VinceRaiz no need to cry in the game about sit decline as here are my notes on you

sits scope 30 hyp feb13 sucks out bad accepts wins 2 loses 3rd declines sits again feb13 loses declines

So when we previously played you sat me, won 2 accepted lost third declined, sat again lost declined. Your point is? You do something twice then suddenly say I should not do the same back? Also I have clearly stated I want a sample of games versus as MANY players as possible. I have pressed rematch and decline versus you today. So if you want to mention a decline mention a rematch also. Also check your PTR hud or whatever to see feb13 when u declined everytime u lost in $30 hyper v me

To all the posters trying to say that this cartel is horrible, criminal, a gigantic conspiracy, and should be shut down by stars, think about this. How are 70+ people who barely know each other going to spontaneously get together and start a gigantic conspiracy to control the lobbies with underhanded tactics? It's just not going to happen. If people in the cartel were doing things like paying off stars employees, regularly sharing detailed reads on players, or hunting people for the sole reason they trash talked them on 2+2, do you really think that NO ONE in the cartel would have said "eff this" and quit the cartel and posted the chat logs?

I know, one person a while back said that some people shared reads in the 100's chat near the start. And every time any small thing goes wrong everyone takes that as proof that the entire cartel is a gigantic conspiracy. But there's really nothing to indicate that the cartel is nearly as terrifying or scummy as many posters keep saying that it is.

This isn't to say that there aren't problems with the cartel. There are. But if people keep spamming the thread with fearmongering like "kidpokerSLO got voted back in, this means that stars should shut down the cartel!" then it drowns out legitimate concerns about the cartel. So RMC11 and others please take it down a notch on the melodrama and try to have reasonable discussions instead of freaking out over every little thing.

Edit: Btw it's going to make it a lot less likely that the cartels will be transparent if every time they do anything it gets blown way out of proportion.

does that translates to "sit second in tournament where account SScopesharKK were open sitting at $30 HU HT?" i find it odd that you have to note down your sn to make sure he sat you

.

I have never said the cartel are involved in criminal activity, so please do not include my username in a post that suggests so. I believe I have made fewer posts then many in here so I think holding me up as a spammer is unfair also. All I want is a game that is fair to everyone involved, and trust me if I believed that the cartels were fair then I would be the first to support them. In the meantime I will continue to give my opinion on this matter, please feel free to skip over any of my future posts.

"poker-cartel"

Dude you are a total joke, I never sit decline anyone in my life. Anyways I'll sit you everytime you opensit at 60s and you can do whatever you want, I honestly don't care.

And lol @ the argument " playing as MANY players " when you only play 1 and decline.

My bad, I didn't intend to suggest that you were saying that cartel was being criminal. I just used your username because you were one of the most recent people posting who was blowing small things out of proportion.

No real problem, just that people being involved or not in alleged criminal activity is not any concern of mine, I'm only worried about how the growth of cartels are impacting our game, I don't think what anyone does here is against any law but just think that many innocent (i.e. non bumhunters) are getting unfairly caught up in this.

Yes I have posted a lot in the last few days (as I alluded to in my last post yesterday) but I had been away from the thread for a while and had a lot to catch up on. Again, no real offence taken, I don't want to make any enemies on here but I will not be afraid to express my opinions. Will be posting less as I have said much of what I needed to anyway.

lol at zachaser not being in 60s cartel

interesting list. How does voting out work and how many go through?

you can find all that in the sheet posted above

How does it work if you want to invite someone in and you do not have any contact on that player and that player never talked with anyone from cartel? Some group leader will just sit him at tables and out of the blue notifies him through PS chat that if he wants he can join the cartel or what?

yes, that happened with some guys

Think this arose when we wanted to tell hoya1984 what was happening (nobody spoke with him + doesnt speak English). Sknder came to rescue with russian>South korean google translate though lol

So getting in is like a waiting game. I should just battle with cartel, play my A game and hope someone will contact me someday that I'm in if I want to. I don't have to post my graph or stats anywhere?

Don't you think though that the cartel is eventually going to get too big? I mean you would have to kick someone out almost every time you invite someone in.

If your graph is needed for something then someone will request it off you

No, hopefully we can put some measures in place that keep the numbers more self regulating along with working towards having a system where people who deserve to be in should be in (we aren't claiming the current system produces completely fair results). Some ideas exist for this but until concrete answers exist as to how exactly those will work it would be pointless to say what they are.

@Blue - I think you are a leader of the $60's. Did you see my post before about players being sat by a challenger but declining? Are you planning on doing anything about that? How will the #'s be kept low in the group and the strongest emerge when sessions can be avoided and members given time periods in which bum-hunting seems to be permitted?

This isn't an attack, just a few concerns. I look forward to your responses.

I've kept my mouth shut and my head down this whole time and just played against cartel regs. I have chat banned on Stars so I don't have to deal with any drama, and I havent said a word or complained to anyone. When I found a guy who was in the cartel I color coded them and put them on auto sit.

Overall I have played very well and this isn't even remotely reflected in the ridiculous "voting" process layed out by the cartel.

