That Poker Strategy article is misleading as it's quoting a part of Rob Yong's blog and there is nothing about that blog that indicates this is the commit, but only what was discussed at the event as a potential for future events. In particular;

Note that this is only for MILLIONS, not all PartyPokerLive. It has to be a wish list, not a commit and I would be shocked to see only one day 1 and the ability to get 60% of entries for a 10K buyin to be from qualifiers (even if such qualifiers would be the result of massive overlay).

Full blog can be found over on the partypokerlive web site under "news" titled "Rob Yong Blog Update: Random Comments"

-BD

I live in one of the cities in the UK where BRS gets a lot of it's players. Because of this I know the background of a lot of their players. It's fairly common knowledge that BRS will enter players* who aren't even winning at low stakes MTTs online into some 1k/2k/5k events. The quality of players that BRS enters into it's higher stakes PartyPoker online/live tournaments has been a running joke locally for years. Unless we've been drastically overestimating the quality of the fields of these tournaments BRS have been making unprofitable investments consistently for a few years now.

It's also an unconfirmed rumor that has been repeated a few times that BRS have access to unlimited $22 Satellite tickets for PartyPoker online.

*I can provide names/graphs if required but not wanting to name people who are just involved at a staking level.


(I played an interesting hand in a £2k at Dusk Till Dawn vs an inserted BRS player. He didn't know how to play vs a 13bb 3b at 100b effective so just 4b slid his fresh 100b stack over the line. A clueless amateur who, without question was losing in this tournament.)

i can comfirm partypoker puts players into live events in the pool freerolling to reach guarantee, and i 100% confute these are late regging people with short stacks as Party Leonard lied about, they in fact put a lot of players into Day 1C and/or Day 1B in an event with full starting stack in the first blind level.

I wish people would stop moaning about something that is a win win for everybody. Fields remain big and fishy vs small fields with much tougher line ups. This isn't some mass conspiracy. We finally have big tournaments back on the map and people just moan and want them axeing down. I would bet the vast majority of people moaning about this didn't even play the comp.

I don't agree with it but I can understand it and think it's a reasonable position to have. I think the main issue with it is the lack of transparency. Party Poker reps on this site categorically denies that they have a relationship with the stable and yet everyone seems to know it and ex-horses have posted about it here before. If it's really a win-win for everyone why would they not just come out and say it, and then people could make an informed decision. As it is now a lot of the speculation is there exactly because they deny everything while something is clearly going on.

To me the most problematic part is that a lot of the BRS stable has satellites as their most common game type on Party. Those are some of the games the most vulnerable to cheating or organised play and so if Party are both putting the players in and simultaneously supposed to ensure the fairness of the games I think that's a huge conflict of interest.

How is it win-win for the fish who have to try to fight their way through an extra layer of players who are probably better than they are?

You seem to be only looking at this from your perspective as a player who is better than those entered to make up the guarantee.

This is ultimately what I'm seeking. If they want to totally free roll players into Live Events I have no qualms as long as it's done in a transparent method such as "sponsored pros".

You make some valid points and I understand them along with the "good for the poker business" argument behind them.

However, there is publicly-available information, liberally spread by licensing authorities in certain jurisdictions that either directly or indirectly addresses the numerous "social responsibility" lapses that abuse of these operator business methods create -- particularly when it comes to misleading advertising and targeting of vulnerable consumers.

Furthermore, this system (once those involved gain the necessary experience and sophistication to efficiently abuse it) creates gaping orifices in legitimate fan outreach/marketing services that the poker industry naturally depends on for new business generation -- not least of which is rankings.

Take Alex Dreyfus and THM/GPI for example. How do you think they feel about the source material -- for what the company has attempted to market as a bonafide rankings system -- being further manipulated to favor certain players in ways that have nothing to do with "live poker skill?"

How about the RG Network and the company's recent acquisition of online rankings site PocketFives? Anyone feel like reaching out to Adam Small and asking him for observations on what he thinks about the source material for peer-to-peer gaming rankings being further dumped on by "pro" player influencers who clearly don't have a firm grasp on how new or casual players will eventually perceive such practices once the abuses become rampant?

