So this posts says to get into any group the graph has to be "verified by a full audit, using other players data, illegally data mined information and a security check via TeamViewer to watch the graph being created in real time". This is where you try and misrepresent the divisions by saying this is what they require you to go through to get in. Now you are saying...

How do you reconcile what you say in the first quoted bit with the part highlighted in the second section? You are honestly going to claim that earlier you were merely stating what was advocated? Why did you represent it in a manner that suggested that is what happens when you had absolutely no idea what happens? This is so clearly a change of what you are saying that I can only think you were willfully lying earlier to try and put divisions in a bad light to anyone unfamiliar with the process.

It's an analogy, it's not meant to be an exact comparison. Certain features are the same and I made that clear when I compared them. Premier league teams have access to the big money by virtue of their current league standing. To get access to this money the teams outside of these leagues have to prove their worth. The league is set up in a way that allows the teams that perform the best to win more money. If you can't see how those points are analogous I'm not really sure what to say.

Hypers have almost always been about the best at each level not playing each other, even long before divisions. The only thing that changed is the incentive for weaker regs to get sat and this is what divisions are about. As I said earlier divisions are more meritocratic than a football league. If you put Chelsea in league 2 it would take them a minimum of three years to play Premier league football again. If you put Skai in the 30s it would take him less than a year (or in any case, certainly less than 3) to reach the top again.How can something that offers such mobility and correction based on skill level be anything other than the ultimate meritocracy?

this nonsense talk from the cartels is is really worth it. they protect the fish, fight climate change deniers, run more ethically than soccer leagues.

At the WSOP main event this year the table seating won't be random but will be based on past participation and finishing position. This new meritocratic system has been introduced to more fairly cater to the rising number of professionals and lower number of recreational players that enter the Main event. This new simplified approach also allows smoother administration of the event, enabling the winner to be crowned before a hand is played.

Prior final tablists will be automatically seeded to this year's final table division and will not have to pay an entry fee. This division will battle for 8 of the seats at the final table of 9. This is totally fair as these players have spent many previous entry fees to battle their way to the main event final table and totally deserve a fairer chance of making this year's final table.

Prior participants lower than final tablists will be automatically seeded into divisions of 1000 players based on highest prior finishing position. The first 1000 will be seeded at tables with proportionately more recreational players than lower divisions. A recreational player by definition is a player who has never entered the main event before no matter how well qualified in other arenas. The main event is special and cannot be allowed to be made unfair by seeding players from lesser backgrounds such as online poker millionaires or champions of Europe.

The winner of each 1000 player division will earn the right to next year participate in the one higher division but only if they were a seeded player. If a recreational player some how wins a seeded division then they are still eligible to participate as a recreational player next year. The exception is if a recreational player wins the lowest 1000 division. This fortunate player will be seeded next year in the second lowest 1000 division. It is of course not possible for a recreational player to make the final table. They must pay their dues through the divisions.

With this new fairer structure it is anticipated that a talented recreational player will need to spend about $80,000 to make the final table of the main event but only if they are talented enough to win each 1000 player division eight years in a row. But this is entirely fair because the final tablists got there first and "finders keepers."

WSOP management have been overwhelmed with the dramatic increase in main event entries and the many accolades for the simplified meritocratic system for determining the main event winner.

"I always wanted to spend my entire life savings for a chance to sit at the WSOP Main event!", exclaimed Harry Mullet of Idaho before killing himself. "After all what's a bucket list for!"

The 2015 Main Event Champion Dolly Brunson proudly thanked his supporters, "Thankyou for awarding me the 2015 Main Event title without playing a single hand of poker in recognition for the many years I have played the game at the highest of levels."

Past champion and self-proclaimed greatest player the world has ever seen, Ryan Riess endorsed the new structure, "My year was so unfair. Why anyone could have won! This new structure ensures only the best will win."

in this case, you've decided that you want to play like your opponent. you've interpret the game in a certain way and you decided to play accordingly. I don't see what could be wrong with that.

in this case, even tough you have to decide if vilain is a fish or not(and maybe we have a different oppinion of what a fish is) there are things done between "he is a fish" and "i shove". your refence tool allows you to not interpret those other factors, not crunch number, and not calculate things wich made you shove vs the fish. whats his range, whats your equity vs it, whats your fold equity etc. so here your chart has interpret all the decisions factors but one(categorizing your opponent).

what if i have to solve an equation for an exam and in the lessons the solution was presented in 10 steps. Do you think it's cheating if i write the whole solution on my arm and look at it during the exam? What about writing just the 2 first steps cause i dont know how to figure them out logically? still cheating?

what happened in the previous hands is perfect information, theres no calculation involve about them, just remembering. hud helps you remember those and i've said in previous post why i think its fair, no matter how powerful and accurate they are.
however having a written strategy allows you to not interpret the game structure or stats, you also don't need to calculate the right answer(how to play) according to certain factors wich i think it's unfair. It doesnt matter if it solves one piece of the puzzle or solves the hole thing for you.
Do you agree that those 2 things are fundamentally different? Could you elaborate more on why you see them as being the same?