First off, played the following members the requisite 15 + games required for them to vote yes or no: Lexa55, KQ69, alwayswin22, skandr555, gedstak, ggarethh, boogeewoogee, geoallin3, vusserix, lazzzydog, kaimac, mull84, perfect av, 72worm, muziekstuk, stakelis24, pdogedog, severe262, and ypsik. Additionally, I played futuring88, 5rayfinkle, and randomchu, but was declined action before 15 games on their part, for reasons unknown.

That is 19 members played, yet I only have 6 total votes accounted for?

Also, I am playing in the philippines. The time when I play is dead time on Stars, so just plain don't come in contact with majority of cartel members. How is that fair for a voting system based on numbers? What I can say is that I've played every cartel reg that is on during my sessions.

Finally, my graph at $60s this year from january 1 til yesterday, 95% against cartel:

[IMG]http://************/image/dkq3u5v0n/[/IMG]



Pretty solid proof I'm holding my own and deserve to share lobbies, at the very least.

Thanks to ibavly and irregular for the support.

Edit: Will also add that this is 4/5 tabling up to 4 different regs at a time.

Yes I did but was keeping to my word of no more writing in this thread, that has gone to **** though so may as well answer

Yes I agree that is an issue and we are looking at a number of solutions to make it better. I would find it exceptionally annoying to be on the outside but constantly having to 3/4 table 3/4 diff guys whilst they just played fish on the side. I'm not sure how much about them should currently be discussed publicly when the ideas exist in a very primitive form and haven't even been discussed with all the other leaders yet.

Also another thing is that the first few weeks have been incredibly hectic. This had made it exceptionally hard to monitor who is not giving who action when they should (since they quite often are playing another reg so can decline). Hopefully this will calm down and then it can be monitored closely. Given the lowest % v sit list was around 40% and the guys at this number not being noticeably far away from the rest in terms of that % I think the problem of people running away has been somewhat overstated though.

I think your posts are generally well-reasoned and on point but you're way off base here.

The cartel, for example, blacklists people who sit-decline, which has absolutely nothing to do with one's actual poker skill and is conduct "away from the table" (in the sense that it's not directly related to quality of poker decisions and deals with lobbies, not actually play). I'd imagine a similar stance would be taken if a player intentionally timed down somewhat often, even if they were a very solid player.

Additionally, given volume minimums/% minimums v sitlist, not to mention some arguments you yourself have previously given in this thread, someone willing to 4table other regs and breakeven is better for the cartel than someone who wins at 3% but only plays a few hundred games per month. This has nothing to do with "skill". Further, because of the subjective voting process, cartel members can in fact quite easily vote "no" for someone who they dislike due to chat conduct, a slowroll they remember, blinding down when dced, etc. and directly harm their chances at entry into the cartel, regardless of their quality as a player.

I think this is sufficient to establish that 1) the cartel is not solely concerned with having "the best players" (in terms of quality as poker players) in it, and 2) that conduct not directly related to things strictly in the "poker decision" domain can impact who gets into the cartels.

I think (as with sit-decliners) someone like KidPokerSLO should be blacklisted from the cartel, as it is an example of behavior that the husng community in particular and the poker community generally absolutely should not tolerate, especially before KidPokerSLO has made good on all of his debts. It's clear that the cartel's design not only allows for but easily facilitates and encourages making decisions on a basis apart from skill as a poker player already, and given that cartels should use their influence to strongly discourage scamming in the community.

Else, for the sake of consistency it seems the cartel needs to: -unblacklist all sit/decliners -set consistent and objective criteria for entry and dismissal from the cartel. You are trying to walk the middle line and I don't think the position is consistent. Personally, I think it's entirely within the power of the cartels to make arbitrary "unfair" decisions as they desire (which many anti-cartel posters itt seem to reject for reasons which are unclear to me), though there are pretty compelling reasons not to. But as things stand, you seem to argue that the cartel is a meritocracy while it clearly is not. As such, the only thing the acceptance of KidPokerSLO represents is an acceptance of a known scammer into the cartel's ranks, which effectively atm represents a significant sheltering from a number of strong regs and an allowance to actually play fish at $60s.

If you respond I at least hope you will have more to say than that I'm further off-base than Pirus and Punterz

@Blue-

Yeah, that makes sense, I think it's definitely something to consider though how to make to process fairer for both the group members and the challengers but as mentioned it is still early days.

Regarding %'s, be cautious with those since if a group member is very good they will face less 'sat' action from the sit-list and the 'member being sat %' and 'member sitting a challenger %' will create some statistical issues where it may seem a guy is slacking but in fact is getting a lot of declines and less action. This is an internal reason why a uniform sitting policy would be helpful.

Dunce brings up some good critical points towards groups.

MTV is another player example other than the KidPoker player too.

Also lol at oxyzak being at -2 despite showing heart and game.

I have a question - is voting for those with enough games mandatory or not?

Also if not mandatory, I am kinda puzzled to see guys with similar number of games like me leading me with the 3-5 number of "yes", are they doing so much better:



You can say it's my chat, but in reality the most rude thing someone's read from me is GL and GGs, so....