Interview with AllinGirl777
Charles Hawk: Your results are so amazing. :) How did you learn to play?
Hester [AllinGirl777]: Eh, bit on a DS recently.
Hester [AllinGirl777]: I've never been staked, but had some coaching here and there. Start of my career I could obviously play rec players almost constantly but that has changed obviously, so gotta work on my reg game now.
Charles Hawk: Did you start to play only from 2012?
Hester [AllinGirl777]: Yep.
Charles Hawk: Do you play only husngs?
Hester [AllinGirl777]: (Yes) only HU, but try to learn some other formats as well. Not that i plan on quitting hu hypers, but the cartel environment makes them less attractive, and a friend recently said to me, key to good investment is diversification. So, looking to pick up some PLO and some live games. i live a 5 min walk from a casino in Amsterdam.
Charles Hawk: Could you play 24/7 there if you want to?
Hester [AllinGirl777]: I haven't checked it out properly but the casino is right in the centre, and there are loads of tourists he
Charles Hawk: What did you do before discovering poker?
Hester [AllinGirl777]: I studied theoretical chemistry, got my master degree. Then started a PhD but didn't really like it. Always wanted to try internet poker, and decided to do that full-time.
Charles Hawk: Did you have any live experience before? How did you catch that thought (to try internet poker)?
Hester [AllinGirl777]: I don't have much live experience. Definitely not in casino. But I have played live games with friends quite often. This is also how I got into poker.
Hester [AllinGirl777]: A friend (female friend :D) taught me how to play, and the guy she was dating was an internet pro. I've never been into gambling so much. I hate variance, but i've always enjoyed strategy games of all sorts.
Charles Hawk: As I see, you started directly from hyper turbos?
Hester [AllinGirl777]: Yes I did - all the way up from the micros, cause I was a nit, and didn't want to deposit too much.
Charles Hawk: So you never made another deposit because of busting your bankroll?
Hester [AllinGirl777]: No.
Charles Hawk: How did you come up with idea to play HUSNG HYPERS? Why not MTTs or cash games?
Hester [AllinGirl777]: I enjoy the format. It has a very competitive feel. You either win or lose. Also they are quick, so you don't have to devote a lot of time to be able to grind them. When I started, I didn’t understood variance, so they gave the illusion that it is possible to make money very quickly.
Charles Hawk: Describe your first year grinding hypers. How long did it take to build significant bankroll and be able to pay your bills from poker?
Hester [AllinGirl777]: At the start I still had my job, and was playing hypers part time. I was very motivated, cause I didn't really like my job, and I loved poker. I was lucky to run a lot above EV at the beginning, and after about 6 months I thought I had enough of a roll to take the gamble and go full time. Looking back, it was pretty risky, but so far it has worked out. I guess I've gotten lucky at the right moment.
Charles Hawk: What were your main leaks at the beginning?
Hester [AllinGirl777]: I think I knew very little about poker. So my leaks were pretty huge, probably not adapting well enough was one of the biggest. And I feel I still have tons to learn.
Charles Hawk: Do you have any daily routine?
Hester [AllinGirl777]: No, but I should :D. Usually I just start to grind at some point, and when I'm not happy with the action, or don't feel like playing, I'm trying to do some reviewing, analysis with software etc. These days as a 'cartel leader' cartel talk also absorbs a lot of my time.
Charles Hawk: When you started to play $60s there weren‘t any cartels yet, right?
Hester [AllinGirl777]: No there weren't. At that point most people already had Sharky, and you would get sat by some regs when just having moved up, but nothing close to how it is now.
Charles Hawk: Several players have commented about some interesting ideas that you've had to improve the $60 level groups. Can you tell me some of your ideas?
Hester [AllinGirl777]: It depends on the definition of 'improving'. I think cartel rules will only change when it is in the interest of the cartel itself, cause that is where the changes have to take place. No doubt cartels could 'improve' a lot from the position of the outsider. So what I would think of an improvement, others might not, because they believe it is not in their interest.
Hester [AllinGirl777]: At some point in hypers HUSNG it was obvious that reg on reg action had to be enforced, because the sharky queues got out of hand, and individual regs did not have enough incentive to sit weaker regs to the point that weaker regs couldn't play the stake profitably.
Hester [AllinGirl777]: So, obviously, reg on reg action had to be enforced, and I agree that it should be enforced. So keeping that in mind, I expect with the current lobby system that HU hypers will always remain 'political' in that sense.
Hester [AllinGirl777]: Cartels, how they are at the moment, do enforce this reg on reg action, but they do it on a group level instead of on an individual level. The result is that regs cannot game select individually, they can't individually try and find max edges vs another reg. Therefore, even tho there is a lot of reg on reg action, it won't (quickly) lead to the most deserving regs being able to move up. And because this is a very slow process, A LOT of regbattles have to be fought, which I think is inefficient and in general bad for the regpool as a whole.
Charles Hawk: How often are new regs trying to become $60s members?
