- Forming a new group completely makes sense if the current group is not made up of the best players (otherwise it's not effective). Since the changes are made, you only need 2-3 weeks of good grinding clearly showing you're better than the people in the group in order to get in, so my prediction is that the group will soon be made up of only the best players, so there is likely no need/purpose to form a new group.
- Random assignment is a terrible idea, at the current rake (and PS is not lowering the rake), it would reduce most profitable players' profits.
- I don't think groups are unfair by nature. You have to understand why they were made: Nobody was fighting other regs so there were too many regs waiting in line to bumhunt. If it's unfair for groups of regs to say "enough, you have to face the weak regs that are just bumhunting" then I do disagree with that entirely. Now, what was unfair was the method of inclusion into the group. That has been fixed with the new rules published in the last 48 hrs.
- If it's unfair to "force" someone to face you as a reg or as a group of regs, then where was everyone the last 8 years as regs did nothing but sit losing players? Shouldn't we be fighting for the losing player's "right to sit who he wants?"
- In HUSNG, you are forced to face who sits you when you open sit. That's a fundamental aspect of this game and it makes it less about bumhunting than in cash games.
- HU cash was basically ruined by bumhunting. No regs would play each other bc they could avoid action.
All that said, I like Hester's system where if you play x% of games at your buyin each month vs regs you are "automatically in the group." I think that would allow people to individually choose who to sit and it would naturally result in the best players being in a group, without the complaints over "group sit lists." However, there isn't enough support for that idea, battlenet doesn't work without lowered rake which won't happen, so I believe the changes that were made (as a direct result of complaints/feedback from the community) by the groups are the best thing that could've happened.
"From PokerStars point of view, we don't see this is a problem as long as players are not blocked from playing a tournament when they want to. If players are forced to move down in stakes because they are not able to hold their own against the other regulars, that is not something we are going to concern ourselves with.
Thanks,
Baard"
This is not reasonable. Even the cartel do not expect anyone to "hold their own" against their cartel. Here are their proposed "entry" requirements as posted on 2+2.
$60’s
2300 games = -0.75% ev
3200 games = -1.00% ev
-1.75% EV ROI means you are beating the other player (because of rake). These are very easy requirements to meet if you are a top 80-100 player at your buyin level. If you're not, then move down or work harder to become one.
There are too many regulars/professionals that want an easy ride (IE, only to play bad players) in hypers. It is unreasonable to complain just because you now need to fight some regs in order to get to play bad players. You have no right to sit bad players all day and be left alone by good ones.
If that sounds harsh, these were the exact complaints that the hu cash bumhunters made every single time Stars tried to fix hu cash for the better.
...the only winners are Pokerstars. Baard is being specious as he is aware of that.
"These are very easy requirements to meet if you are a top 80-100 player at your buy-in level. If you're not, then move down or work harder to become one."
What gives any group of players the right to decide who should and shouldn't get access to what games ? Everyone's money is the same. I don't want to play HU hypers all day every day. Why should I be hustled by a cartel who are trying to drive me out ("groups can focus on their original purpose:....keep the weak regs....out.") ?
"There are too many regulars/professionals that want an easy ride"
That's what the cartel looks like. Why should they get better access to the easy games ?
"It is unreasonable to complain just because you now need to fight some regs"
Why should anyone have to play unprofitable games with their own money ? It is up to Pokerstars to drum up their own business by making the games worth playing.
"- Random assignment is a terrible idea, at the current rake (and PS is not lowering the rake), it would reduce most profitable players' profits."
A fair game is a "terrible idea" ? Don't you think that the profits should be distributed fairly ? There are other software solutions. Pokerstars could prevent players from sitting first twice in a row or three times in a row etc etc.
exactly. just take the brick and mortar comparison:
imagine you go in a casino and tell the floor you want to be seated at 2/4 table. but the floor does not seat you. a bunch of regs decide on which table you play and until you´ve proven to play a decent game, you may only be allowed to play at the table with the tough regs who are looking for new fish. a floor manager who would condone this kind of policy would be fired and banned from any casino that casino is affiliated with.
again: just because a reg WANTS to make money playing poker does not mean he is entitled to. a recreational player´s money is worth just the same and such players have just the same right to an easy opponent as the full time pros. that might annoy some players, but their money or their time is just not any more valuable than the money and time of a random fish. the only fair way is random assignment of opponents. keep in mind that zoom is highly popular and the best players are still making money. and if because the weaker regs can´t beat the game anymore and look somewhere else to make money, maybe that is just what the game needs.
"...the only winners are Pokerstars. Baard is being specious as he is aware of that." No, that is just entry requirements. Once you are in, as you say, it is going to be more profitable.
"What gives any group of players the right to decide who should and shouldn't get access to what games ?" Nobody is taking away your access to the games. Once you sit first, you have NO rights as to who sits you, whether an individual decides to play you 100% of the time or 10 players or 100. If you want to choose your game, you can sit second. Nobody is preventing that. My question would be, what gives you the right to feel you can sit in a game, openly registered, and choose the types of players that sit you? That is really unfair, and has never been allowed in a SNG.
