Should have called the groups something like stake sheriffs. Main problem with the word cartel is that bumhunters can use its connotations to try and lend credence to their argument. Which seems to be that it's unfair regs are sitting them and they can no longer just play fish.

If it was stake sheriffs you could counter the something sinister is going on accusation by saying you're just running the bums out of town.

Sorry to drag up the name debate again!

I'm not even sure what your point is.

In one of my previous posts I asked a very simple question at the $60 cartel leaders. As you are one of them, I will ask it again and this time I would like an answer from you:

I have one very simple question for the leaders of the $60 cartel: Why does a club, supposedly based on merit, even accept someone as a member who is a losing player? Why are so many of your members $30 regs who were + still are losing at the 60s+? (I'm not going to name names here because it's not in my interest to do so).

And just to make it personal. If I look up your stats on Poker Optimizer, in the last 6 months you played 15,444 games. Your average buy in is $41. 2/3 of the games were at the $30 level. You are a winning player at the $30s but you are losing at the $60s + ... down $2k.

Like so many of the other members in your group, this makes you a $30 reg who recently tried to move up to the $60s but so far has failed to establish himself there as a winning player.

How on earth does this qualify you to be a member of the $60 cartel, if it is supposed to be based on merit, let alone an organiser of the cartel. You are not a $60 reg, for that you would have had to have played that level for much longer and have shown a winning history. It's a joke that u think you have the right to make the rules, as to who has a right to get a lobby at the 60s.

Your Pokeroptimizer profile is very typical of the members of your group. I've played against a lot of $30 regs who are not beating the $60s. Yet, somehow they feel entitled to take over the lobbies and get to play all the fish. It's absurd and it's wrong.

You and the other $30 regs, trying to move up at the $60s, should be at the receiving end of this treatment from the good regs at the $60s who have been playing that level for a long time and are long time winners at the level. But they are too busy making money, playing the fish, as they have been given a free pass by your cartel, as obviously most of your cartel members would get destroyed in the long run if they had to take them on.

I really don't get what the problem is with proving yourself and getting in, especially if the system is fair to everyone, and your place in depends only on your skill level and results.

And coming up with "not moral" and "not ethical" or "I just don't want to" aren't valid reasons. Or you all feel so good-hearted and want every reg no matter the skill level to have equal access to the lobby? Things doesn't work that way, if they do - I want to start sitting 500s. If you are weak, you'll get sat, with or without the cartel. If you are good, things will quickly come to their right place. Only difference is when you get in the cartel you'll have to do your part of sitting regs until they prove themselves, absolutely nothing wrong with that. Cartel just defines who is weak and who not much more quickly, which for me is perfectly fine.

I completely understand someone complaining if he has proven himself against cartel and they don't want him in and keep sitting him. But everything else is just being delusional.

Edit - and yes there are a lot of question marks about the initial cartel members at the 60s

Maybe thats true of the high stakes. But the $60 cartel has drastically changed things at that level.

I mean I can only speak from my own experience when I first moved up to the $60s I got sat by some regs, maybe like 8 or so, who sat my lobbies for a while. Which is fair enough and it should have happened much more, so the wait lists didn't get so long. But people moving up then still got to play fish as well.

But now anyone moving up will get no fish and have to compete against an organised group 100 + strong. Moving up is definitely going to be much harder, which is partly the point of the cartels.

Did I say they weren't allowed? There's some in cartel even I imagine. You saying I will choose to take my action elsewhere is not particularly a concern for stars. Maybe a few will do that but not enough that stars will even be slightly affected. Also you are presuming recreationals fair worse against cartel members than against bumhunters, I'm not even sure a lot of cartel members would beat fish by more. And lets not forget how much all the regs playing each other offsets any minimal loss from that


And the second paragraph just isn't true. Maybe you are unaware of how rake works. I can't think of any other reason how you would arrive at the conclusion that it is the only long term viable solution.

If the cartel is full of losing players, shouldn't you be happy that these players would sit you and give you money?

No, I'm not happy. As you well know, you make more money playing fish than bad regs. I have no problem with playing regs but I want to able to play some fish as well, which the cartel is preventing me from doing.

The only thing I'm happy about is that, so far, players like yourself who I respect and know are strong winning players, have not been sitting my lobbies, because I assume you are not in the $60 cartel.

The way the $60 cartel presents itself is as a collection of the strongest regs at that stake who are going to weed out the bumhunters and bad regs. The truth is that a lot of them ARE THE BAD REGS who should be weeded out by players like yourself.

If you're a better reg (IN REGWARS, not like making 4-5-6% roi vs recreationals only) Big_S, you'll be in the group no time. The members aren't set in stone, and the group's interest that the better players (based on the regwaring skills) will be in, and the worse players don't get a free pass.

Probably nobody played only at 60s. Most of the guys that were 60-100s regs now in the 100s group, so mostly 30-60s guys are in this group. The WLs at 30s didn't suck that bad, so obv, that everyone, who played at 30-60 levels will have more volume at 30s than at the 60s. Those guys battled wwwaaaayy more at 60s, so pretty obvious that they'll have better roi at 30s, and probably lesser roi at 60s (also bigger variance). Here's your answer

The thing is I don't want to join their group. All I want is a level playing field.

