I will lobby for Zoom-style lobbies but I will not lobby for decreased rake. If regs can't make profit in a Zoom-style lobby they should quit.

What is Battlenet?

I have a "fairness for all" mindset represented by a Zoom-style lobby for HUSNGs and Spin&Gos that ensures that all players in the player pool have an equal chance of sitting with every other player in the player pool and that all group-based seating scripts are banned.

And that is precisely why EV is currently NOT a fair representation of skill:

* No-ones EV is based on equal chance of sitting everyone else in the player pool.

* Cartel rules necessarily distort seating opportunity to distort EV for upcoming players disadvantage and for existing cartel members advantage.

HUSNGs Player Meeting July 2013

Quote from Pokerstars Steve that starts that thread:
!

that's right. upcoming players try and work out the worst players in the division and target them. so the weak get kicked out, the strong move up.

yep, it's easier to be in the division than out of it.
it's also better to be one of the best players in a lower division (as you don't get targeted) compared to the worst player in a higher division (because you get relentlessly targeted).

Pokerstars will work with whatever solution maximises long term revenue.
At the moment, they have a game which is fun to player as it takes a few minutes to play, a recreational player has an approx 47% chance of winning and they get instant action.
The current HUSNG set up also allows regs to battle so they can determine the correct pecking order (which is very different from almost any other poker game). And despite your comments, it's a long way from being solved in game by a human.

Pokerstars may go down the zoom road at some point but they'll be taking a significant revenue risk and it's likely any zoom solution can be overcome by scripting software (as has been proven by spins).

Rubbish. The only impediment is Pokerstars will. Spin&Go's do not have a Zoom-style lobby and are easily programmatically exploited by seating scripts. My full description is in the HUSNG software improvement thread and programmatic exploitation would be impossible ala cash games Zoom pools today where seating scripts are impossible.

However, pools need a critical mass to work so a Zoom-style pool would not work for all stakes (as in cash games). That is why I advocate both today's lobby and a new Zoom-style lobby so pokerstars customers can make their own choice.

It can still be exploited by controlling the amount of regs that seat the pool at the same time - probably in other ways too but I haven't given it much through.

The only impediment is Pokerstars trying to maximum long term revenue - just as every good company tries to do.

While you think this is a great idea because you have the whole "cartel conspiracy" headspace, bringing zoom to HUSNG takes away the man vs man, survival of the fittest concept which seems to be unique to HUSNGs compared to other forms of poker.

Many people (including me) were drawn to this game because of the idea of beating whoever tries to sit me, or I sit whoever is in the lobby who I believe doesn't deserve to be there and I've paid ****loads of extra rake as a result. I've played many hours more than I've intended when people have rematched me when I think I have an edge or I wanted to prove a point.

Excellent point, the main problem is that adding a few lines to their terms and conditions requires a lot less resources than an effective bot detection program. So we are not comparing like with like.

well yes they should be going after bots. and yes they should not be allowing software that can basically be proxy bot pulling up more info then any human is ever capable of learning/ memorizing.

to say you should focus on bots instead, and ignore the other is like saying dont focus on violence or or burglary focus only on murders and rapes because there more serious.

really you should be clamping down on both.

No it can't as long as there is a critical mass of players in the pool, same as for cash games. Once in the pool if you leave you are prevented from re-joining for half an hour, too long for a subset of regs to be allowed access to all recs in the pool, especially at peak hours. Make it an hour or 2 hours lockout if abused- whatever stops the bumhunting queue. As long as Pokerstars has a will they will enforce fair access for all.

If they don't we all will know that the cartels have successfully bullied Pokerstars just like the last time Pokerstars tried to introduce fairer seating for all.

Rubbish! Zoom brings back the man-on-man combat! You can't avoid anyone! It is a true survival of the fittest. Only a sissy would want today's protected queuing arrangement. You contradict yourself. Are you a man or a sissy?

Oh, I already know the answer. You are a bumhunter, scared of a little survival of the fittest sit anyone in the pool combat.

I think the best players are capable of memorizing a lot more than you think. Primo streams Spin&Go's on Twitch and might refer to a Nash chart once an hour. He basically has it all memorized by sheer repetition of millions of games.

As I understand it what was different about Skier's software is that it included readless frequencies, say XYs is 3Bshove 43%, Call 30%, 3B_Not-All-In 27% adding a layer of memory via charts no-one has tried before. But you wait I'll bet some gifted players will memorise all the frequencies, too (if they haven't already).

Mass botting is obviously bad and wrong. Most other stuff is a million shades of grey; this thread's existence demonstrates that.

Are the most talented members of the police investigating pot users, jaywalkers or homosides. (I was in my mid twenties before I realised that there was such a thing as jaywalking.)

And what does midstakes hu zoom look like? Say 2/4 or even 1/2? If zoom is introduced trust me it won't be as you imagine it to be for 6max zoom. HU is in nature the most predatory form of poker, and zoom pools will have fish lose money extremely fast whilst supporting a few regs. I guess zoom could work below 30s for certain, but any higher it just won't work.

People do in fact avoid each other in HU zoom. HU is a vastly different game to 6max cash. In some ways it might be good for poker to ban all forms of HU, but otherwise your arguments are not really applicable for HU. At the highest stakes making lobbies zoom only is basically a KOTH structure. In hu hypers this will most likely be the case for 200s+ and maybe 100s as well.

Pls you have no idea what you are talking about. You don't even play the games or any form of HU. If you don't like it- I would suggest you to change your position and argue for the banning of all HU games (which is at least a logical position to take).

