I'm up to 600 games vs $60's cartel and I haven't had any significant problems with cartel members not giving action.

New 60s Admission Rules:

-Anyone who is trying to get into the 60's cartel must receive >50% votes from the 60s group members.
-If a player asks if he has gained your vote, you must provide him with a direct answer consisting of either yes or no. Do not answer with maybe, or a synonym of maybe.
-Yes votes must be made public immediately by posting in the admissions thread. Once a yes vote has been cast, this will not be changed.
-When you vote yes, you are still required to sit that person and if they sit you, you are still required to give action.
-All yes votes will be published for anyone, cartel or otherwise, to see in the 60's Admission Votes Public Spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...BLUFYblE#gid=0
-Once a time period of 6 months has elapsed without getting in from the day of receiving the first yes vote, the yes vote will all turn back to a no,
When you decide to vote yes for someone, the yes vote must be posted in this thread http://hucrew60.freeforums.org/yes-votes-t54.html in the format of:
1) Screen name of player you wish to vote in
2) Amount of games you have against player
3) A brief explanation to why you decided to give your vote to this player
-Group cap can never be exceeded, if someone receives the required amount of votes, and we are capped, someone will be removed to make room for them.

So weaker player tend to vote no for not voting them out?!
But the whole thing seems to get more professional..

Group cap can never be exceeded, if someone receives the required amount of votes, and we are capped, someone will be removed to make room for them.

this a bad rule and will be abused, and doesnt make that much sense tbh. What is the cap?
I think it should be more "unplanned" kicking, just like when someone is reportedly weak, freerolling, not giving action etc. otherwise they ppl will never vote yes if this will mean they are in danger of kicking. How is it even determined who is gonna be kicked next?

Why not deny the bottom x% of action-givers over Y timeframe a vote, and then it's these guys who are chopped when someone new gets in?

This is just terrible news. Do you have an idea how it affects the voting?

I don't understand this either.

Seems to me the best strategy is to not deal with cartels at all, and purely target 1 or 2 weak members (I mean follow their grind schedule, sleep when they sleep, play when they play etc).

This way you won't have to play with 50 other ppl for over 100 games to get votes, since you basically force 1 or 2 guys to quit poker and hence the cartel.

Idk what the policy is for cartel members who have to quit poker because of this- but I imagine getting in cartel this way is much easier for now (until when members in cartel are those who should be there at least- i.e. there is big skill disparities between cartel members).

Well, the positive news are that cartel tries to develope. I hope that 50% voting rule will be replaced soon as it clearly not makes the whole more efficient.

I have long been saying these kind of things! Just a shame for the hyper regs not in cartel they did not have much foresight 3 months ago

A lot to go over there, a bunch of potential outcomes.

As far as weaker players voting no, won't they vote yes because they have to choose between getting beaten up over and over by an outsider right now, or voting yes, being left alone for the time being, and just having to fade being replaced?

I'd imagine as a weaker player, you'll take your chances that a different weaker player might get voted out instead of you, and vote yes to the outsider reg who is beating you up, so he stops beating you up.

That's not to say the system is perfect, I'm just less concerned about what a weaker player will do in it versus before.

I don't love the hard cap, but that can always be changed in the long term (anything can obviously). For example, what if HUSNGs grow like they have over the last 4 years? Obviously need to modify the cap. Or if they decline from where they have grown... this stuff isn't stagnant, you can't just force a certain # over the long term or you'll end up with other undesirable effects.

This is a great strategy if you are making good money against weaker cartel members, sure.

But most good players see a lot of really bad recreational players, and prefer to go through whatever is necessary to get into a cartel group so that they can get 30-80% of their games against those recreational players.

If the recreationals die down a lot, then I could see to where there's less incentive to clear huge hurdles to get into a cartel group, but that seems nowhere near the case I think right now, I think most guys that want to maximize profit want to be in a group so that they can get access to the most profitable opponents.

The idea isn't to purely play a few regs. The idea is to beat up one or two so badly that they have to give up more than just their spot in the cartel.

Obviously the final goal it seems is to get into cartels. Just imo if you only target 1 player it is a better strategy as I see things now- even though you won't be voted in by the cartel rules.

its been said itt alot of times that they sit each other to
i understand if there is almst no edge or a very small 1 you rather play fish or some1 not in cartel

but if you are crushing some1 that hard i dont think you will stop because you are in the cartel and he(the 1 you were beating up so bad) is 2

if you are beating him so bad you will prob keep sitting him?
i wouldnt see why you would suddenly leave him alone
unless people in the cartel are protected which also has been said not to be the case

so the one that is getting beat up has no incentive really to vote yes

This system was designed by a well known player in the $300's (not sure if he wants his name mentioned or not) and has been adopted by the $100 and soon to be adopted by the $60's (it's winning the vote 30-4 and the vote closes in ~24 hours. Not sure if it's in at $200+.