Hester [AllinGirl777]: It is hard to say anything about that in general. I suspect it is dependent on the rules of the cartel. It is definitely possible for a cartel to make the rules in the way that they effectively lock themselves to decrease the number of contestants. But I reckon when making the rules in that way it will also affect the chances of the cartel members themselves to move up. Because at the moment, it is not so much the pressure of a single person that can break down cartel doors, but the accumulated pressure of a group of people. It is close to impossible to put enough pressure on a large group on your own to the point they consider expanding. This again illustrates the lack of efficiency in reggames. It is necessary for two groups to go to war before things will change - very slowly. When two groups of equal strength go to war in a game like hypers, it can take forever, and the only party that will be happy is the one that is collecting the rake.
Hester [AllinGirl777]: So therefore, I think it is in cartel members own interest to change rules, cause it will increase their chances of moving up, people can gameselect individually, and they don't have to follow a million rules in order to avoid anybody free rolling. I haven't really talked about the rules I would suggest, but it is very simple: Everybody has to play x % of their volume vs regs. And this can be checked on Sharkscope very easily. Those who are not part of this group won't get a lobby, and group members can vote for an outsider to become part of this group. When he/she has collected enough votes, he/she will become a member. Kickings will only take place when people are not following this rule. The cap is dynamic and will be determined organically. When queues are too long / the action bad, reg percentage can be increased. Also games at higher stakes will count as reggames, so this can ultimately lead to more pressure for a higher cartel. Skilled members in cartels that are governed by such rules are in a better position than they would be if they were in a 'locked cartel'. Especially at the lower stakes, where there are a lot of contestants and where most players are looking to move up at some point.
Charles Hawk: How many players are in the $60s list at the moment?
Hester [AllinGirl777]: I think 85ish.
Charles Hawk: Do you have any cap in your mind? How many new regs could be invited to be able still get enough fish?
Hester [AllinGirl777]: Having a cap can potentially make things very complicated, because if a new member gets invited, a current member needs to be kicked then. Therefore, if it will be the cartel members who have to vote new people in they will be very reluctant, which is how it is at the moment. When there is no competition between cartel members, a cap is obviously necessary, because otherwise there is no way to regulate the action when a cartel takes up new members. This can be circumvented for instance by trying to decide as a cartel who the strong outsiders are and the weak insiders, but needless to say, this is not an exact science and it takes a lot of time and effort. With a reg percentage in place as soon as a cartel member suspects that a fellow member is weaker than the outsider he can vote 'yes' for the outsider, stop playing him, and instead sit this fellow cartel reg. So, trying to maintain a group of people with no competition between the members can create a lot of complications, and takes away the freedom of regs to select their own (reg) opponents.
Hester [AllinGirl777]: There will be a cap, because when action gets bad reg percentage will be increased leading to the perceived weaker regs getting sat. But no kickings as long as people follow rules :)
Charles Hawk: You played only 55 games in $100s level (and won about 1k). Are you trying to shoot $100s or is that something that you will not be doing for awhile?
Hester [AllinGirl777]: Haven't made up my mind yet. Being a poker player I'd like to play a game where I can increase my hourly significantly, when I put in a lot of hard work. I am a full time player, and I hope to continue to do that for a while, so basically looking for the max EV spot, and haven't decided yet where it is. I really enjoy the hu hyper format, so it is possible I'm gonna play 100s at some point.
Charles Hawk: Are there any other activities which you would enjoy doing for a living besides poker?:}
Hester [AllinGirl777]: At the moment I'm working like 1.5 days every week as a waitress, cause I enjoy it, and it is good for social interaction, especially when being a poker player. Don't think I would do it full time tho, but I enjoy it more than science :D.
Alternative for me could be to start my own business of some sorts, but at the moment, I am not putting too much thought into that.
Charles Hawk: What are your long term poker goals (or wishes)?
Hester [AllinGirl777]: I'd like to become good all around player, so learn different formats, learn a lot about game theory (even though I left science, I still find that geeky stuff very interesting), and just continue in a way that keeps the game interesting and challenging. Which definitely does not involve too much cartel politics ;).
Charles Hawk: What is it like to be a female poker pro?
Hester [AllinGirl777]: I don't think it is that different to being a male pro. My sn is allingirl777, but most people assume I'm a guy anyway.
Hester [AllinGirl777]: It could be that women in general have a bit different characteristics than men, which could also explain why there are only so few female players. They tend to be less competitive, maybe a bit more risk averse, and for some reasons they don't really like to play games (in the literal sense tho :D). But I guess I don't have those characteristics.
Charles Hawk: Who are your best poker friends?
Hester [AllinGirl777]: Freechdogg, mela from 2+2 and pies58910.
(with mela)
http://i.imgur.com/xo9TKfU.jpg" style="height:365px; width:487px" /> (freechdog, AllinGirl777, pavels44, itzmyka)
Charles Hawk: If you were coaching a losing player to play husng hypers, what would be the first 3 suggestions that you would give him?