And to answer your next question no i don't think that charts should be allowed, not even 1. The only reason why stars is in a tough spot with your programm is because they want to allow 1 chart wich is fundamentally wrong imo.
Another question: Do you think bot are cheating?

If this is going to happen ( I hope it doesn't but if it does), then I'd prefer the tables just become anonymous ...like Bovada.

Therefore nobody can cheat.

It's like how banning guns gives the criminals who are willing to still use them a bigger edge against the people.

Banning these softwares will just take away the ability for the average players to play on the same field as the big dogs. It will give the big dogs who are willing to cheat an even greater edge now.

In business this is called a cartel that artificially creates a deliberately high cost of market entry to prevent new entrants from accessing customers. It is also illegal in business pretty much around the world.

A just turned 18, but broke Skai-Mark-II would need how much loss money backing to battle solely strong regs while being denyed access to any fish for 3 years do you think?

(You admit that reg vs reg battles in a raked environment are unprofitable I think).

In contrast it is much fairer to all entrants if Skai-Mark-II can simply play at the highest level he can afford the buy-in with no artificial cost barriers. The problem is the HUSNG lobby which should instead be blind like SpinnGos (but with SpinWiz and any other software way of manipulating the entry cost banned).

There is no high cost of market entry though, a profit is still expected. He would not expect losses before earning his place back at the top. He would just make less than he otherwise would've done whilst he proved himself.

I don't agree that reg v reg battles are unprofitable, no. There is an absolute mountain of evidence that shows this not to be true as well. One of the most highly regarded players in the world would likely expect to make a profit for many of the levels (and possibly including the highest ones as well, post rb)

It's interesting that you think a blind entrance would avoid these problems though, do you think a blind entry makes the entrance cost higher or lower for Skai mkII?

No, I'm not falling for that tarp.

Blind entry makes it fair for all participants. Regs would earn less than they do today and that would be fairer for all entrants than today.

The expectation of regs that they should be able to avoid each other is unfair to all other players. Fairness IMO means all players get an equal random shot at all other players. The division method deliberately creates unfairness for all players so as to maximise reg profits. Regs claim this is "fair" but that is ludicrous (see my WSOP post above).

Recs may or may not be good at poker but they are either ignorant of the way the divisions work or stupid for playing HUSNGs unless PokerStars makes entry blind like SpinnGo (but without any software like Spinwiz).

Would you have a problem if all players that entered a SNG received an email explaining to them how divisions work and what software was available to make sure they never play against a recreational player but always face a proven champion?

There are plenty of calculations involved in today's HUDs of which the most common is the averaging of statistics. Don't forget that HUDs filter, categorise, merge actions together, calculate aggregate stats, and present data in easy to interpret formats. A text file of hand histories is something with which there are no calculations involved (ignoring the underlying processes of saving, opening, etc), but a HUD is a far cry from that. I think that brings us pretty comfortably into the "2 steps" which you mention and beyond. HUDs may not tell you what to do (except they can, if you want them to) but they automate the process of collecting past history, interpreting past history, compiling past history into useable data, and turning that data into useable information. Some HUDs can go even further with some clever colour coding, etc and start the next step which is what decision to make off of this useable data. HUDs already tell you parts of the decision making process you laid out above (as an argument against a static preflop chart): you can get HUDs with matrix heatmaps of ranges and if you can't already, I'm sure we'll soon start to see HUDs with matrixes of equity vs historical range and fold equity vs historical range.

More importantly, HUDs can be manipulated into being charts as well (which you say is OK). Raidalot talks a lot about how newcomers to online poker are getting fleeced because they aren't aware of these tools' existence, but if there are rules with easy loopholes, this situation is going to be much worse. Our naive newcomer might find out about these tools and then start using them, but be completely unaware of the fact that while he thinks he cannot use charts, all of his opponents have manipulated their HUD to display the information which they want. This means that this player cannot ever get on an equal footing with the "HUD charters". If there are enforceable and consistent rules then at least with some effort our naive newcomer can put himself on equal footing.

I've been following this thread since the beginning thinking I was fully aware of the issues (huds,nc etc). However this is completely out of left field for me. I need to go back and see what I've missed. If it is as it appears, players organising themselves offsite, then it's basically little different from what has been going on over at Sky as far as recs are likely to be concerned.

Jeez. This is going to end up in anonymous play eventually.

if you want to make poker more human, you need to remove all software including such basic things as hot keys for betting x% pot. in fact it takes a lot more time to calculate 70% of each pot than just press a button that bets 70% pot for you which pokerstars has built into its software. so you see it a very tought question. where do we draw a line between a human and a robot?

