so?

this is your problem. if you feel coming over like a cheating scumbag is not a good thing find a solution, you guys got stars number obv. and when im at it: bluenowhere sounds like chicagory in posting strings of filler words. is it a sock?

F**k me.

I've been playing now online for years. Whether that makes me a reg or a fish or whatever I don't know. I use hm2 and a hud and latterly notecaddy (possibly to my detriment as I don't claim to know what I am doing). I've had a deuces cracked membership from time to time and have watched a few of their series but never really fully "engaged" with either their forums or these with regards to game development other than to occasionally post a hand history (presumably you guys can see my post history here).

I would definitely call myself a "hobby" player.

I have always felt that I was doing a bit more than the average micro player to improve my game. I felt that if I work harder than another player, I deserve the benefits. I didn't feel that I was doing anything unethical (although In the light of this thread I was reconsidering that at least as far as notecaddy was concerned).

I also didn't feel that I was being naive. I figured it was possible that players could collude. Indeed the occasional refund from Poker Stars seemed to evidence of both that and the fact that Stars were vigilant and had my back. I certainly have had one or two acquaintances who play online at other sites suggest that it might be good to pool buyins and split profits. This wasn't something that interested me as I wanted to succeed or fail on my efforts but it sure made me aware that it wasn't likely that everybody was playing a straight game. I felt however that the problem wasn't widespread.

What's come to light in this thread however demonstrates that things are far worse than I thought possible and given my background most hobbyists (fish?) are likely to agree. Poker should be about individuals first and foremost with an even playing field within that criteria. That stars seem to have been aware of this and allowed it to persist (and now I wonder what else?) is staggering although they certainly aren't the only site.

I know I don't play at the stakes at which his particular activity has been taking place but, I have to wonder what else is going on and/or how long it will be until all game types at all levels are rife with collusion, team play, scripts or whatever.

I still want to play the game but this has opened my eyes and I am sure would have the same effect for others in a similar position. I am looking for a place where the game is about the individual and is as fair as possible.

As a rec/hobby player I think that fully anonymous play with no seating options (whether rush or standard) is the only way that I will feel comfortable from now on. I know that it's not without its problems. I know I won't be able to continue using a hud. I know also that most players here will disregard my position but bear in mind that most recs would feel the same if fully ware of what is happening and so the site/sites have to change if they want to retain them. If that's not a game that allows colluders to so easily make a living then that's fine as I never wanted to play that game anyway.

And by the way, saying that trackers and hand histories are needed to prevent me
From being cheated is beginning to sound like online pokers equivalent of protection money.

This is only part of the solution though. For Spin n Goes they don't have a classic lobby but still coordinate with an offsite lobby bot.

I imagine the way it works would be that the two reg players at the front of a queue register, when a third players sits (presumably a fish/unknown/non-member) then they must have some way to report back to the queue that their tournament has started so that two more people can register and wait for the next fish. Presumably the same can work with HUSNGs just with only one person sitting each time.

The best solution would be to rename the rematch feature to "play again". If both click accept (or yes) then a new SNG is created with those two players (as now) - but if only one player clicks yes then an SNG is created with only that player in the lobby (i.e. available for a new player to sit down). So rather than queuing offsite, if you want to open-sit you need to win the table from another player. Would that help the recreationals? Not immediately and directly but it keeps winning poker as something worth aspiring too and not something dirty. The alternative would be to have new HUSNGs start only at the top of each minute, so they wouldn't know that a recreational had sat immediately.

The wider point I want to make is that these changes to the TOS will require technical changes to make them work - for example removing opponent names from the hand histories to stop data-mining and advanced HUDs. It is worth doing though because it's the only choice.

You shouldn't blame cartels for what they do. If you allow for table selection people will table select. If you forbid datamining it will be a bit harder in some games but in others it will still be there (for example in HUSNGs). If a guy can say to his buddy: "hey, this reg here is very good, don't play him" then people will organize and share such info.
If you don't want table selection, organize your games to prevent table selection. If you allow it there will be organized table selection.

It really is that simple. War against cartels is similar to war on advanced enough HUDs.
"It's allowed as long as it sucks hard enough" really shouldn't be a rule.

Just introduce some delay/randomization and don't start games automatically once there is enough people but wait till there is like 20 in the poll (or enough time had passed) and then pick 3, rinse repeat. Maybe probability of being picked should raise after say 5 seconds passes.
That will make the whole business a lot more difficult as there will be incentive to join the poll asap.

There is no collusion or team play.
By all means stop playing HUSNGs if it's news to you that an unknown player would be targeted through a table selection software script.
If you dont want to play HUSNGs because of the completely inaccurate scare mongering referred to earlier then I guess the trolls win.
Well played.