Hester [AllinGirl777]: Assuming I wouldn't know what their leaks exactly are, I would start of by advising to play low stakes, to 1-table, and review sessions afterwards, questioning every decision and thinking about every option when playing a hand. Ideally use poker software for analysis. I think everybody with enough talent to become a winning player should be able to improve doing that. Watching videos/reading books will help a lot as well.
Charles Hawk: How do you analyse your play? Which program do u use? How many hours on average do you spend on your analysis? Do you talk strat with your poker friends?
Hester [AllinGirl777]: I recently started to use CREV a lot. I try to analyse about 1 hand a day, which sometimes can take up to an hour. I definitely talk strategy with poker friends =). I think every player has his/her very strong points, and therefore it can be great to talk to various players.
Charles Hawk: How expensive is to live in Amsterdam? What can't you afford being a $60 reg?
Hester [AllinGirl777]: Amsterdam is expensive, and I live right in the centre, so rents are high. But it is nothing like Paris or London, and it is a really nice city to live in. I've never been - and probably never will be - a big spender, one of the few women that doesn't like shopping. But I like travelling, and I do a fair bit, so I guess I can afford that being a 60s reg.
Charles Hawk: How many fishes on average can you meet in a 5-7hrs grind?
Hester [AllinGirl777]: Tough question. I think atm 60% of games are against players that aren't considered 'regulars', and the quality of those players can vary a lot. Much more likely to get rematches when they run good. I think it could be around 20 games an hour.
Charles Hawk: Tell me about your travels. Which countries have you visited?
Hester [AllinGirl777]: Been to US, Paris, Spain, London, Prague, and will visit more places later this year.
http://i.imgur.com/xqwkVIf.png" style="height:448px; width:425px" />
Charles Hawk: What do you like to do when visiting foreign country?
Hester [AllinGirl777]: I'm a lazy sightseer. i'd just like to walk around a bit, sit in bars/restaurants, hang out with friends and observe the locals a bit.
Charles Hawk: Any memorable stories to share?
Hester [AllinGirl777]: Freech and I were staying at an old university friend's flat in San Sebastien in Spain. He has a black cat and generally speaking I adore cats. This cat though was very territorial shall I say. On our first night when we arrived the cat was very suspicious of us and was staring at us intently. He kind of scratched Freech's hand a little bit, though nothing too significant.
The next morning, we woke up, opened the door of our room and the cat was literally waiting outside our room (for us). He came in and was clearly not happy with the situation and started inspecting us. Freech immediately put shoes and gloves on for some protection! We were both petrified. This cat was just wandering around the room in a very intense manner, staring us in the eye and hauling as he walked past us each time.
We just sat there trying not to make any sudden movements or loud noises and remain calm. This went on for about 30 minutes. I don’t think I've ever been so scared in my life. We decided to try and lure him out the room by getting some of his food. So Freech got up and as he did the cat immediately pounced and started scratching right through his jeans and scratched his leg really badly. Freech got the food and put it in the room opposite on the floor so he could see it to try and get him out. But the cat hadn't noticed the food and was still just patrolling the room we were in!
After another 10 minutes or so he finally noticed the food. But before he walked out of the room to get it he decided to dig his nails right into my leg just to let us know who was boss. I still have scars on my legs. We shut the door and called my friend who had to come back from work and put the cat in his bedroom so we could leave the room.
We thought it would be best if we went and stayed somewhere else so we stayed in a nice hostel which was actually in the same building as my friend (and his cat) was living in. For the next couple of days every time we entered the building all we could think about was the cat and we were still a little scared just to even be in the same building as him, lol. On our last night we went to my friend's house for dinner. He had locked the cat away in his room but throughout the evening he was banging very angrily on the door trying to get out! It was quite an experience. And it was so nice to come home to my own cats who don’t attack me!
very interesting, cool interview :)
" Everybody has to play x % of their volume vs regs. And this can be checked on Sharkscope very easily."
Sorry im prolly stupid to ask but how do you that ?
You could probably setup a script that would cost under $500 to check it automatically (check opponents played versus a list of "regulars").
You could do it by hand, it would just be a pain in the ass, and probably cost over $500 per month to do (would imagine each player would be at least an hour worth of work for someone, even at $10hr that's $500 per 50 players).
Are you ironic ? So my question was not so stupid so ? lol
No, I was seriously answering the question.
Having someone write a script that would likely cost up to $500, is the only way I can think to easily do it. I could be missing an easier idea though (but a script to cost $500 or less, as basically a one time fee, split by 50-100 players, is like nothing).
And if someone has block his stats on sharkscope?
Just like now, when they do the monthly checks to make sure you're playing a certain amount of games and/or results, they require players to unblock once a month.
Hester is showing 51.6% itm (just over 1% roi) this year at $60s over 6.5k games. Is it worth it being in this cartel ? I am thinking that it's possible to do just as well with careful table selection against the cartel.
