Quote:
Originally Posted by Picasso
My main point is that the more you expand your argument, the more you accurately describe a cartel. What you are doing is akin to rebranding; this is something that is collusive by nature and the general public probably wouldnt react positively if they heard about it so you are trying to soften the term without changing the meaning. Cartel has a negative connotation for a reason, and that reason is because cartel-like behavior in real business is illegal.
If you want to argue that it is bad for the game to let people know about the cartels, then that is fine. If the guys in the cartels want to feel better about what they are doing, then that is fine. But to say the word is a bad choice because it carries a negative connotation is simply missing the point. It carries that connotation for a reason. If behavior perfectly fits a negative word, then that behavior is very likely negative.
Cartels are perfectly rational from an economic standpoint, my entire argument is that none of the people involved [or even those who arent involved] want to admit that what they are doing is behavior not allowed in regulated industries and are merely trying to rebrand their image to save face.
*not all of this is directed at your post, so don't take it personally please
I think that the community knowing about these groups is good. I think being secretive is bad.
I think using a word to describe them that most people auto think "drug cartels, murders, omg bad" is not the best way to do it.
There is also a flaw in the technical definition. Others have pointed some out, but these groups can play other members of the group, they can sit their life, make their playing time miserable if they so choose. The real life examples of your illegal groups do not do that.
Going one step further, these groups are good for the games. The reason I support them has nothing to do with friends (again, I have friends that can't get in, that haven't gotten in and that have gotten in, plenty in all categories). The reason I support them is that I think all the evidence we've seen shows that having every player with a half a brain sitting around and taking turns waiting for recreational players is not a recipe for a healthy or expanding game format. Why? Well, one main reason is that it removes a ton of skill and profit potential from the games. Having 200 people making 20k a year in the $100s is not that attractive to new players (and new players is how this game has grown in profit in recent years). I'd rather see the best 30 people making 60k a year, the next 50 making 50k a year and the next 40 making 30k a year, with the bottom end moving down and making 10-15k a year instead of that 20k. I think that rewards the skill in this game better and also makes the game far more attractive from people looking at the outside in.
Lets also look at higher stakes. If these groups are bad and not allowed and regs should just sit there avoiding each other, you'd see someone like gr33n with 300k profit, not 1.5 mil. You'd see guys like Olivier making far less each year (and a bunch of currently lower profit regs would make as much as them). That's terrible for the games. Nobody wants to play a game for profit and make low six figures if they are the very best, they want to see the best making 500k, 1 mil, 1.5 mil and that gets them excited and they pick HUSNGs to play instead of STTs or MTTs (and history has shown, the more popular the game, the far better it is for profit potential).
When you take the skill out of a game, when you turn professional play into socialism (everyone gets to play x recreational, we'll all take turns) it starts to destroy the game. So, fine, use the word cartel, but the other option is socialism (or we'll even say communism!). Cartel vs communism, your pick! (reality is neither word accurately describes either situation because of people's preconceived notions of what each word means... ).
I'm totally biased here too. I own a HUSNG site that depends on the game being healthy and profitable, so my stance is not what some of my friends want or experience, it's going to be what I think maximizes the chances of my site (and the game) being profitable for as long as possible.
And if you think casual players don't recognize profit, you're delusional (not necessarily you, but I've heard this from even very good players before). When 10bb super turbos came out, they were not nearly as popular as the 25bb super turbos that followed. Casual players aren't idiots, they want the chance to make money. Hell, I think people are starting to realize these days that many losing players have a lot of skills, some even the same skills as good regs. It's not that they are missing the strategy, it's that they tilt, they make bad decisions in real time, they have terrible lifestyles and emotions that impact their play, and the profit potential off of those errors is huge.
The whole idea of secrets and "if only we can stay the same and keep everyone out of the game and share the bad players" is backwards thinking that hurts this game. Popularize the game if you have the courage and confidence in yourself, because as long as you're one of the better players, you'll always profit more and more as the game grows in popularity.
I think it would be best if every reg realized on their own they should spend 20% of their games facing weaker regs right now, but that's not the reality. People get greedy and think 'well someone else will face that weak reg, I'll take the casual player' and pretty soon nobody is facing any regs (so many regs faced other regs single digit % of the time when we did the study last year). Groups a necessarily and natural step in ensuring that everyone makes the game more competitive and returns some of the valuable skill to it that keeps it healthier long term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ibavly
This a sponsored forum that profits mostly from husng professionals and from aspiring husng professionals. I think changing away from a word with very negative connotation in order to not scare away people would be totally reasonable.
Nothing going on is similar to unethical business practices. It's incredibly annoying for anyone who's not in, sure, but it's not unethical. Your post is the very reason we need to change the word, because your automatic reaction when you see the word cartel is that something illegal is going on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armed_Robbery
chicagory, i checked in a dictionary and it seems that the word always has the same meaning as in the languages i know better, which is strictly an economic term. i don't think the usage of terms should be dictated by public opinion, if you want to express yourself understandably you should stick to the definition of terms. in this case, the word cartel clearly describes the collusion between competitors, it is in no way related to mafialike structures by its origin.
Yes, the technical meaning is always the same. But if you ask 10 people on the street what they think of when you use the word cartel, many will say mafia, killing, drug cartels, etc. That's the realistic part of my point. I'm not arguing the technical definition (except these regs are still playing each other when they want to, they aren't barred from that, unlike the illegal examples given).
Quote:
Originally Posted by watergun7
Blame the Mexicans and Colombians for making people associate the word cartel with mafioso connotations.
Well put (though more accurately, blame the American people who have pushed their government to outlaw drugs so popular that nearby countries major markets revolve around bringing drugs into America).
Last edited by ChicagoRy; 01-22-2014 at 05:53 PM.