why is there voting,why dont just look at statistic?

This is getting way out of control
Cant believe what i just read and most people reacting so calm like its normal

Some1 who scammed people twice for over 10k is/was the leader of a 60's cartel?
And chatting about i dont like you cause you r from this country , you will never sit higher than 30's cause i dont like you
Wtf
Really?

What kind of behaving did people expect from those kind of people?
Also Do you really believe that some1 that scammed people would not share database pr other info ect?

Ok, lets not misrepresent exactly how it happened. 75 were put on a list, list was composed of a wide range of opinions and recommendations from a lot of people. This was purely to try and gather all the people who should be in and did not need voting on because voting on every single reg is not a good solution. Also this saved a massive amount of time as well and everyone was given chance to raise concerns over anyone in the list who they did not believe to be a top 75 reg. This list was sent out to each of the leaders and they were told to send a list of anyones inclusion they even slightly questioned. Anyone that was even slightly questioned more than once was took off and put for voting with the rest of the potential people. 5 people were questioned once and one person questioned twice. So the leaders pretty much unanimously agreed with almost everyone on that list.

"Most" is super inaccurate.

Go to the forum and count how many votes there have been to move players in.

Again, I mentioned this in my last post; I'm not sure if you are naive or just denying it on purpose. If there are 90 guys in the cartel and there have been maybe 15-20 guys voted in, that's certainly not "most have fought their way in".

I meant most of people who was left outside of boat in beginning.
Sure its not fair some had to fight and some not.

It shouldn't be that difficult to make some objective criteria for entering at certain level. Or to stay in for that matter. HU poker isn't that subjective to need votes, this is not boxing where judge should count the number of punches they see each fighter land. Here you have direct results of a game and also have the so important EV. One should just define how big of a sample and vs who it needs to be to somehow count.

Democracy in voting is not so pure and innocent, cause I am sure X (presumed leader) could tell Y persons you should vote for Z to happen, and for one reason or another they just go and vote as said. This is far from objective in any way, at least for me.

Of course some people might not be accepted because of subjective reasons like notorious sit decliner, known scammer, overall bad attitude/reputation (whatever that would mean), but these sound more like exceptions, than rules.

I currently have no interest in anyone accepted or rejected anywhere, just to be clear, only thinking out loud.

Was about to post something very similar to this. Seems to me like it doesn't matter who the individuals are (barring scammers, sit-decliners, etc). As long as you have a group of the top regs at a level who are winning and are willing to battle the weaker regs who open-sit, you've solved the problem.

If it's decided that you must cap the number of members for whatever reason, that's also fine, but should not be based on subjective and easily manipulated voting - it should be based on merit. Kick out the members who are weakest or who aren't battling, and let in the stronger players. It seems obvious that this can and should be completely objective.

Aren't these losses distributed between many members of the cartel? Not equally but still... A single player battling the cartel is at a big disadvantage even if he's beating them overall.

This sounds pretty fair right? The cartel members were publicly stating when it first happened that it will be fair, that the better $100 regs will eventually be in and the weaker ones out. But clearly nothing is changing.

Sman9876 has a really nice ROI with an av BI much higher than all the $100 cartel regs (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=110), he also does incredibly well against regs. He was voted 'no' to joining the $100 cartel. Sorry but that is seriously a joke.

At one point, before he tried to join the cartel, he sat some of the $100 regs on FTP and they didn't wanna play him, just declined and stopped sitting that stake. But he's obviously not good enough to make the cut. Actually, I think he only has like 3-4 people in the cartel on Skype, maybe that has something to do with it?

As many people know there was an 'anti-cartel' group set up. This was basically a bunch of (former?) $100 regs who had decided to get together to battle the cartel together.

So how does the cartel respond? They say that anyone in the anti cartel will never get into the cartel, and then started threatening to sit their $60s.

One of the proposed strategies of the 'anti-cartel' group was to collectively sit the perceived weaker members of the cartel. The cartel said they thought this was scummy and unethical behaviour. Go figure.

But don't worry, it will be fair, that the better $100 regs will eventually be in and the weaker ones out.

I won't name names here, but wasn't someone in the cartel voted out by it's own members but he ended up staying because he was staked by one of the 'leaders'? I could have my facts completely wrong here and if I do then I apologise but I am just stating what I was told.

Glad to hear it. Clearly the general consensus in here is that most people don't have a problem with a cartel and it is a natural evolution of the game, they just have many issues with the way it was done. So if the cartel becomes dynamic and is changing it's members (regularly if needed), then people will be ok with the situation imo. Not 'cap reached, no more members allowed'. If Skai lost all his money and had to start again from the bottom and wanted to join the $100 cartel, I assume you wouldn't let him in because the cap is reached at the moment.