Sharkscope can be misleading in a 6,5k sample. She can run under EV with 100-150 BI.
Good interview btw. (even if its just imaginary - nice blonde girl with master degree in theoretical chemistry, playing hyper turbos, cartell leader on the 60's, finds game theory, geeky stuff interesting, doesn't like shopping. Pls... come on! :) ) GL in the future Hester!
>> nice blonde girl with master degree in theoretical chemistry, playing hyper turbos, cartell leader on the 60's, finds game theory, geeky stuff interesting, doesn't like shopping...
Perfect woman. I guess she will be getting lots of marriage proposals from many HUSNG.com members after this interview.
"If you want to win, you must not lose!"
And that's gonna be the easiest way to get into the cartel))
haha very nice interview. More clever poker playing girls at the tables would be welcome!
i actually think that 85 members in that one cartel is way too much. i don´t really see the point in being a member in such a cartel, that obviously will have plenty of weak regs in it.
Probably helps build a database of regs without a large sample of your own.
Those not on the list will be classified as non-regs.
Having two default strategies [vs regs] & [vs non-regs] should help exploit the common weaknesses of each category of player.
That's funny, given reports of 40% reg % battling each month, I figured it was the opposite: I figured the cartel was too small, and needs to add members/swap bad for good, in order to be a stronger, more legitimate cartel.
This cartell stuff is very entertaining and seeing who is allingirl makes my day.
I'm getting little concerned about all this cartel thing. I think it really scares lots of new people of playing hypers or moving up, and this is a bad thing.
When a new player deposits money on a poker site he hopes to win. He hopes to climb the stakes and win lots of money. That's how we all started playing and that's what makes poker going. We had a hope and a dream to win big in a game where everyone has an equal chance of winning.
Now with the cartels around people don't have an equal chance of winning. If they want to move up they have to fight a cartel. They have to play 10K, 15K games against 100 toughest regs in higher stakes and hope to brake-even against them for a long period of time. That means no hope of wining and no hope of making money. This can discourage lots of weak players to move up and to deposit money on poker sites. And this is a problem.
Nobody just deposits 5K on a poker site and says: “I'm going to have lots of fun losing this money to cartel.“ In reality, people deposit 5K and hope to get lucky and play some weaker players, or equally skilled players, they hope to double or triple the money, or maybe win really big.
If people knew they have no chance of winning they will just stop depositing and we are all done!
Cartel is doing just this, letting weaker players know that they have no chance of winning!
"If you want to win, you must not lose!"
I like this explanation of how the poker economy works.
http://www.anskypoker.com/2010/10/how-the-poker-economy-works/
Heads up hyper turbos are at a mature stage of their business life cycle imo.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Life-Cycle-of-a-Business-Stages-of-Business-Growth
It is not uncommon for businesses to begin to consolidate via mergers, acquisitions, tacit collusion etc (cartels in the case of HUHT) in order to more effectively manage the sustainability of the market they yield profit from.
In the case of online poker, the customer (losing player who needs to keep redepositing to stay in action), will only continue to trade if he feels like he is getting a good deal. Ironically it is the unconscious incompetence, or in many cases gambling degeneracy that keeps theses players coming back.
You make a good point, the online poker fish has to be pretty dumb to continue to believe he has a chance of winning in the face of overwhelming evidence that he can't. And when he finds out about the cartels, whether he understands how they work or not, he may decide to leave the game.
While the cartels provide the benefit of forcing reg vs reg action, they also make mechanics of the poker economy a lot more explicit to those who drive it. Which could "tap the glass" and lead to a very poor equilibrium for everyone.
The health and sustainability of a game seems to have an inverse relationship with the extent to which a poker site allows players to game select. I personally think a redesign of the lobby system would lead to a more favorable equilibrium. I would much prefer a freemarket lobby design whereby individual players can either compete at a stake or they can't than the current system which has led to a politically biased bureaucracy.
i´d much prefer it if you could just register for a player pool out of which HU-tables are randomly being drawn every minute or two. you could specify how many entries you would like to have for the next draw and that way you could still multitable. i think for recreational players that is much more beneficial and good players will make their money just the same. all the good regs will randomly get their fair share of fish without the need of buying additional software or fighting their way up to a cartel.
This is essentially what I meant by a freemarket lobby.
It allows the market to decide which stake a reg belongs => they can either hack the stake skill level and reg:fish ratio or they will be forced to move down.
A market driven ladder system which encourages competition would be far more sustainable long term than the current short term predatory incentives created by the existing lobby system.
The funny thing is that such a system was proposed at Pokerstars conference last year and majority of regs (cartel members) was against it. Cartel doesn't want everyone to have an equal chance to get a "fish" . They want to keep all the "fish" for themselves. This is the point of having a cartel.
Pokerstars decided not to introduce such a system yet but I believe it will be introduced eventually. It is the only fair system where the best players can climb up and weak players have to move down.