The solution for all this is already built into the Stars client. It would just require the removal of some other stuff:

[IMG][/IMG]

Here is the $60 Cartel thread
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/18...9/index19.html

First few pages have the audit process, teamviewer stuff but it soon gets dull and it is a bit dated. The latest rules are a bit more complicated and they include the balcklisting of non members who are too good and have no interest in joining the conspiracy. Here is the latest rule summary, which BTW includes a link to a live document of members, aspirant members - the sitlist and the way some uninterested in joining get treated as if they do and get added to what I will call the ****list.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=367

Please note that the entry requirement does indeed mean that data must be shared and validated against other members data and or data mined data

The cartel has created a new conspiracy within a conspiracy where 5 collaborating to vote annonymously can blackball at will. Any player in the pool who is kicking your butt...no probs, just get 4 mates and block that sucker, then if they beg others an win a vote of all we will let them crawl back with zero stats on their audited record to establish a right to join.

Don't believe they might do this to players who don't even try to join the cartel well see this post and the abuse received fo not obeying the cartels rules:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=371

Now TBF, the cartel does seem to have a rule for those blackballing others, they can only vote based on games they themselves have played against the ****list candidate...oh goodie yet more data sharing between cartel members to impose a conspiracy regarding who gets to seat who, and a significant hint that there is a non public cartel forum operating.

Don't worry too much about it though these cartels are a temporary phenomenom, an unstable equilibrium.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=un...ml%3B573%3B201

Is your problem with the software or the divisions? The divisions were set up as a result of the software.
If your issue is with the software then Pokerstars should group your complaint with all other table selection software complaints.

If you meet the criteria to get in, you send a report to the division summarising your results. The data basically shows Player name, no. tournaments, ev roi, chips lost ev.
Those summarised results can either come from actual games played or you can re-download them from pokerstars. Is this what you are calling data mined data?

At this point, each player's results is compared so if player "A" says he has played player "B" 100 times with a 5% ev roi but player "B" says the ev roi was actually 0.5%, then they need to sort out who is right to ensure that player "A" has the results that he claims. Is this what you are calling data mined data?

Or is there something else in the process that suggests to you that the data is mined?

funny though that stars is fully aware of this cartel*s and has been for a long time + they are aware of a solution to this, still they let it run. i would call this co-conspiration, taking their share of the profit, defrauding their customers. so gain, the door that needs to be kicked in by the police is the front door of stars HQ.

Im happy to see these guy's exposed.Great work richas, let's hope this "cartel"+ software is banished

That is a rule in place to ensure that players trying to meet the ev criteria are able to prove they can play under the same conditions as the "division" members. Therefore, if you have no interest in joining, this rule doesn't impact you and if you do have an interest in joining, you need to prove you can play under the same conditions as your opponents.

Most rules can be twisted in any way you want but if you take it as a given that the table selection software exists, I would love you or someone else to come up with a fairer more transparent system.

And if you are saying the table selection software shouldn't exist, then as I said earlier, group husng table selection software with all other types

Check out this link, I'm sure there are a lot more you can add into your conspiracy charge


https://www.google.com.au/search?q=t...oftware++poker

didn't the cartel fly to stars HQ when they announced that they want to change the lobby and came back reporting they convinced stars to keep it as is? didn't baard state thereafter in stars thread in husng they have no problem with the cartels and the lobby control software that is needed to run them?

I was actually talking about improperly sharing data between cartel members but you have missed out a bit, if the requiremnt is for reports on the total and reports vs individuals so those individuals then the data can't be checked for complenes, leaving out just a few games changes the total so either the check means a bit more detail from the applicant to let another player use their database rather than a data mined set of data to compare a subset of the data not the total.

In practice they don't well can't just use a check on players that get named so that you can improperly compare shared data what they do is check the datamining site and see what it says. Of course they do, it is the easiest way to check the player is included total play for the period.

Anyway, the minuitiae of the data sharing and data mining involved to police the conspiracy is a bit trivial compared to a group actively collaborating, colluding, to control the lobby to their benefit, at the expense of those outside the group.

The whole setup is doomed anyway so pfft, sorting it is scarcely the priority.

Nope the "punishment" of those on the sitlist is not linked to them applying, it is linked to anyone they put into the group sitlist before getting 5 people to vote them on to the extra list where "sitlist" has an extra h in it.

The cartel can and does have the power to conspire in discriminating against outsiders. They do it. Take the root of this whole thread and row. Skier was not joining the cartel, he was beating cartel members and refusing to join the cartel or share his software so the nice cartel peeps decided to go crying to teacher....and Stars finally decided to reopen their Third Party software rules for discusiion....hoist, own, petard.

and you cheating scumbags want to sell ..that the most crucial piece in this, the lobby control software, is run by some unknown in a country faaar away that goes by the name of "marc" and nothing else is known. you want to sell ..that in this setup with detailed rules and divisions the cartels up to high stakes trust some unknown to run a centralized queue containing all players involved, having full access to all matchmaking and having full access to manipulate matchmaking in any ways, on some unknown server?

hahahahaha ..chadders emidiately recognized the potential of this. smart guy, except he should not go anywhere near a car.

Nice time to use the word cheating scumbag. Who is cheating, how?

How about you stop making reckless and/or inaccurate comments.

Even better, come up with a constructive realistic, fairer, more dynamic system to play HUSNGs when table selection software is a part of the game or just STFU.