofc it's very possible i've been running good in card distribution) i've had to work ridiculously hard on my game, it wasn't as easy as you make it sound. Maybe a very few people can get those kinds of results without studying too much, I don't know, but by definition the majority can't. I don't think that someone has to have 1-2% true ROI after rake vs 100% regs to "truly deserve to be in". IMO someone who has -1% true ROI deserves to be in.

Btw now that we've got a significant number of people who've got samples vs 100% regs i think it's important not to get carried away by the few cases of people getting really sick results (like torgoth getting 2.8% over ~4k games at $200's). Major props to the people who get those kinds of results but they are almost certainly both 1) really really good and 2) running good, i don't mean to take away from their skills with the 2nd point, i still am sure they're beating the regs for significantly more than the rake, it's just to say that we shouldn't say "well if someone can't beat 100% regs for 1-2% roi they don't REALLY deserve to be in." Someone who 1) is pretty good and 2) runs bad should still be able to get in, even if it takes a while (assuming that they're better than the weaker portion of the division).

Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy with the new rules, but let's not act like getting in is super-easy now or that anyone who doesn't get in in 3.2k games doesn't deserve to be in, or that grinding out 3.2k games with 0% ev vs only regs in 2 weeks is the norm, or that before these new rules the division was doing a good job of letting deserving people in.

Hey there..

Where can i find the list of 60s/100s members updated. Those admissions sheets posted ITT seens to be out of date. (i think)

And, i saw some people here and in PG&C using a PT4 report to filter cartels members/EV ROIs etc. Is it possible to get the SQL from that report?
If thats ok, plz send me a PM or post it here.

Thanks.

Moving up to the next level is never gonna be super easy. The argument more centres around me saying now that for someone who deserves to be in, they can very quickly prove that now.

Also the division did to a fantastic job of letting deserving people in. since the start there have probably been 30 or so people get in and before the rule change only 1 person outside had the new criteria for entry. That is an excellent job of letting deserving people in.

Just get report on skype from someone within the group, they should have access to it. If you want 100s list you can ask in their thread. It's not gonna be updated here everytime someone move up/down though so bear it in mind that it is always a provisional list.

AllinGirl777
LEXA55
BabaVangaFTP
Amstaf88
ggarethh
hoya1984
lambaaju
gabry_00
VinceRaiz
longjohnfish
zachaser
robertlauz
Pdogedog
307th
moolana93
BlueNowhere4
roctill7
fcslovacko
DesmondDavid
frontbet
0wN€d_h€H
Ifoftw
Nadika90
PaPi7o92
random_chu
UnnBW
ticenl
shedy23
akis_333
tseloni
zillas33
IDidntMeanIt
alwayswin222
24hourATM
BlackStar255
5Rayfinkle5
jyg4me
CaptainCoola
Perfect*AV
ILOVEDOLLAR
tinpoutsises
xJayh
Goinbkup
KidpokerSLO
nico0503
C*lve
axleska
Pl@yerABC
skandr555
xxxH0lic
Buriiy
boogeewoogee
ypsik
ILICH_77
skendeloff
kirill1989pr
Moonblade555
nizzor_4
opotiki_whit
Orsulab3rt
Sashok_Kovel
Sir.Whiteman
KQ69
V3lnias
777scottish
gedstak
Yura_rnd
Holdenper
Zanas777
Marrco69
mimomanas
Nemtommi
'72worm
Stakelis24
Tchor85

I wouldn't use the word easy, but I would certainly use the word fair.

Players moving up have some level of uncertainty, they're also risking more money than they are probably used to. These are real factors in this game, and to prop bet that a current $60s player could do it in 10 days, it completely eliminates these factors/risks (especially one as good as you blue).

I think you both made good points, but I'm not sure what you're arguing about. You both agree the system is fair, as far as it ever has been, lets leave it at that.

lol. Time will tell I guess

Im battling 60s regs now. Is here any players who are trying to get in 60s division and could pm me?

inb4 anti-cartel coming out

And we're all happy for you