Is there a problem with this?

If so, what?

Seems like it. Unless you're a really really good player, then you might be an exception I think.

It sounds bad to me too at first, but then you think about it being really the same as if a reg doesn't want another reg to sit them but that reg keeps sitting "I don't want to play you" "why don't I have a choice to play you?" "why can't I play bad players why do I have to play you?"

And that stuff is far easier to get past and see it's not right to complain about.

Do you see muddaclicka on cartellist or on sitlist?

Pretty much this; nobody has a right to not get sat regardless of how good they are. It can just be a -ev decision for those sitting.

It's not the same at all. I don't have a problem with another reg sitting me because he thinks I am weaker than him. That's the game. We all try to sit weaker players. I have never complained about that.

Nevertheless, here it's a whole group sitting you. Even if you are a good player and you can hold your own, your ROI will unavoidably take a beating. The only reason it will, is because you will always be facing a member of the cartel. In that sense, being a group gives these players an unfair advantage.

I have no desire to join any cartel of any sort. I don't like anyone else telling me who I can or can't sit and when. I honestly can't believe Stars allow such bullying to happen in their lobbies. Cartels are extremely bad for HUSNGs. You are basically telling any aspiring HUSNG player that he won't be able to move past the $60 without joining a cartel. At a time when we need new players to come into the game this is bad news.

On another hand, I am not too worried about cartels. I don't mean to be cynical, but I have been around long enough now to know that the chances that some HUSNG players collaborate and work together with a common goal for very long are extremely low. If some practices (note sharing and so on...)that are against Stars rules are ever used (and it will happen...) it won't be long before someone blow the whistle and put a whole bunch of people in the ****.

just my 2c

What if he thinks you're in rake somewhere? Or he thinks you beat him for <.5% but he can play more tables than you, so sitting you stops you from ever getting fish?

As will theirs.

Maybe you should look into hucash. Everyone loves the fact that you can't avoid opponents at husngs when they are the hunters; it's funny to see how quickly people's tunes change when they become the hunted.

Also: When you opensit (as a cartel member), anybody can sit you. On the other hand, when on the outside of the cartel you can gameselect whoever you want to play. And the cartels actually have rules in place such that members aren't allowed to quit you for X games/time after joining them. Guaranteed action against your selection of opponents. What could be better?

This has been the status quo at 200s+ for quite a while. WLs at 60/100 were too long relative to the action levels. It was inevitable that something would be done. They're not really bad for husngs at all.

Again, cartels at higher stakes can and have been operating for months or even years. It's extremely likely that some sort of cartel system is here to stay through midstakes without serious intervention by PS.

Because this hasn't been going on behind closed doors ever. If everyone who had ever shared reads or whatever in a skype chat, coaching session, or hh discussion was banned from playing husngs there would be no regs left. Do you really think that in public group chats with tens of people we'll see more sharing than already occurs? Not a chance.

Their ROI won't be hit as much because they get to sit recreational and weaker players. You don't.

As I said, I don't have a problem with regs sitting me. It's not the point. I don't have ay issue with the way the lobby works either. As I mentioned before, if you think some players should be sat, set Sharky to sit them. No need of a cartel for that.

I do think that it's bad for HUSNG, if players at lower limits think that they don't have any chance of moving up. I WANT weaker regs and new players in the lobby. I am not quite sure how you can think that it is good for HUSNG to chase them away!??

So you do admit to note sharing?

The only way new players will be affected by this, is this discussion, and the name cartel. So all the players who cry about the groups in here, are the ones, who generate that.
Also...have you seen many 3,5s or 7s player stop to play HUHT, because of the 200s, 300s, 500s, 1Ks cartels?

Caution – this post is probably TLR but I’m on a train and my best work comes on a train.

There has been a lot of discussion about the cartels and understandably there is a lot of tension between those who agree with them and those who don’t. Add to that those who are left outside the group for a particular stake and you have a lot of opposing views which has created a pretty healthy and sometimes heated debate.

First, I can totally understand why some guys are really frustrated to not make in to a particular cartel, especially if they feel they are winners. I can’t really attest to the formation of the $60 and $100 groups since I have no idea how they were created but I can say that bias and friendships were not really a factor in the creation of the higher groups.

As mentioned before, the $1k regs set the ball rolling and were self-appointed. A meritocracy it has been aptly described as. They work as a team to protect their right to the $1k fish (and some are whales!) and are a very successful business model. Then the $500 guys cottoned on and did the same thing with a few more members as they faced more competition and subsequently the notion progressed downwards.

One critical point is that the group isn’t downwardly active and WILL NOT hunt guys as a pack at lower stakes. If person x is fighting back at $300’s, their $200 lobbies will not be attacked to keep them down. This is vital to show that the group isn’t acting to destroy people’s livelihoods but merely to protect a certain stake level. Within groups, each member has a right to sit other members (including leaders) without fear of a backlash and can chase guys down individually but will not get the backing of the group lower down.