^ And if Pokerstars don't want recreational depositing players to stop playing because of table selection software then they will either

1) Include such software in a ban and try some of the ideas kicked around above to make the ban work.

or

2) Run their business based on hoping players don't find out how it really works.

As they are serious about wider social and regulatory approval for online poker they will hopefully choose 1).

Maybe I've misunderstood the detail. Maybe the posts i have read represent only one side of the argument.

However it seems clear that what the situation isn't is one where players act solely independantly of others. That and targeted scripts are a big deal (along with many other things of course). What may seem reasonable in small volume doesn't seem reasonable in large volume when combined with a number of other issues as discussed in this thread. I don't want to support those activities with my rake and so won't play any game from here on in where I perceive that such activity could be happening. If there isn't such a game available then I'll knock it on the head. I don't expect anyone else to care of course but get enough players who feel and act the same way and the whole ecosystem starts to rock.

And reduce rake to make the games viable without table selection software

great posting re: HU cartels Richas, and thanks for your contributions on and off 2p2.

+1

I understand why the cartels have happened - but that doesn't make them right.

LOL, agreeing not to play each other, to form an orderly queue to play anyone else but the top guys is not collusion or team play?

Plus of course you have formed an in crowd, with shared Skype numbers, IM all the rest, regular contact between the participants.....then you add a tension to that, the number allowed in the club is capped , with the entry criteria and apprentiship rules tweaked to deliver the necessary exclusivity and you think that none of the in crowd are sharing their databases to get +ev vs the pool they will play? Hey they want to win, they want the money and more they need to keep demonstrating that they are winning or they risk falling out of the in crowd.

What do they do to stop some sharing their databases as a sub group within the overall conspiracy, to protect their current position and their hourly rate? Some sort of blood oath? Of course it happens, it is in the direct financial interests of the in crowd to broaden the conspiracy and to game it from within. We know the HUDs they use have "population" data built in for the whole cartel, that sems OK to them - just why would they turn down the immediate short term $$$ and greater security within the cartel by playing a bit of database doctors and nurses with their new mates?

Seriously? You think that is not happening - maybe you can recycle that WHAT? picture.

Cartel members are not incentivised to share their database with each other since they are competing with each other to appear as the strongest reg, and not be targeted by battlers.

If you would share your database with others in such a scenario you would be replaced pretty quickly unless you were actually one of the best regs anyway.

The ones that are sharing database/reads are stables/coaches etc. Get your facts straight.

Incorrect. People within divisions play each other all the time as do players trying to climb up to higher divisions.

if you are talking about a sub group of players sharing data to get a competitive advantage, that's nothing to do with divisions/cartels. It's been a part of poker for a long time - ask Isildur/Brian Hastings


That's a repeat of your prior point, refer to my prior Isildur answer


Another incorrect point. There is no population database "built in for the whole cartel". The HUD that skier referred to when he was talking about the power of HUDs is the Coffeeyay HUD that is available to the public.


That's a repeat of your prior point, refer to my prior Isildur answer

honorable mention to the posters who've tried to defend cartels ITT, lobbing softballs right down the middle for Richas to smash out of the park. the only person i've seen defend/explain cartels thoughtfully is ChicagoRy, and IIRC the crux of his argument is "the current situation, cartels w/ Sharky, is better than it was with Sharky and no cartels".

I have come accross as a bit Taliban like re cartels. If anyone is interested here is a post I did on bum hunting over two years ago that might put my grumpiness in some sort of perspective.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...9&postcount=72

Richas imagine in highstakes 6max cash, instead of competing who gets the best seats using scripts and bumhunting techniques to do with registration/seating, you had a "cartel" membership. Every reg who has proved himself worth gets to open sit 5 seats waiting for a 6th (imagine you can have 5 people sitting out). New regs can "challenge" the cartel members in order to replace a current member, but have to play many hands and achieve the EV requirement.

This is effectively what's happening at husngs that's allowed by the lobby structure. Do you think in such a scenario Trueteller would be sharing his database with Baron?

In that scenario basically all the 6max cash bumhunters who ONLY play when a fish is seated would be completely driven out of highstakes 6max. I'm not saying this is exactly the same as in husngs, but it's a decent comparison.

if this was meant as an explanation or apology i don't think it's necessary. the situation in HU SnGs is so ridiculous on it's face the natural response is incredulity.

then you find out that a Stars employee endorsed the system and it's "wtf...really....?" you dig a little deeper and realize it promotes tons of ~0 edge action, and prospective member pay 4 and 5 figure cartel-application fees to Stars and it starts to make a bit of sense.

it's quite pathetic that skiier's HU SnG charts are the cause of this review. registration in your HU lobbies is controlled by 3rd-party software. self-appointed groups of players agree to share the task of controlling every lobby and grinding down the bankroll of any1 trying to move up stakes by making sure they get 0 action from recreational players. skiier's charts are the problem?