If you read any hucash forums you will see ppl all trying to come up with ways to combat bumhunting. They would love to have something similar to the system in husngs. There is zero chance that 2 recreationals can play each other without cartels. The system was there to combat bumhunting. The way it started was pretty arbitrary, but now it's pretty fair up to 200s.

You have no idea and are completely talking rubbish. Skier's software does not interpret hudstats (does NOT read XY's 3b is 43%), but is rather a model for GTO at all stackdepths.

Most regs above 200s are analysing the games using a GTO approach and have their own preflop ranges of which they memorise a LOT. It's just that skier invented a good retrieval system (which can be exploited than what skier intended).

I'm playing without any software assistance, but I still have a rough picture of what approximate GTO ranges look like because of studying+playing lots of games.

Pokerstars should be mindful that they are supposed to offer a fair game to ordinary players. They do not exist to provide an income for professional players. Pokerstars should not allow a group of players to run their games for their own benefit. I don't want to be dictated to by a group of unaccountable players.

It is extremely patronising for a member of this group to say I should be grateful to get a 47% game in a 50-50 hu match because they have decided it should be so in order to cream off a profit for themselves. Poker is an individual game. Acting together is collusion. If there is little or no profit without cartels then take that up with Pokerstars instead of preventing ordinary players from getting a straight game.

You can lobby all you want- I personally think you are missing some idea of what it means. I don't think you will be successful that's all.

OMG look at how successful introducing 50/100 hucash zoom lobby was, and how it got rid of bumhunting /s.

But ordinary players are getting exactly the same game they would without cartels tho. The only ppl that benefit are bumhunters. I wonder why the voices that complained when stars made 10/20+ hucash lobbies KOTH weren't so popular. I would love to sit 25/50 alongside ppl like kanu, tc, ike too but unfortunately I cannot get a straight game at 25/50 any more after the changes.

You misunderstood my post: XYs was meant to be read as a given hand not a player. I believe I was talking about exactly what you wrote: retrieval of a layer of memory in charts beyond what charts had previously held. The frequencies I was referring to were meant to be GTO frequencies for an indifferent hand played multiple ways. I never suggested that Skier's software was interpreting HUDstats.

Contrary to what you may think I believe I have a pretty good understanding of GTO theory and practice as it relates to cash games. I've only just started studying HUSNGs but game theory principles are readily applied. I've used crEV for years. Now GTORB and PioSolver. I've just added CoffeeCalcs. So far, I'm enjoying adding the fun of HUSNGs to my regular cash games. I've studied Yaqh's books Vol 1 (twice) and 2.

OK my mistake.

I have just been reading about Skier's software. I can no see no way to stop someone playing across two computers using this technique. Approximate GTO heads up NLH is here. Anyone playing HUNLH just has to accept that. HUNLH is going the same way as online blackjack Progress

Poker Stars are fighting a loosing battle here; IMHO.

That's completely untrue. The cartel will continually pick on any ordinary player who is not a member of the cartel regardless of whether or not they are winning against them. The purpose seems to be to drive non-cartel players out of the games. Without cartels players generally avoid other players they cannot make a profit from and everyone gets a fair game.

You have taking every comment I've made and twisted it around to try and fit your pre conceived theory.

If a recreational player plays a game that's not their specialty, they will likely lose. I'm sure I would lose at PLO and 6 max/full ring NLHE . That doesn't make those games unfair, it just means I haven't studied as hard or am not as smart as other people at the table.

The equivalent of that happens at HUSNG and we can reasonably accurately work out a recreational player's win rate. 47% is in fact likely on the low side of what a competent player would expect but I was simply demonstrating that for all practical purposes, husng over the short term is a flip of the coin and therefore fun for recreational players.

I've explained maybe 10 times in this thread how competitive these divisions are, how people play other people within the same divisions and higher and if a player isn't good enough, you get kicked out of the divisions or even worse, stay in and lose **** loads of money.

To still read words like "unaccountable" and "collusion" just makes me wish I never bothered spending the time explaining how it works. Hopefully a few people actually read these posts and now have a better idea....

Erm- no. The ppl who are trying to bumhunt higher stakes without playing any regs I would not categorise as "ordinary" players.

The purpose of cartels is to drive these players out of the games.

In the old system say at 100s we have a bunch of regs sitting lobby waiting for fish to join. You then have some regs that sit other regs to move them down/stop them from bumhunting, and they may or may not be profitable vs them. The cartels are a system which encourages more reg battles, and to reward the regs that are willing to battle others and not just wait in queue for fish.

I can think of 2 possibly better ways to do it, but imo the current system is the best we can do:

1) Use sharky to reward reg battling- unfortunately the creator of sharky isn't willing to implement something that rewards sitting others in the queue, otherwise the whole cartel business wouldn't be needed.

2) Infinite lobbies at pokerstars- if this is implemented you can sit all you want and you would still be liable to be sat. This increases action between waiting regs, who have no way of play other ppl in a queue on stars currently. This is better than no cartels, but to some extent still has some bumhunting nature. But as you cannot decline action at husngs, the lobby will never be similar to hucash at least.

No-one will ever believe you because your arguments go against everything we all know about human nature and that is the core issue:

* Not only must there be game integrity but there must also be the transparent protection of game integrity.

* It makes no sense for Pokerstars NOT to be the one in total control of seating at HUSNGs.

* Allowing seating to be controlled/manipulated by third party groupings will always be a really shady look: no transparency = no trust.