I again wont mention names, about 2 weeks ago I was not doing much so I decided to sit a $100 cartel reg. We played 1 game, and much to my shock he declined. 'Ok ill just wait for him to get another lobby then' I said to myself. But he didn't come back. Then, I see him playing $30s! I wait a bit and he still doesn't come back. So I started playing another $100 reg and lo and behold, he was back in the $100 lobby again. Many people also commented on him in the past saying he just plays 1 game against them and then stops.

So while some people in the cartel are at least doing their job, other members are just freeriding and taking advantage of shorter queues. How he gets his monthly quota of games against regs I'll never know.



As stated many times, I stopped playing HU a few weeks before the $100 cartel started. But nobody really knew this and no one said anything to me about the $100 cartel. I know there is a bit more to it but fwiw, here's my all time $100 graph



But yeah you're right, I don't have any of the cartel leaders on Skype.

100% agree and this is where I find pokerstars' comments aggravating. From pokerstars' perspective, the cartel means there is a whole bunch of bumhunters who can't earn their keep at the $100 through their playing ability who are now forced to move down (which we all agree is a good thing)...

The reality is that there are players who are clearly at the $100 level and can "hold their own" who do not get to open sit lobbys and play recreational players because they're not part of the cool gang .

I've now played ~1,800 games at the $100 level since mid November (I was recently told this is about the date when the cartel started). Assume all those games are against the cartel (looking at the names it's probably 99%), they are down $7.5k in ev. I'm up 0.5% in ev so I guess that makes their ev roi -4.3%
I think I can "hold my own".

This stuff may get into a lot of he said/she said, as far as both skill of certain regs not in the group goes, and as far as what groups and individuals are doing (as far as actions) to one another.

For example, freech, from what I heard you are not telling the entire story here:

From what I understand, the "anti cartel" you speak of was targeting not the weakest regs of the "cartel," but the leaders.

If this is true, it's an antagonistic move, and clearly things go downhill from there (not saying the cartel's response is great, but you're clearly not following what I suggested as you imply in your post if this is true).

Again, I'm not there, so I can't definitely say what is right and wrong as far as two people's stories go, but from what I've been told your story is not the entire picture there and not as one sided as you've made it seem.

Regardless of all that, kobmish's post makes a lot of sense. There's a lot of good feedback in this thread. This group play at the $100s (as far as this recent group) hasn't been going on all that long and I'd be surprised if some constructive changes did not occur as a result of the feedback. That doesn't mean that anyone that complains gets in, but maybe it means that there are a few examples of good players that should be in that are not in.

This has me a little concerned. You shouldn't have to be part of the cool gang to be able to play. if you don't use the chat and don't really talk to anyone else or have no interest in joining a cartel, does that mean you are going to have to play this group of regs all the time and won't be able to opensit a lobby? They will get to play all recreational players?

I don't know much about cartels and to be honest, I don't really understand how they work. If groups are forming to control pokerstars lobby what assurance do we have that they will stay honest?

I also don't understand the need for them. May be someone can enlighten me?If you think another reg is weak and doesn't deserve to be at your stake, just set sharky to sit him!?? That's what I do. Why do you need to create a group to do that?

I want to believe that this is all ok, but I can't help myself thinking that when a group of people join together to chase individuals they believe don't deserve to be there it can't be fair play.

I am willing to be convinced otherwise.

Cartel...The posh word for bumhunting

pies just fyi, there is a reg with 6k game sample with cartel and he is crushing carte for first 1.xk games and than his line goes straigt down for next 5k games so your sample is irrelevant for making any conclusions if you are beating cartel

I have seen some targets list, it was neither leaders, neither weakest regs, targets seemed random, def not weakest.

I don't really see anything good with "cartels". Although I'm sure really good regs will still beat cartel overtime. It has been the case in all other formats through the years.

with such logic u dont need to be in cartel at all, just keep making money

I get it's not fully conclusive but 1,800 games = Irrelevant sounds harsh

http://www.husng.com/content/given-m...true-winrate-0


Life is no doubt easier for the cartel. Assume 20% of games would be vs recreational players and you have a 5% roi edge in those instances, that's a 1% improvement to your bottom line. If it's deserved for you and not me (like all in the $200+ cartels) then great but if its not, then that is what a lot of people are uncomfortable about.

The voting system is flawed, especially if the cartel has a cap. Why would you ever vote someone in and risk yourself being kicked out..

How do you know this? Does the cartel have a shared database?

^^Good question
It seems to me that these cartels are just cartels, no need to soften the name up, as it's just a group of people trying to push other people out regardless of skill level, atleast it seems that is the case w these newly found ones.
"These cartels are made so that good players shouldn't have to let bad players get fish they don't deserve bla, bla, bla..." and then you go and place people like coffeeyay and phl500 on the sit-list hahahaha.
The thruth is all of you have just goten cocky because you have 100 people behind your back and that's the truth.
Such a joke

^^ Agree with everything!

and you figured it all just now?

+1

he actually showed his graph

Do i understand right ? Regs from cartel are saying this is not VIP club, that the system will be fair with rotating membership, but at the same time they put obv well known scammer as leader. Guys u are a joke