No, the in crowd that form a sub conspiracy (maybe also as part of a stable/joint bankroll deal) are relying upon trusting their co-conspirators not to share it with yet more people. If they fall out then they can just decline anyway at HU but they have had the others database too so..meh.

Non HU the barriers to the conspiracy are greater in 6/9 handed as you say they will want/need to play each other too. Plus the need for the cartel is lower, straight scanning software combined with datamining does the job for now.

It starts to get really nasty when you have people in higher cartels bankrolling seatlisters trying to get in to a lower or the same cartel. Now it starts to get really nasty as they get their stable to share, after all the aspirants don't get each other either, they get the cartel members so they are incentivised to cheat too - then get a clean database off Stars to prove they passed! Kerching!

The whole dynamic of the setup maximises the benefits of sub conspiracies, data sharing groups, stables....the whole setup is inherently unstable. Sooner or later (well sooner) it is bound to collapse under its own contradictions. I predict considerable acrimony and ill will, but TBH that is not new in the HU world.

TBH I am surprised it is still alive, indeed the rule tweaks linked to, the whole Skier row and more point to the tensions. How it will end I can't be entirely certain but once the Russian DOS bot chains start targetting sharky not gambling sites either as blackmail attempts or for a fee from the excluded wanting to break the system that will be a good indicator of trouble at mill.

Still be fair - in a heads up world of high rake Stars creating a system where two bunches of cheaters take each other on still keeps the revenue numbers running compared to a Sharky and no cartel world where nobody could sit and play at all. That same problem of the complete death of the games that created these conspiracies is a way off for 6 or 9 max, less pressing for MTTs than SNGs but hey there is a decent chance that Stars does not bite the bullet and then Spin and Goes and then all SNGs and later wider conspiracies (yes baed upon shared rolls) try to kill the rest.

Now the spread out to other formats will lead to even more heat and fallouts, more scandal, more tarnishing of the brand (You may have stopped reading now Stars, but run this thread by your brand managers and watch them go grey, seek the toilet...very quickly, should be a laugh, if you do please get video for that 2020 documentary on the death of online poker, should be worth a couple of quid).

This is not a contradiction of the cartels being inherently unstable BTW, it is just that once HU dies people go elsewhere and try the same collaborative rubbish to gain an edge, at whatever price to their personal ethics, the targetted games or the future of online poker.

Still, have a nice day.

My problem is with the PokerStars software that allows anything other than blind entry. All else follows.

Long term I cannot see that PS can continue to allow divisions and HUSNG or SpinNGo queuing software because recs will find out as we see in this thread. As recs find out they will stop playing and HUSNG and SpinNGo's will die. The current system is killing the golden goose (recs).

No, do not reduce the game rake. Keeping the game rake high enough will force weaker regs out of the games making the ratio of recs to regs better and hence more enjoyable for recs. Now that is meritocracy: face all players and still win or GTFO. And the rec pool will then grow over time because they will be having fun instead of deserting the non-fun games of today's unfair lobby.

Cartel members seem unable to see that recs need to have fun. or the games will die. It is no fun to never sit with another rec. It is no fun to get slaughtered every time you play a HUSNG because you are forced to always play a strong player.

From PokerStars perspective only net depositers (recs) fund rake. Regs just pass the rec money around but don't net deposit. Making the games tougher for regs so that recs can have fun must be part of reviving the rec ecosystem for HUSNG and SpinnGo's. You only need enough regs so that recs can always get a game. More regs than that is unnecessary. So get good enough to win in a blind entry pool or find another way to earn a living.

The analogous situation in cash is Zoom games. Weaker regs still bum hunt non-Zoom games but many can't play Zoom profitably because there is no table selection so they bitch about Zoom endlessly. But most recs prefer Zoom because they get instant play and instant new hands. Non-Zoom tables are a nightmare for most recs because they can't find a table without 10+ waitlists and when they do finally get on a table they have to type "ZZZZZZZZZZZZ" endlessly to try to get the 24 tabling regs to speed up their decisions.

(A few tourney donks will sit HU at a new 6-max or FR table but usually they just want to grim the big blind or shove a short stack as if it was the final stage of a tournament. If they double, they go off and play a tournament with the instaProfit while Bumhunters winge endlessly about the rec habits at starting tables).

you could easily replace "divisions and HUSNG or SpinNGo queuing software" with "software" and "HUSNG and SpinNGo's will die" with "poker will die" if you ask me. everything that's been discussed in this thread essentially boils down to stars wanting to maintain a sustainable poker ecosystem, with two main points of view - one that thinks shearing the sheep that are the recs is the way to go, the other that thinks shooting them in the face with a bolt gun is preferable

lol

Any rake forces weaker regs out of the game, it just changes the definition of 'weaker reg'. Also, lower rake means that fish get softer tables anyway because they don't have to lose at 50bb/100 to sustain the table.