I haven't reached out to either on this b/c it's supplemental to the actual story -- which is how these practices go against existing UKGC "social responsibility" rules in ways that are self-evident to even laypeople (including players), to the point where players, media or whoever can sufficiently connect the dots and progress the discussion.

It's unfortunate that no official response from partypoker has been offered, but the story is there, is already being talked about and released to the public by high profile players, and can be relayed in a way that addresses player concerns while offering verifiable methods -- promoted by an established licensing authority -- for escalating complaints through third-party Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) services.

Whether this process grants an overall "value" to players by enabling them to formally escalate an issue to an "independent" arbitrator -- or is simply a gimmick designed to funnel informed players into a never-ending cesspool of disadvantageous negotiating positions (a la PokerStars SNE Removal and the fact that most iGaming players on regulated sites would be contractually obligated to lodge civil action in far-off jurisdictions) is another question altogether.

The tournament is better with these sub par regs being lumped in. A field of 500 sickos paying say 65 players is way worse for the "recreational player" than a rec playing a 1500 runner field paying 225 or something. It might be more players but I think you will find the fish doing much better long term.

The whole reason that party are putting these massive guarantees on is to build a reputation where they run the biggest comps etc etc. They want the headling "we run the biggest games!!" etc not the title "we run the biggest games but only because we have to fire 700 sub par bin regs in to meet the guarantee!"" title. I don't see why people can't just go with it, they are doing the poker community a massive favour.

Let me give you an example of one downside. Imagine a player is backed for multiple bullets and I don't know that. If he shoves all in every hand how can I determine if he's an idiot or he wants a quick double but doesn't really care as his next bullet is just a short walk to the desk away.

Another scenario... say this same player has fired 3 bullets in a 5k and stands to gain only a portion of the cash including all bullets fired. A min cash doesn't do this player any good as he will receive nothing. Therefore bubble play would be greatly affected.

I'd ask that the messages keep coming and would like to extend the offer of confidentiality to other staking stables that are involved provided you reach out to me.

Furthermore any information about Party Poker's online guarantees being met via dubious staking arrangements will also be part of my investigation.
Any information about other Live Events is also appreciated as it appears that DTD is not the only venue that engages in this type of activity.

That's one way of looking at it, and I get the social "good for the game" aspect of this argument even if it doesn't stand up against social responsibility guidelines.

However, what was brought forth in the OP suggests that the goodwill gesture of providing a few down-and-out gamblers living primarily out of their vehicle some free suds, a clean toilet and a shot a tournament glory has been significantly co-oped by Partypoker sponsored pros, right?

I don't think you know this stuff anyway. Example 1 you could say the same about a rich man and a poor man not being able to rebuy, it's not like the information is made publicly to us about who will and wont rebuy to who has more $$.

The second scenario happens all the time. Most of us are backed and have % swaps and end up having times when min cashes mean more or less than others due to some reason or another, not once have I felt like I had to explain my situation to the other players in the comps.

You can shill as much as you like, but go explain to the fun players about how they are playing against players who are being put in there at a discount or for free by some kind of organisation (if true) and see how much they will still want to contribute their money into the pot. They would probably prefer to just sit down and play with a fair group with some overlay than play against a 'rigged' crowd. I definitely won't be going to Nottingham* any time soon!

I also heard on the streets from an EX-BRS player that not only is soft play encouraged on PartyPoker between BRS members, it's required and punishable. If people dig further into this and speak with some ex-members you'll find out the level at BRS are willing to go to to make money.

You are basically admitting to what the rest of us already know is going on (the freerolls). I personally know people who are getting these deals but you are just adding to the public evidence by posting here.

You say 'most of us are backed'. By that you mean most of the people you know, and that's because you belong to a stable which gets these dirty deals. On other sites, I think most people actually play their own money. The majority of my friends certainly do, and they aren't random low stakes grinders. They are the ones who are re considering whether its fair or worth it to risk their hard earned cash on party.

Your posts are entirely self serving, and quite frankly absolutely ignorant of the bigger problems that all of this causes. I'd guess you've not been involved in this industry for more than a few years.

FWIW, I know for a fact that BRS is not the only stable receiving these deals, although as far as I'm aware it is by far the main beneficiary.

Wow,

I've not heard of this first hand before but given the quality of play of some of the BRS guys and the results they have had, it has crossed my mind that this may be the case. If this is true, I wonder how motivated party would be to take action against the involved individuals given that they very often have a direct financial stake in their results.