"If you want to win, you must not lose!"
I would have thought strong cartel members should prefer a market driven system?
Economic market forces are far more efficient at weeding out the weak members of the group than the (presumably) illiquid & politically biased voting system used by the cartel.
If the fish player pool was growing at a faster rate than the reg player pool, it would be optimal for winning players to opt for a system which allows them to more actively game select because competition for fish would not be a material issue.
In the current market, where the reg to fish ratio is increasing, the cartel had to form in order to regulate game selection practices.
Remove game selection incentives from the system and you don't need a cartel to regulate it.
Strong players will get more action at higher stakes and weaker players will have to drop stakes to a level that they have an edge over the aggregate player, rather than just the fish at that level.
I think blind ques are one of the roots of the problem.
With an open que where you can sit anyone in the que and get a game auto launched, I think it gives you far more incentive to hunt weaker regs as an individual.
With the blind ques, if you're 20th in line and a weak guy is 15-19th in line, you have to wait until you're 1-5th in line to sit them, and that is just plain stupid, now you are thinking "well, if I wait a few more minutes I get a bad player, if I sit the weak reg, someone else gets that bad player." Far less incentive because your ability to sit that reg has been diminished greatly.
--
I agree with everything you guys say about random matchmaking. Except one thing: the rake. The rake is too high to sustain the amount of reg vs reg action that a random matchmaking lobby would provide. Even the guys that play 40-75% of regs today, they are picking who they play and avoding the top 50%+ of regs usually.
Since PokerStars is never going to lower hyper turbo rake, and all indications are that an opt out vs a specific opponent in a random matchmaking lobby is not an option they are considering, I think it is a very bad thing to push for random matchmaking.
I think just by making a more fair group, and not naming them after mexican drug lord groups, things can be far better. If it's literally the top 75% of regs that are required to chase the bottom 25% of regs out of the buyin level, there's nothing wrong with that, it truly allows for the strongest to move up and that is very fair.
But currently, there has been a lot of resistance by too many to making things more fair. I do believe things will get more fair in the near future, but the question, as always, will be: is it enough? We'll see.
What do you think about "Anonymous" matches? Where nobody doesn't know with whom they are playing...
i think the only problem with this is that it is impossible to rail anyone, which i think is pretty bad for the game.
avoiding the top players in your pool is a luxury that doesn´t occur in any other sport. especially heads up players like to constantly claim how competitive they are and how much they like the competitive nature of the game. well, if players only like to be competitive if they can avoid those who are better, that´s kind of silly.
i´d say it´s impossible to create a truely fair group, because people are people after all and will always try to maximize their own advantage to the disadvantage of the whole. frankly i think it´s embarrassing that PS has no problem in lobby watching being outsourced to those who want to make a living from it. such things have to be dealt with in an unbiased manner. while i agree that the formation of cartels is a necessary evil in the current system, it´s still generally a bad solution that in itself does not hold the possibility of equal opportunity for anyone.
another problem of groups is democracy. while i agree it is the only way to govern a group or state, there are some inherent problems.
1st: the decision making process lasts too long;
2nd: necessary changes can be held back by a big enough group who fear to lose their edge when it´s getting fairer
3rd: democracy will to some degree always be a popularity contest
4th: if people are dissatisfied with the cartel they are in and form an alternative cartel, chaos will spread. such things always will happen.
5th: as bertrand russel once said: even if everyone agrees, everyone can be wrong.
6th: a cartel is undemocratic and totalitarian in itself, because its purpose is to also govern those who have no say in it.
i think in the long run it´s unavoidable for a random system to come. besides: zoom in all kind of games seems to be working fine with the best players still making money.
i´d also say that a random system should be implemented for HU cash. something like a modified zoom system where you register for a pool and randomly are assigned an opponent. now you have to play that opponent for at least x amount of hands. if those hands have been played, the players have the option to keep on playing each other if they wish or be assigned to a new opponent. if a player leaves the match prematurely, he will be denied access to any table on PS for the duration of an hour or so.
"Since PokerStars is never going to lower hyper turbo rake"
Of course they would if people stopped playing the games. That's the honest solution.
People would play, look at non Stars sites with 1.5-3x the rake rates. They get action still. Not as much, but it would still be action.
Plus, PokerStars has the lowest hyper rake. They're not going to change structures then say "we'll make it even lower," for them, that has been off the table and they've made that clear to players several times (at meetings and in public).
There is a rake price point from the perspective of the pokersite that maximises their earnings based on sustainable volume net of new deposits and withdrawals.
Winning players are only good for the site to the extent which their existence motivates others to keep depositing and fueling the volume which can be raked.
WIth the current lobby system, and assuming what you are saying is true => winning players in the existing system couldn't make money net of the rake if they were to actively play against the aggregate player pool. This means the reg to fish ratio is already too high for games to be beatable for more than the top few % of players.
