Quote:
Originally Posted by emotionx
suggesting (? not sure if you did) that highstake hu hypers should implement a system similar to what the 60/100 groups have done is quite ridiculous
The highstakes have been always (before any groups even existed), a predatory, selective and territorial place. Kinda like an elite "league". For obvious reasons. (fish/reg ratio, level of skill, etc). Also dont think this would ever change whatever change is implemented, as its the nature of the game.
I think this is true for almost every other format, not only husngs
But what the 60$ groups were doing on a stake where there is a lot of fish was kinda stupid.
Posting my reply in here so as not to clutter the pokerstars husng improvement thread, I wasn't saying that the higher stakes should necessarily implement a similar system since like I said I don't know much about what's going on there, but I know that when $60's and $100 had subjective criteria there were people beating the cartel by a significant margin in EV over like 5k+ games who weren't getting in, if the $200's+ are the same way atm then yes I would say they should make some change in favour of more objective criteria, but maybe since the groups are smaller at the higher stakes they're handling subjective criteria better than $100's/$60's were, I don't know.
BTW I'm kind of confused as to how letting people in based off of EV results over large samples is contrary to the high stakes being "a predatory, selective and territorial place." If someone beats highstakes regs in EVROI over a large sample what more do you want to prove they deserve to be in? You wouldn't have to use the exact same #s as $60's and $100's, at higher stakes it might make sense to require higher confidence intervals.