Personal battles are fine and group members are required to play for x amount of time to be fair to the challengers and to not “inverse sit decline”. Being in a group actually exposes you to warring so games can actually get tougher as a result of being in a cartel and especially so in a large group like the $60’s where the members can be involved in reg wars for months.

The logic for the establishment of the groups cannot be denied – lobbies were unsustainable and the queues were enormous. Guys tried to fight back but with 15 guys shot-taking on Sunday’s for example it was impossible to get regular games, especially when those sat would just decline and re-join the queue. These “sat and decliners” were just little “black holes” that would extract money out of the poker community by bum-hunting the fish without fighting for their place there.

A lot of issues have been around group selection. The creation of the groups at the higher stakes was based on a couple of factors, skill level and those who were actively protecting lobbies and warring before its creation. A combination of the two to some extent was required. Other notions of friendship were denied, evidenced by one of our member’s brothers not getting in. Guys trying to break in were fairly voted for although this does take time. As chicagory mentioned though, if you are winning over a good sample vs the cartel, keep going and embrace it. The fish who sit/decline you almost all the time when sitting a queue of 40+ people were hardly offering any action so enjoy the games.

The cartels were a natural progression of HUSNG’s and an understandable outcome due to the saturation of the market. They are just speeding up the process of getting rid of weaker regs and the better guys will prosper in a system such as this. Within a group, it stands to reason that person x will face less challenger backlash than person y if they are a better player and as such the best should eventually get access to the best games. This is why % regs played can be a little misleading but it is in every player’s best interests to sit weaker guys for value to keep regulating the poker economy. As such, the best players should be able to make the most money, which is a much better notion than the biggest bum-hunters getting the best games and making the most money.

IF YOU HAVE READ NOTHING ELSE, READ THIS:
Guys working their way up or starting out at HUSNG’s should be absolutely ecstatic that these groups exist. Without them, making a living was becoming harder and harder, with just a few games / hour in the lobby + a few games against those “sat and decliners” taking a place in the lobby. In this system, the best will rise to the top and when they do they will have lobbies that can be profited from. It is a struggle to get there but a) it should be and b) it will actually be worth it if you do. This system weeds out the weak bum-hunters, the little black holes sucking money out of the game and rewards the hardest workers. It also forces action with regs against new up-and-comers so exposes weaker regs to bigger swings as they can’t just sit on their riches and pick off the fish.

Notions of friendships in lower groups seem quite prevalent and if this isn’t sour grapes then eventually a group will de-fragment so maintain caution within groups and update both participants and leaders regularly to keep it fresh and elite.

@Genher, you make an understandable point about not wanting to join a cartel and ethically I can relate to how you feel, though you should take a lot of comfort in the group not following opponents down through the stakes. However, I think the only fair way to get access to fresh lobbies without joining a cartel is by actively sitting guys and doing your bit to regulate the poker economy. A prime example from the $300’s is Rams who relentlessly hunts and regulates the lobbies and if he didn’t want to be in a cartel he would have earned his right to fresh lobbies because of the help he has given to the stake level by hunting so effectively.

Those who are saying they just want to sit and play the odd game against a fish, this is part of the black hole principle that I mentioned before.

Finally, I would suggest that guys at turbos and reg speeds also make sure they are actively sitting new guys – people are prospering from the patience and laziness of higher stakes guys who are just waiting for the next fish but just think, with those extra lobbies you could have without these shot-takers imagine how much more you could profit. Fighting, as least for our group, was a key factor in getting in to a group so earn you right to play the games you want to play and force others to earn those same rights.

Cliffs:
The HUSNG economy had become saturated.
“Cartels” force action at a particular stake but are not downwardly mobile and will not hunt down or make an opponent’s life hell. A guy facing protected lobbies at one stake will not be chased down by a whole group.
“Cartels” expose the members and the challengers alike and re-direct the money that bum-hunters were sucking out of the economy to the best players and hardest workers.
“Cartels” create a prosperous environment for those thinking of taking up HUSNG’s – if you are good enough, you can work your way up and when you do it will be worth it – they are good for the game.

/thread

I think 147 star just killed it, I dont think I'd ever be able to explain it better, imo that should be read before anyone who doesnt know what cartels are posts here (kinda like a sticky), anyone who doesnt agree with this is because he hasnt been a true reg or suffered the consequences of games saturation and are just pissed that their dreams seem harder now.

indeed golden post. But as mentioned before, unfortunately, 60$´s "cartel" is doing everthing the wrong way

Not if you sit them all the time and/or get others to sit them as well. Implying you can't ruin the life of a cartel member is incorrect, imo.

I think 147's post on how this is good for the poker economy is more compelling than the fact that weak regs can't sit in 50-man reglines and get lobs occasionally.

I have shared reads and notes when discussing specific hands, yes. I have never systematically shared these or taken notes/hands/stats from others and put them in my own db, which I consider unethical but is effectively impossible to police.

I think this is very standard in the husng community and poker community in general, though you're welcome to call me unethical for it if you'd like. It's worth noting that 2p2 and poker strategy discussion in general couldn't really exist without "sharing" of this nature.