Call me cynical but I assume this is by design (rake pricing by site). The pokersites gain very little from winning players taking money off the site. They do best when players have to grind massive volume and pay lots of rake in order to be able to operate under the assumption they can turn a profit. A winning player's profit afterall, erodes the sustainability of the pokersite's volume driven business.
You say that random matchmaking would be a bad end game for players?
What about your own business? Your site is effectively in the business of educating aspiring regs?
The cartels act as a direct barrier to entry for aspiring regs, thus devaluing the product you sell.
The issue is, there are too many regs on PokerStars from a business stand point, so even if 75% of regs can't make money and quit, PokerStars likely sees the same # of HUSNGs happening. Even if recreationals end up hating not being able to choose their opponent vs the current system of choice, recreationals likely just go to another game, which is probably also fine. It's not like poker rooms are salivating over HUSNGs, our game makes a lot of profit (though it does rake a lot).
As for HUSNG.com, I support the group system because it allows the best to make more money long term, and I think players making a lot of money really drives new players into this game. My site isn't about regulars, it has way too much traffic to even think 10% of the people that come here are regulars. Only something like 10% of the poker population wins, if that. Our goal is to provide the tools that can help motivated people win money if they work hard. So our market is certainly plenty of currently unsuccessful players too.
Also, a lot of $200-500s regs feel too proud to buy training these days. Our videos focus more on the larger populated low to mid stakes, up to $100s generally, but our best video packs do contain a lot of value for higher guys too (for example, Lotte Lenya talking about how valuable zZz's Crushing Hypers pack is).
At the end of the day, I think the best solution to maximize the chances that this game stays big, profitable and attractive to new players is to have these groups, but to have the criteria to get into the groups be far more fair and attainable. If you're beating the group over a few thousand games, it's close to certain that you're better than the group and you should automatically be in. That seems fundamentally fair and would take away all the legitimate unfairness talk and complaints in my mind.
Are the required samples vs the cartel quoted above correct?
If so, single tabling, @ 15 games per hour it would take 667-1000 hours invested breaking even / losing money vs the cartel to simply earn your spot to yield a few % ROI from an already saturated market.
If you're not playing full time, it could take years to put in the volume required to move up one stake once you achieve a skill level equal to the aggregate cartel member.
As a low volume hobby player, I practically could not play enough to gain entry into the cartel even if I was theoretically skillful enough to compete vs them.
And frankly if I'm a low volume player there isn't much of an end game to earn anyway once I overcome the cartel's requirements for entry.
As you correctly said, there is only a small % of players who win at poker long term.
If the reg : fish ratio is higher than the rake would naturally allow it to be at a given stake but it is being artificially held there by collusion then that is because the structure of the system has been exploited.
The source of the exploitation is allowing players to actively game select.
In my situation, I would much prefer a more equitable market driven system and for regs to be naturally redistributed as a function of the rake.
If this is not the case AND I can't possibly put in the volume to compete under the current regime, then the value I place on your products is reduced dramatically. In the extreme case, I chalk up my experience in HUSNGs as a failed business venture and move on (pretty much the stage I'm at now).
The players who benefit most from these cartels don't even buy your products.
I understand that the marketable value of the tools vs their fundamental value to the end user are not equal.
But some % of your customer base are people that think like me and will come to the realisation that HUSNGs are probably not the best allocation of their time in equilibrium the games have ended up in.
Why invest in the tools to beat games where there are such high barriers to entry at stakes where the investment might yield something that resembles a meaningful return on your time?
The current system requires players to play X number of games vs strong competition to be able to then play their earned share vs weak competition.
It has created a polarised payoff distribution whereby only skillful AND high volume players will be successful long term.
I think it would be fairer to the overall player pool if the payoff distribution was more linear.
There would be an adjustment period, where a certain % of regs would need to move down or move on.
But the % of winning players in a player pool would be much the same as a function of the rake and skill level differentials over time ...
cdon, you´re perfectly right. the current group system will not bring any positive changes, because right now it only protects the weak members of the cartel who couldn´t survive on their own and gives the good non cartel members, who could survive on their own an unnecessarily hard time. if you are being bullied by the cartel, that bullying misrepresents the average skill of the players at a certain level. again my sports comparison: in no other sport this is the case. if you play for a second league soccer team and you manage to make it to the first league, the schedule of the upcoming season will not read bayern münchen every other game.
It's even worse than that. The cartel members are worse off now as well. From the article
"Charles Hawk: When you started to play $60s there weren‘t any cartels yet, right?
Hester [AllinGirl777]: No there weren't. At that point most people already had Sharky, and you would get sat by some regs when just having moved up, but nothing close to how it is now."
Hester thinks she is on a "downswing" but it is unlikely as almost all of the cartel members I have looked up are doing badly. Her ROI is much lower because she is playing other regs more often now because that's what the cartel does. My advice is don't join this cartel find a site or a game without a cartel and let these guys figure out for themselves that they are peeing in the soup. Pokerstars allow this cartel because it benefits them. Reg v reg does not benefit the players.
