This is just a spectacularly stupid suggestion. You realise people that aren't strong enough to get into a cartel will not prosper under this system, right?

If a cartel operated perfectly on merit, you may have a point. However, if it operates more like a "buddy buddy / voting bloc / old boy's club", arrangement, it is quite obvious there will be good players who would have a better winrate vs a random opponent than being perma-sat by decent cartel members, and likewise regs who do well as a protected cartel member but whose winrate would decrease against random opponents.

A properly implemented battlenet (not as proposed, it must include "double opt-in do not play list") would solve a lot of problems in HUSNG these days. Much reduced to probably zero queues, the end of sit/declining. No fees to pay to third party to be able to open sit, no poor "oh there's a cartel that runs anything 60s and above, better to learn a different format without a glass ceiling" press putting off newcomers from trying the game.

The perception of an unfair playing field, even if untrue - is not at all good for the long term health of the game.

sorry but you have no idea what you are talking about

If I was to work my arse off and rise through the HUHT ranks at PS while maintaining a decent win rate (which I am currently doing on Party, maintaining a steady 58-60% WR rising through micro and low stakes, yes I know this would be more unrealistic on PS and especially the higher up I go) then why should you be entitled to help yourself to all the easy pickings and prevent me from getting a foothold at the $60+ levels.

Once had so much respect for you nosebleed guys when I assumed you were standing alone and taking on whoever came your way. Still, thanks for inspiring me to take up this form of poker in the beginning, just disappointed in you all. Respect to anyone who has refused to join these guys and is still profitable.

Emus is right.

While I agree with a lot of what PKR says, I'm not convinced we should sound the alarms as far as the image of this thread (I stopped arguing it because at the end of the day it's far more important that these groups operate as transparently and fairly as possible if we don't want PS to step in and make some changes that we may have little control over and could ruin what is a great and prosperous game of HUSNG currently).

But as far as recreational players coming into this forum, there are tons of them. This is the 2nd largest place where HUSNG players come, and knowing how many unique users visit this forum a month, there aren't even 10% of those that could possibly be winning players (of course, not every visitor is going to be a heads up sng player, but even if 25% of visitors to this forum play HUSNGs, which is probably quite low, that probably means it's still around 4-1 of non winning vs winning players that come here).

Not to mention there are going to be slight winners, or losing players that don't play a lot but hit a heater and are currently winners.

Thinking how we are articulating a point, if we're just being aggressive and argumentative or if we're adding a new point that is open to being countered by reason is important when we post about topics like this.

I'm telling you guys, both sides of this need to do a better job of working together. If we're not careful, it could very well bring about changes that nobody is interested in. So maybe more people in the groups can talk about what potential improvements can be made, and more people against the groups can consider the merit of groups under certain improved conditions.

*Not trying to preach either, some of my posts in this thread had too much arguing in them and could've been presented better.

The bottom line is really this: While I feel that a lot of this stuff works out naturally (if a group doesn't let good players in, they will fight the weaker ones in the group and win a spot and/or make profit), it is obvious that at the $60s and $100s levels there are so many players that if the groups aren't perceived as fair a whole mess of people are pissed off.

And if anyone has followed how poker rooms operate, specifically PokerStars, when a whole mess of people are flipping out about something they perceive as unfair (4 mans, battlenet), PokerStars does respond.

So for the current group members - Think about making this thing more fair to everyone, more open to skill and less "well we've filled x spots, it's done."

And to everyone else - Offer helpful suggestions.

You can take my advice with a grain of salt, but I think the writing is on the wall if you look at previous actions over issues on PokerStars. Work together or we're gambling with what the lobbies will look like by 2015 and maybe nobody is happy at what the "solution" ends up being.

yea, because pokerstars will get deep into how cartel is beeing run .....based on trash posts by anonymous members ....

seriously?
New lobby system will come anyway but not before 2020 anyway ....

Couldn't agree more Dave. I wasn't proposing not having the "double opt-in do not play list", of course that would be sensible. The problem with the Cartel as is, is as you suggest, it is not a meritocracy and there are plenty of players in it who are only in as they are staked by some of the higher-ups.

As for BlueNowhere I can't understand why you are a self-apppointed fountain of knowledge on this subject when you are a lifetime loser at $60's+, get real.

Sorry, I meant Stars proposed battlenet from last year's meetings did not include that important option

Your post couldn't be more ignorant about how things have and do work.

They don't (and won't) get deep into how it's run, they will just see 100s of customers emailing them about how they feel a group is collusive and they will take some actions (likely in the lobby, not against a group) and screw it all up for everyone in this game.

I don't understand how the first and second points are supposed to relate. Would you be able to understand why I was a "self-appointed fountain of knowledge" if I ran over ev instead of under? Use of non-sequiturs in an attempt to insult people ftw.

TLD2008 still Sit Declining all $100 lobbies like a bitch

Funny this coming from a 'cartel' member.

You're acting like a little bitch, Valuetown only posting to let everyone know, taking no stance on whether or not your actions are ethical so it's hardly relevant whether he is a cartel member.

I've said this before but I feel like its worth saying again, these "cartels" are still very young and this kind of messiness is bound to happen. The group rules and system of accepting/kicking players are being improved everyday. This kind of stuff does not happen overnight and involves a lot of effort. I'm positive these groups are headed in the right direction.

Don't play hypers/have really the slightest idea about the ins and outs of cartel etc. but my gut says the same thing. If it affects the game environment or at least recreational players perception of it, stars is gonna put the hammer down (as they should). Bad for recs is bad for everyone.

Not against what cartel attempts to accomplish/naming it cartel etc. just saying if this hurts stars in anyway (perception of game environment included) it's gg. Think sharky is inevitably also on thin ice.

2p2 is full of regs, if sharky and cartel are causing this much drama with that demographic imagine the reaction the average fish would have knowing there's a program out there 90% of players have that can automatically hunt them around the site (not that fish ever get lobbys in the first place so this point may be moot).

cliffs
if people keep bitching stars isn't gonna have a choice but to put an end to the current system. image is everything, perception is reality etc.

If Cartels are to be an accepted part of the game, then Sit Declining is certainly a valid counter-strategy. I suggest you get used to it.

+1

Is this forum also about poker in general or just about this cartel bull****? I am in my own cartel and sit the rest of the world! Who wants to be inside?:-)

Well put Mystic.

Now... can anyone tell me who the leaders of the 60s 100s and 200s cartels are?

DGAF Bluenowhere, he's just crying, probably, because get sat a ton

You have not thought this through ...

You sit declining 1 player is a 3 minutes window that you are removed out of the queue. Sounds great for the cartel.

You can go to war and sit decline everyone, is you being removed out of the queue for xxx minutes. Sounds great for the cartel.

So, by sit declining you removed yourself out of the queue, play harder players and at the same time you succeeded in pissing tons of people off that simply see it as unethical while you also signaled to other people that there is no consistency into your evaluation that your opponent is weak enough to be sitted.

In the end, if you are going to sit first; you have no reason to complain that someone accepts and plays you ... but I would certainly not go to the point that sit declining is a counter-strategy. That is flawed thinking.

Utter nonsense. Please try harder.

well said

I won't. Good luck with the path you have chosen.