step 3, profit

why do you think 10 NL100 players would be able to beat NL1k?

My opening post was an example of the concept and I later expanded it to say that a more likely/workable progression is changing their 50 hours per week each at $0.50/$1 to 25 hours each at $1/$2 to 10 hours each at $2.50/$5..... etc

Naturally, progression up the stakes it not a given based only on the ability to share bank rolls, playing time and coaching resources but also dependent on one, some, most or all of the players in the syndicate being capable of beating the game at the next level up.

So it's a non-rigid framework.

He's good, but maybe not good enough to beat a whole army.

i thought the op was going to say /uninstall

Poker is individual game, you should have your own money, your own hand history and play alone for yourself unless rules are set differently. Team play against unsuspecting player is not fair. You are taking for example sharing of hand history as common practice.
Well online it is common practice, but it is still bad.

I am not suggesting any form of team playing like multiple people all sitting around the same screen giving their thoughts about decisions, collusion, card sharing, or sharing of hand histories or even sharing of notes on players, or of sharing player accounts.

It is just pooling bank rolls, sharing playing time... tag team style, but on your own account, and group coaching that is done away from the tables and not during actual play.

Why not just stake the best player instead?

Besides, how often are people capable of beating 1knl not able to put together a bankroll to play in those games? It's a ridiculous hypothetical. That's before taking into account any one player in the syndicate could cheat the others really, really easily by dumping to a friend.

Meh, some variants of this have already been done. Back in the casino whoring era I organized a team of 8 people and we shared the group results and bankrolls, and that did allow us to be more aggressive on some bonuses (higher average bet), which then allowed more bonuses to be cleared. Thing is I knew all of these people, and the best part is that none of them were actual gamblers or part of this industry.

Do I think the OPs original idea can work without issues? Hardly, and several were brought up, but like I said years ago to the guy who wanted to start the "Baller Fund" - nothing is stopping the OP from pursuing his idea and making a killing, assuming his game plan works perfectly. Perhaps he can put all the guys in a sick house in Thailand, although Mike Tyson may have a word or two about game plans he should consider.

its a group learning / coaching exercise. 9 minds are better than one.

the alternative for getting better is to pay a bunch of RAKE and just grind and/or watch a bunch of videos or pay Jamie Gold $1000 /hour.

bankroll / staking discussions related to this are tertiary or really dont even matter

the goal of exercise is for a group of like minded players to improve all their games in the least amount of time and for the least amount of money,

I doubt anyone is disputing the value of working with similarly minded people all towards improvement. That has value in pretty much all things.

The OP however has this combined stake/higher limits thing as an essential part of his theory, and that is the element that is correctly being questioned/dismissed, and in the end nothing is preventing him from creating his personal syndicate, though despite that, he will never do it.

Yeah, but who wants to get "stole by a friend and left behing in Thailand"

Yeah, and 9 chicks can make babby in 1 month.

I know almost nothing about grinding up stakes. I only know online poker from business side and as a losing rec player. So im sure its the case that there are many elements of the OP I just didn't / don't get.

Finding a quick / easy way to improve my game is appealing, and I'm not interested in grinding 100,000 hands of 25NL and Im not interested in paying Jamie Gold $1,000 / hour or Doug Polk $45 / hour.


funny

provably true in software development and many other things, unsure if true in cooperative online poker learning environment.

The elements of his idea that you don't get are the ones that don't make any sense.

There is substance to the idea - just not when you consider the proportionality of the impact of rake. He seems to think that the discrepancy in skill between $100nl and $1000nl is not as big of a factor as the rake difference. I don't think anyone who's grinded their up way would agree with that.

It's also very easy for anyone in the group to scam the others.

Just a bad idea all around.

Funniest **** I ever read.
Thanks for making me smile today OP.
GL

well OK, since collective intelligence is that its a bad idea...

I hereby challenge Sage to single hu4rollz match so we can just fast forward to the end state.

Move is not straight from 50NL to 500NL, it's gradual and the better players will take more of the workload higher up.

Chip dumping would only benefit a scammer by 50% of $7K = $3.5K (14 BIs at NL 500) and would cost them all their future upside of remaining in the syndicate. Plus there are measures to prevent this. E.g. Contracts and sanctions as a deterrent, plus bonuses and incentives for honesty and hard work.

I'm not an on line cash grinder. Just throwing the idea out there.

There are so many ways of mitigating these risks.

Not sure why. All 10 players are playing as individual entities. The profit sharing and bank roll arrangements are outside of this.

If you mean in terms of player money transfers, you might be correct, but as far as I can tell a lot of their policies are on an enforce when it suits them basis.

People make player to player transfers all the time which I believe is against the rules of many sites, yet they allow it. So some contradictions there by some site owners.

Yeah, it is pretty obvious that it was not really thought out beyond the "Hey guys, what if..." stage. Tons of ideas are created that way. Most stink. This idea pretty much stinks, but again nothing is stopping you from trying to implement it as you see fit. Generally people who toss out these type of ideas never follow through on them, because I assume the thrill was in presenting the hidden gem, and no doubt you have presented others (classified as news for some reason) in a similar manner, none of which were actively pursued. Still, have fun with your next inspiration.

All the best.

The poker industry and community is often slow to develop and improve systems, so all people's ideas should at least be considered.

Myself not executing the concept doesn't invalidate it as a viable idea. If you are dismissing the concept then you are dismissing the viability of poker stables generally, as my idea is simply a variation of those, only self funded by a collective.

I have successfully executed my own ideas previously as well as previously been approached by a company building a new poker web site based on ideas I put forward in another thread here on 2plus2.

Let's have a community of people notorious for being degenerates start pooling money to take on professionals.

What could go wrong?

Good luck at finding someone who isn't a massive loser at poker who thinks this is a worthwhile pursuit.

Come on guys!

A player can be making a good living as a winning player but all/most of their profits are spent on regular living costs. This prevents a lot of players from moving up.

If you play for a regular concept stable, backed to play higher than you're rolled for yourself, they will take a percentage of your profits, applies to cash and MTTs, so this also slows your upward progress.

My idea, yes not perfect and with some issues to iron out, is an alternative solution.

P.S. My OP mis-explains it a bit, but I correct the explanation later on ITT.

If living expenses are preventing you from moving up you'd be insane to be relying on poker for income. You can cover your cost of living grinding $50nl with a bankroll of $2,000 and probably even lower.