The cap concerns are valid but they are just a way to ensure we don't drift into the environment we were in prior to all this cartel stuff.

Targeting the weakest players in the cartel is the intended benefit and there's now nowhere for them to hide if they want to keep playing at the $60's.

On a personal note, I'm in a similar situation to many in this thread as I want to get into the $100's.
As soon as I get someone's vote, I will move to the next player as it's worth a lot to your roi if you can make it into the cartel (at least 1.5% by my calculations)

jfc P and P are even annoying when they are muted

Two main things.

1) Crushing is relative. I can have a 1% ROI vs you and a 4% ROI vs a casual player, and you're losing a lot of money vs me, but I'm far better off playing the 4% ROI player if I have access to them. So once I'm in the group, I may not play you (as much).

2) Once you're in the group you're required to play so many regs that aren't in the group, a lot of your reg battling may end up being used up this way. So going back to the above example, even if I have a 2% edge vs you and 3% vs casuals, if 50% of my games are required games vs other regs, I'd probably use my other 50% to play casuals as much as possible, and not prioritize sitting (or hunting) you as often in my example.

For those two reasons, I think players within groups aren't playing each other that much.

However, it's sort of like you pull one end of this economy and another end moves a bit towards it. For example, if there is a case where there aren't many outsider regs trying to get into the group, I think many of the stronger regs inside the group will tend to sit the weaker ones a lot more frequently. The more outsiders that are being fought by the groups, the less we'll see battles within the group.

So I think there is still incentive for weaker players to vote yes when they are being beaten up.

The sheer number of games required for a good player to get in does seem a bit high. Over time, though, that will not be an issue, because a lot of the problems many people have with these requirements is that they are far higher than the initial voting process to pick people for the groups (good players, some friends, etc.). The longer time moves on away from the initial process, the more accepting a lot of the requirements should be.

But still, having to play at least 50% of 45 people in the $300s and having to play at least 50% of 90+ people in the lower levels.... it seems to me that a # closer to 40% for the lower levels might be more appropriate.

It's a solid system coming from a single person, but it'd be nice if lower levels sort of adopted "best practices" from the system, or at least modified it to fit their stakes. What works exactly for 1ks isn't necessarily going to work for 300s isn't necessarily going to work for $60s. So while the "yes or no to new system" votes may end up being yes and may end up being better than previous systems, hopefully we see individual buyins tailor their rules to what fits their own buyin rather than just copying higher stakes rules all the time.

But you need waaay more games vs ppl at the 300s, than you'll probably need at the 60s, so I think you'll need less games to get intp 60s, than any levels above

If you check the $60 cartel members profits per game since January 1st many of them aint even in profit and many have such small profits. Considering they are playing so many recreationals they are clearly playing above a stake level that they should. Just way too many people are in $60 cartel for reasons other than skill level.

Find them, sit them, beat them

so what exactly do i have to do to be able to play hypers and sometimes get a lobby? i'm happy to play regs (have played close to 1k games vs. literally 95%+ regs) but obviously would like to get on whatever list so i can get some action vs. weaker players as well..
do i just have to keep playing until people recognise that i'm 'good enough' (if ever) or do i have to talk to someone? i didn't read the 1300+ posts so apologies if i'm missing something

You have to get 50%+ of the cartel at the stake you wanna play
To vote you in
Please Correct me if im wrong
You do that by playing them obv

Btw
I use to play 180's because of you
You were crushing them why arent you playing them anymore?
Or just expanding your play?

This could be true.

However, why on earth do the $300s have more players in them than the group below them ($200s)? They are the only group out there like this.

It seems like it's moving in the right direction, but how did this happen in the first place if it's so hard to get into the $300s group (relative to $100s or $60s)?

It should be harder to get into each higher level though. Opponents should be willing to battle for longer before voting yes, even if they are losing.



What buyin level(s) are you playing in?

As I understand it, there are about 100 regs in the cartel. So the only thing you need to do is battle a bit more than 50 regs for a 1k game each, impress them enough so they vote yes (pray for good card distribution and don't get personal) and that's it! you are in You can now play hypers.

OH I forgot ! you also need one of them to leave because numbers are capped.

It's in place to make the game better LOL

good luck with that

50 people,1 k games each, lol

that meens you'd get in about 2,3 years