147_star: Best post ITT

I have to admit i agree with your post,
i should have taken that in account but my problem with his statement was that he was calling these numbers clear empirical evidence. In addition i had the feeling(which im pretty sure of) that there were some regs presented like top regs on 60s(which actually aren't) and some strong cartel regs presented like total fish..

+1

I'd LOVE the idea of cartel if it was healthy, genuine and fair. But the problem is: the system is scam-friendly and the 60s cartel created by bunch of 30s regs is the best evidence of it.

I like it but is it cartels' wish to allow it?

OK, now i read the last few sites, and saw alot of bull****:

please make a diffrence of 200+ Cartells and 60-100s

I guess Ibavly doesnt know how the low cartels are working.

Im now Playing against the 200s and i guess they are good organized, and if you are good you really have a chance to come in.
They are not sharing reads (i have some friends in, and they said no worry they didnt, and my friends dont lie me)
and imo the 200s Cartell is a good thing (and i have to play them)

But the 60s and 100s are just a joke imo.
I was in and i like alot of people there, but its not right that they are not sharing reads, because they did, i had to tell alot of times dont share reads, its against the rulez.

Sometimes they know a sitlister is better than 60% of the group and they play him. Because he isnt in Cartell. (i dont like it but its ok)

And yes its true the guys from 100s Cartell doesnt play other Cartell guys alot, because they have alot of work with sitlist.

I guess the pool of 60s and 100s regs are to big to make it fair, but i deal with it(im now on 100s sitlist), i dont join the 100s because i dont like the organization. (some guys get in without voting, some guys were voted and have to wait because the others are in. One guy gets kicked nearlly everyone voted for kick, but he get protected i guess form a staker)

but all guys who are posting here make a diffrence of 60-100 and 200+ they are diffrent managed (because of the playerpools)

sorry for my bad english

Mudda, I do understand many of your reasons and I remember talking to you on skype after you decided to leave. I just want to clarify few things.

You say that people shared reads. That happened only few times only on skype that someone mentioned what sitlist guy did badly. Of course that is against the rules and people have pointed it out that it shouldnt happen. And fwiw I havent seen anything like that in January. We dont share reads anywhere (skype, forum) - talking about 100s group and its not allowed in any group afaik.

Yes, it is difficult to organize but there have been changes since you decided to leave. Its been over a month.... Like you, I dont agree with some choices but that will always be an issue with the 60s and 100s groups where there are so many players.

And lastly, good luck with getting into 200s

Hahahaha
It went from not sharing reads at all
To not sharing reads in januari

This thread is gold

i cant say what happend last month, but december it was way to much
and yes they shared reads on skype, alot of guys told them not to do, but it was a big group alot of guys didnt cared.

ty pavels i hope i become a 200s reg

Not being funny but as you do not play on stars why are you so actively involved in all of this?

This is exactly what I was saying. Of course the group members are going to say, oh we dont share reads, we dont share HH or whatever but it happens! AND NOW PEOPLE ARE ADMITTING IT.

This is exactly why these cartels should not be allowed! Not only is hunting in packs just so wrong on so many levels but sharing data on sitlist players is just a disgrace.

I hope stars are reading this thread and taking note.

Way to twist around some words We dont share reads! It would be just plain stupid and unfair.

When the group was forming, there were like 1000 messages a day on skype. Many people were (I guess) not completely aware of all rules. Basicaly anybody in husng was previously involved in some sort of skype study group where people were posting random HH. It was made clear to all members many times that it is not allowed in this group. People were asked to remove their post if it had something to do with reads. And now everyone gets it and it does NOT happen anymore.

You can believe whatever you want but it is not happening and strictly not allowed!

Edit Nevermind

i belive you and i dont care, but i read here few times, never shared reads, that was a lie.. (100s cartell) and i think 60s did too

Just because there were a few slip ups at the beginning with people mentioning basic reads isn't reason to freak out IMO. My impression is that they're telling the truth when they say that they've been doing a good job of not sharing reads/stats/etc.

I'm still not happy with the 60/100's cartels, it seems like there's a lot of inequality with how difficult it was to get in at their inception vs how difficult it is to get in now. To get in the group at the start it seems the requirement was just that the person had OK SS stats and/or wasn't too bad. Now the requirement is that they have to be really good (not just "not too bad") AND prove themselves by playing thousands of games vs the cartel AND be polite and not lose your cool AND pass a vote from all of the cartel members, many of whom have a vested interest in not letting new people in since that could mean they get kicked out. It seems like a lot of people currently in the cartel wouldn't have been able to get in under the new requirements.

That combined with the fact that they'll apparently sit anyone who doesn't want to be in the cartel (and isn't a higher stakes reg) seems like a bad idea. I get that if you just left good regs who weren't in the cartel alone completely that would mean the most +EV move for anyone would be to be out of the cartel, but on the non-sit list, which would mean they benefit from the cartel's work without doing it themselves. But there should be a compromise where e.g. the cartel sits the person a limited amount, which would prevent it being +EV for selfish people but would make it viable for someone who doesn't want to be in the cartel due to ethical objections to still play the stake and not be in the cartel.