But you are right about the make up of the groups. In the last months I've played more 30s than 60s cause it was quicker to get lobbies there.

But the difference between me and a lot of the $60 cartel members is they have no trackrecord of being a winning $60 player, Bluenowhere4 being just one example. A lot of them only recently started playing the 60s and are losing money, even before the $60 cartel started up. They are the definition of bad $60 regs.

So for them to take over the lobbies and prevent non members from playing fish is wrong. The only reason they can do this is because they are part of an organised group.

I'm suprised that turbos/reg speeds are almost dead compared to hypers, where edges are so small and variance so huge. I remember when they were introduced everyone was saying that it is gamble game, and now 2-3 years later everyone is playing them.

In the last few months I've preferred to sit regs than go to 30s (and even when I play there I dont bother with sharky and sit whoever). In the last 4 months 85%+ of my volume has been 60s+. Maybe that's the diff between me and you. You preach on about playing 60s for 1year+ but then you readily admit you play more 30s now than 60s (you move down the levels whislt I move up). I play 60s for 4 month yet I still have more balls than you (who is still being a pussy and not willing to state their name even) and sit every new reg I find rather than be a pussy and move down. In fact over last 4 months there's hardly anyone who plays 60s as highest stake and has a greater % of 60s/30s mix than me and the ones that have probably haven't also played as many regs as me. So keep telling everyone how you have been a reg here for years and it is not fair you cant choose to have fish anymore if you want. Sounds to me like you are just being surpassed in the game by the younger players and you don't like it.

Not quite sure what your obsession with winning money or not is either. I'll give you a hint, the best cartel members are probably not gonna be the highest roi players. Criteria other than that are highly important.

[ ] Losing 60s player

Lol... Considered you reasonable guy - no longer the case

Unlike you I'm willing to post using my actual screenname and accept any consequences my words bring me. I've also been willing to post all my results, both ev and actual, for the last year. good or bad.

Of course feel free to 6-table me anytime you want, we'll see how positive that ev remains

or 4 months if you have 8 hours of your day spent at university.

Ok Big_S, I think we've heard your views.

After some feedback from several people about "don't post anonymously," we've been letting it go as long as it isn't too aggressive or repetitive, but Big_S you've made the same point several times and now you and bluenowhere are measuring 1 on 1 (you can PM about it from here).

That graph doesnt say anything?

Post a graph vs players you have 200+ hands on..

Yeah, no problem. I've said what I wanted to say anyway. And I didnt realise there was a rule on 2plus2 against posting anonymously.

I think big s is one of the few guys that actually come with solid counter arguments vs the 60 cartel..
And when I read things right a guy that just moved up to 60s and only played 5k games is leader of the pack?

Lmfao

Ps: 5k games in 4 months? Do you even 2 table bro..

It varies as far as 2p2 goes.

It's definitely ok to view anonymously and post on a second account in a normal, respectful manner.

Interacting with your 1st account, using both accounts to make it seem like there are 2 separate people that feel the same way, and posting undocumented allegations against people are definitely not allowed.

The in between comes down to discretion. As far as this thread is concerned, the current status is if you want to post anonymously because there's some evidence of cheating or some issue like that that you have proof of, that is allowed. If you also want to post anonymously and state your opinion without being rude or aggressive towards others, that's cool too.

All your posts were fine except the last one (the one deleted), but it's not a big deal or anything, just clarifying so everyone knows.

It's how people measure success in poker.

I apologise for claiming you were a losing player at the 60s. Clearly I was wrong. According to the graph you posted your ev roi is 1.6 %, in other words your win rate is medicore.

So, how did you become the leader of a group, which claims only to take the best players from its stake, given that your win rate is mediocre, you only started playing the 60s a few months ago and you are not a full time professional?

I'm sorry, ChicagoRy, if I keep harking back to the same question. But I think it's a fair question to ask. After all the cartel claims to be a meritocracy. It claims you have to earn your spot in the cartel. It claims to be set up so the good players get the rewards they deserve.

Also I'm using Bluenowhere4 as an example. It's not meant as a personal attack on him. He just happens to be the only leader of the 60s cartel I know of and he also publishes his results on 2plus2.

you cant tell how good he is just looking at his 1.6% roi

Not sure if that's a level, or you just don't know what you're talking about, but Blue had a 10K games (winning!) month back in 2013, he probably didn't do it by 1 tabling recreationals

He did say he is playing 60's for 4! Months allready and then posting a 5k sample graph???

Playing 5k games @60s in 4 months with mediocre ROI being one of the leaders of 60 cartel is just weird isn't it?

It is weird, and it would be nice if the Cartel provided some straight answers. How much is membership (and leadership?) of the $60's Cartel linked to staking arrangements?

Some of the players on the 'sit list' are better players than many of the Cartel. Why weren't they asked to join in the first place?

Whatever else the $60's Cartel is, it isn't a meritocracy. And looking at the membership it is hard to believe it was intended as a meritocracy when initial membership was decided upon.

If you want a different name to Cartel maybe Secret Society would be apt?

There are a huge amount of players in the sit list who are better than people in the cartel.

Its obvious the cartel is not based on skill but more of who you know.

Be happy, if there're weak regs in the cartel. Play them and prove you're better.