The 10K-15K game samples needed are minimum entry requirements right now. Last player that got into the $100s cartel played 17K games vs them. This is insanely high number of games for everyone except a few naturally talented multi-tablers who can play profitably 4-6 tables at once.
Cartel clearly states that they don't want any part-timers or hobbyist in the group. if you want to be part of the group you have to fully commit 100% of your time or you have no chance of getting in. You also have to play minimum two tables I believe, but I'm not 100% sure about that.
More and more people are complaining and asking Pokerstars to ban the cartels or to implement the "random player assignment" system and if cartels don't change their politics soon this is eventually going to happen. Pokerstars doesn't want lots of unhappy customers and this is what is happening right now.
"If you want to win, you must not lose!"
10-15k game samples are NOT correct. That numbers has flied around by certain people exaggerating the situation.
Just in the last week, at the $200s, two guys have been let in. One with something like 2k games and 1% EV ROI, another with about 5k games and -.7% EV ROI. These guys were beating up the weaker $200s guys (those ROIs may seem low, but it means the players on the other side were getting murdered), and they were let in over reasonable samples.
The $60s and $100s are working out clear requirements too. Currently there are voting requirements, not minimum volume/ROI requirements, but there should be clear volume requirements published soon and the hope is that they will make things clear and fair once in for all, meaning anyone that can prove they are beating the players in the group that they decide to play for a few weeks or a month with reasonable confidence (something like 0% EV ROI over 2k games i believe makes it 90% certain you're better than your opponents), should be allowed into the groups automatically.
Once (if) these changes are made, there should no longer be bias, as you'll just auto get in if you are better than people in the group. The groups will become what is essentially a VIP level, which makes complete sense, and the groups can focus on their original purpose: Have the top xx% players at each buyin in a group and keep the weak regs that were only interested in bumhunting higher games than their skills should've allowed out of that level.
People are right to complain right now, because so far that has not happened. However, the correct argument in my mind is to just make it fair, because it's so damn easy to make it fair with EV ROI requirements, rather than risk our entire game flopping over random matchmaking with no opt outs at the current rake levels (it guarantees on day 1 that it's 80%+ reg wars, and maybe if 75% of each level quits it's sustainable, but the word sustainable means nothing if we have only a fraction of the players we have in the game today).
My chat is blocked on PS (for my request), so if I start to play the 60's, I have to look for them? Or how this invitation ceremony works? :)
Other: I can see from the google docs spreadsheet from the hneves interview, that the last 2 new members played like 8-9k games for qualification in the 100's. It shows, that they have 81 members atm, and you have to get the agreement of ~40 people to be a member.
I believe it will be more clear soon, with open threads for each level and clear statistical levels required to get in (the vote thing can also work, but will be separate).
"groups can focus on their original purpose:....keep the weak regs....out."
By allowing this group to operate Pokerstars may be in contravention of its gaming licence as it should "ensure that the facilities offered are fair". This is a "core principle" of the Isle of Man Gambling Supervision Commission according to Pokerstars' own website.
It looks unfair if groups are allowed to band together in an effort to maximise their own profits by forcing others out.
That seems like a huge stretch.
Regs and friends war against other all the time. Regs always sit weak players, weak players cannot possibly sit first in the lobby, with or without groups, so they'd of been in violation a long time ago from recreational players that can't get games vs other recreationals.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with strong regs giving each other incentive to sit weak regs.
The problem currently is that the groups aren't made up entirely of the strongest regs, and it's taking awhile for groups to understand that it should be more about how good the players in the group are. This is mainly a problem at the middle-lower end of the groups, where good outsiders should get in far sooner. It's being worked on, but that's really the only unfairness going on (it's a big one obviously though).
Under the terms of their licence Pokerstars agree to ensure a fair facility for ALL the players. That means there shouldn't be any cartels which disadvantage the other players. It should be just as fair for a player who plays once ever as it is for a player who player who plays fifty thousand games. The best way to do this is to anonymise the registration. By allowing cartels of players to run things and decide that they should make a profit by disadavantaging other players Pokerstars have probably gone too far. It would be interesting to see how they fared if they were sued by players who had lost money because of the cartels.
yes, it´s really annoying that some players think they are more entitled to make money than others.
imagine that happening in a brick and mortar casino. a bunch of regs are in charge of seating the tourists and obviously weak players and not the floor. people would be outraged and rightfully so.
I couldn't agree more with cdon, it1111, brandon and dipl.komp.
Some friends of mine already stopped playing because they don't see a reason to play further to get to higher stakes since the cartels begin at the 60s already. It's just not good, no matter if you call them cartels or groups or puppies or whatever as long as you know what they are doing. In the end many players will just leave and so the cartel-puppy-stongest-opponents-in-a-tank-against-an-unarmed-human-group will just shovel their own grave with that.