Anyone ever wonder why BRS doesn't operate on stars (to my knowledge)!?

It's getting very tempting to withdraw my balance....

Yeah if that's true that's exactly what I feared. How can Party possibly police small satellite fields fairly if there is a team of players working together that Party themselves have sponsored in the first place. In that case they have little incentive to review those games, it's absurd.

I also find it odd that BRS instead of denying or clarifying in any of those threads have just closed all of their social media and websites. That was the way I originally found the screennames that played sats for the 25k.

And then you have post like this:

Stables, again shown to be a cancer on the integrity of the game.

[ ] surprising
[X] standard

This is a very good point. If there's no under the table deal going on between party and BRS, why would this stable not putting horses into tournaments on the biggest poker site, with the largest guarantees and payouts? It makes no sense.

Between this and party's lack of player fund protection, why anyone would trust this site is beyond me.

If you'd be so kind could you elaborate a bit on this or put me in touch with said players.

Is the collusion specific to satellites to Live Events or is it for all MTT's?
This could be exclusive to just sats to Live Events as we don't know with 100% certainty who is on the hook if a Live Event overlays?
Is it Rob Yong from DTD or is it Party, or both?

I would appreciate some more feedback via PM or posted publicly on:

1) Whom is slated to lose $ should overlays occur when the tourney is sponsored by Party. The casino or Party or a mix?
2) Does BRS work outside of Party directly with Casino's.
3) Additional staking stables that are linked to this situation as a few have come up.

Keep the messages coming with rumours or facts, it all helps.

EDIT: Decided to delete this post in case someone feels my conjecture could still qualify as libel.

It was theorising who the owner of BRS is, and what their relationship is to party.

I'm very concerned by this issue and I'd like to think I'm exactly the type of player that Party Poker is trying to attract back to online play.

I used to play on Stars, but quit a few years ago due to the new owners being "wankers" (to quote an earlier post lol). I became an exclusive live player, mostly at Playground, and never intended to play online poker again.

Then PP came along with their PP Live promotions. This tempted me back. Since earlier this year I've deposited thousands of dollars onto PP and turned this into PPL$ to play live events.

I had, however, some suspicions about what I'd experienced in the PPL$ online satellites. They always seem to fill-up close to the guarantees very late in the registration period with many of the same players. These players often fire multiple bullets and gamble-it-up with me (and others).

This is fine for regular MTTs and should be profitable for good players. For sattys, however, it is usually just +$EV for the rest of the field when two players gamble it up close to the money.

I'm recalling a hand from a few weeks ago, but it was pretty crucial: 9 players left, 5 x $5,000 PPL$ tickets, chip distributions were something like this:

1st 800k
2nd 700k (Villain)
3rd 600k
4th 500k (Hero)
5th 300k
6th-9th 100-250k

Blinds 10k/20k Hero opens UTG with AKo to 40k, Villain OTB 3-bets to 100k, Hero ships and Villain snap-calls with TT. Like WTF. My range there is only ever JJ+,AK. I am never balancing 4-bet bluffs in that spot in a satty. I'm only expecting to get snap called by AA/KK, which I block, and have Villain tank with AK/QQ/JJ, but probably fold. As such, it is hard to believe this guy was playing with his own money and, quite possibly, he was in a stable with other players in the tourney, thereby helping them by knocking me out.

With this thread, I'm considering whether I should play again on PP. They need to give me some assurance that they're legit and will stamp out any kind of team play in PPL$ sattys.

**** stables and libel. They are cancer anyways so it's not like you're doing wrong to anyone.

From what I've heard at Playground, the overlays at all Party-sponsored live events are 100% Party's responsibility. This applies for the duration of the live event, including live satellite guarantees during the event. Playground covers overlays for live satellites only prior to the event.

In the last party-sponsored event here (WSOP-C), there were overlays in satellites prior to the event (Playground's responsibility), but none in the live satellites during the event (Party's responsibility). It was a very successful event. I believe all guarantees were met. As to whether Party conspired with a third-party to feed players into the satellites and events, I couldn't say, but many players were freely firing re-entries, and many were openly backed / part of stables with many horses in the same tourneys.