Why try to make it sound good when there is no reason for anybody but them, to do so. Like others said, there is no such luxury in other sports. Why don't let it be fair for everybody and stand your own ground if you think you are that good and deserve the money you get with your skill. If you deserve to get so much money than prove it and don't just play against the weakest players. It's like an upcoming boxer wants to make a 1 on 1 fight, but instead the other boxers decided to unit and so he has to fight round after round against different opponents and can't even recover whilst his opponents are able to do so. Either he has an unexceptional stamina and ends the fight with a draw or he gets knocked out. What kind of fight is that? And how many upcoming boxers would still choose this path?
If that thing won't get regulated (not by rules they make up on their own) and not too many players will fall off, the rebels will come for sure.
I think if we all prepare a letter to PS about that and send it to them they will figure out what to do with that. The only problem I see here is how serious we are here to make that letter...
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=41622229&postcount=1735
A thread on 2+2 and a PM to "Pokerstars Baard" is probably the best route to getting this reconsidered. Pokerstars could be reminded of their own published policy on collusion and their agreement to provide fair facilities for everyone.
I'm so serious as one can be and I think that's a great idea.
As a matter of fact, I'm going to prepare a letter today :-). Let's see what they say
i´d be interested to read it.
but i guess i already know what they will say. probably the only way to change something is a formal complaint directed at the gaming commission.
Guys, It looks like there are no more Cartels!
There are still player groups but it is much easier to join now. This is not perfect but it is much better than before.
RyPac13, Could you please tell us more?
"If you want to win, you must not lose!"
Yep, it's now (finally) far more fair to get into $60s and $100s groups.
This should finally end the unfairness that was resulting in players that did not belong trying to keep out players that did belong. And now it can focus on the original purpose - Forcing the best regs at each stake to actually sit other regs, instead of everyone just bumhunting and making long lines of people waiting to bumhunt.
Hi All,
I am delighted to see a great discussion coming out of this thread.
Forumers like cdon, it1111, brandon , dipl.komp, mayo presented very valid and interesting point of the current situation with the cartels.
I myself do not agree with the concept of a cartel. Below are points that i would like to present
1) Headsup sit and go is a game between two players. Not 50-60 players vs 1. So by the virtue of the fact that any so called aspiring regs who wants to "break" into the cartel and be accepted, he will face a so called "unfair" treatment of having a herd of players sitting him if he open sits. This itself is unfair practice. In any fair game, anyone would have to have a fair chance of playing the game by being exposed to a equally distributed pool of players. Any human intervention to meddle with this balance is surely seen as unfair practice. I asked myself, why are there less noise coming from low stakes. There are many reasons. But one of the reason is that the aspiring regs at low stakes get a more normal distribution of player pool ( i.e not get sat by regs that often ). This situation is closer to the ideal scenario of "being exposed to a equally distributed pool of players".
2) As mentioned by rypac13, the system is inefficient still to ensure the best players are in the cartel. To start of with, having a cartel is already predatory. It is not fair. But let's assume that even the general population loves the idea of a cartel, the idea of playing and convincing a good bunch of regs each with playing a good handful of games it is a huge push factor to many aspiring regs who loves this game format. I am sure this is not what we would like to see, as it is generating negative sentiments.
I have two ideas that i would like to share , hopefully will get either the poker sites to consider this seriously or perhaps get aspiring regs to consider this seriously.
a) We should all for the goodness of this game format, write a petition to the relevant poker sites to implement measures to end the predatory nature exhibit by the cartels ( at every level). Some suggestions will include a random assignment system and also perhaps disallowing the use of queuing softwares (even though queuing softwares do not entirely contribute to the current situation, but without it the current cartel model will be harder to implement). The ultimate aim here is to put in measures from the poker site end to achieve a fairer playing environment. HUSNG is a 1-1 game, not a 80-1 game.
b) Of course, it will be hard to convince poker sites to change. Another suggestion to throw out here is to gather and form another cartel ( or 2 or 3 cartels ). Perhaps aspiring regs should come together and form a better cartel. The job will be perhaps two phased. First phase, the new cartel which consist of aspiring good regs should employ the same thing to counter the existing cartel. Start selecting a few weaker regs and sit them. The idea of doing this is to achieve two things, it is to weaken the existing cartel and also to get the weaker ones either relinquish playing or get them onboard to the new cartel. The new cartel of course would have by now a library of ideas of what the general aspiring regs would feel is a better system, start to implement that and keep the new cartel growing. The lesser the number of people in the old cartel, the lesser they are able to fight back. This is not ideal, but it is definitely going to give the aspiring regs better breathing space and move up. Again, the last thing we would like to see if to be disheartened by a huge roadblock like the current cartel. Referring back to above point, HUSNG should be a 1-1 game, not a 80-1 game.
Alright. That's the points that i would like to present. I hope it does help to keep the group thinking and progressing in improving this soonest. Many of the aspiring regs are already suppressed for the longest time.
Regards,
TTLH
Pages