"Why should anyone have to play unprofitable games with their own money ?" If you think this point is valid, then any losing player should be able to say in a SNG "I don't want to play anyone better than me, just let me sit and only allow worse players to sit." You realize how silly that is, right?
"A fair game is a "terrible idea" ?" You talk about the only winner being PokerStars, battlenet would basically do that. If there are 15 regs waiting for a game and 1 losing player plays every 5 minutes, how many regs would war until they found that losing player? It would be osmething like 30 reg war games to 1 losing player match in that time period. That's horrible, and if you want a bunch of weak AND medium regs to quit, and the best regs to be left with at least some profit, keep arguing for that system.
" Don't you think that the profits should be distributed fairly ?" Absolutely not. I think every player should have the opportunity to EARN their profit. If you can't beat the 80-100th best regular at a level for -1.77% ROI over a few thousand games, then you should just move down to the level below and fight weaker players. This shouldn't be some hand holding collusion of regulars where nobody plays good players and everyone just exploits losing players. How you feel that is fair but groups are unfair it defies logic. I know it might be easier if everyone could just find weak players all day and avoid strong, but cash games can allow you to do that (and that's why games like HU Cash have died).
Look, your complaints were great up to a few days ago when the groups were unfair and weren't letting in deserving people. But now that they have, you do not acknowledge this in the slightest and you're complaining that Stars doesn't let you hunt losing players without regs hunting you. That's entitlement, selfish entitlement. If you were a losing player, nothing would've changed for you. If you were aspiring to be a top 100 player at your level (there are less than 200 regs at each level, so this isnt' that exclusive), you would be happy to see these changes bc they are fair and reward the players that work hard and stay disciplined, allowing them to move up levels by a fair and objective criteria (results). If you were a player that just liked to bumhunt and the sharky software flaws (blind que, can't sit ppl until they get a lobby) allowed you to bumhunt without many regs fighting you before, then you need to adjust to the times and understand that the games will be dead if everyone holds hands and avoids reg warring.
On PS 7 there is a button which randomly registers u to the specific sng. As for me it should be the only way to register to husng. And we will not need any third-party software for registering. And that will give us a chance to play with "mortals" on 60+ levels)))
"From PokerStars point of view, we don't see this is a problem as long as players are not blocked from playing a tournament when they want to. If players are forced to move down in stakes because they are not able to hold their own against the other regulars, that is not something we are going to concern ourselves with.
Thanks,
Baard"
The first point has no efficacy as Baard is conflating cause and effect. Colluders don't block other players from playing completely they just sit against them in order to disadvantage them.
Here are how Pokerstars are supposed to run their gaming
"The regulatory core principles the Commission [IoM Gaming Supervision Commission] upholds are;
....to ensure that the facilities offered by license holders are fair and that players receive their true winnings."
Here is what Pokerstars say about collusion
"Collusion is a form of cheating in which two or more players signal their holdings or otherwise form a cheating partnership to the detriment of the other players at the same table....If any player is found to be participating in any form of collusion his or her account may be permanently closed."
Is it fair whilst a cartel operates ? Clearly not as players on the "sit list" are unfairly targeted by the cartel. Is the cartel a cheating partnership to the detriment of other players ? It's a game playing partnership to the detriment of other players whose intent is to increase their own profits unfairly at the expense of other players so I would say so.
It is fair because if you can beat the group players you are now automatically allowed in the group. They aren't unfairly keeping any reg that is good from joining.
All of your points fall apart unless you've been complaining for years that all the winning players keep the losing players from sitting in the lobby first without being sat.
Cash games have this type of game selection.
That's also why the casino point is pretty poor, casino poker is far different from online. Should we say online needs to be dealt slower because I get 20 hands per hour live? Should we only say I can one table because I can't multi table live? Of course not. The argument of "you can't do this in a casino" is very flawed, they are far different games (software, HUD, formats offered, players from different countries in different places, rake prices, etc.).
The cartel members will be sharing their notes about new players which means the cartel builds up a profile of a new player exponentially quicker than the new player can about the cartel.
If there's any evidence that a 80-100 person skype chat of a division is targeting players with notes, it should be easy to report. Most guys in every level are not going to want to collude against one player, it only takes one person to report it and I'd be shocked if someone did not.
Now, this type of stuff going on privately between some people inside and outside groups? Absolutely, we'd be naive to think otherwise, it's gone on for years. If you see it, report it, but it has nothing to do with a group.
1. It's a nice interview but since I suppose cartels are kinda out of law (I repeat, kind of, if to take into consideration the meaning of the term itself, community's and rooms' attitude towards such groups and so on) it was not a really good idea to reveal the habits and rules of the cartel (as far as I remember mr.gr33n1e left the question about cartels without comments what was natural and wise from his side ))). It's like mafia, and mafia doesn't blah-bla-blah a lot about itself. This fact says to me that such a brave exposal of cartels' superiority may lead to proper action from the Stars' side. At least I hope so.
2. I believe that suggested system of game randomizing will make it senseless to open sit a lobby for the bumhunting reasons and it will just turn to some sort of zoom format. Thus it naturally breaks down the conditions for the cartels to exist, but at the same time there should be an option for players to get into tournaments with specific players. There's nothing bad in personal challenges accepted by both parties.
3. Everyone talks about cartels with respect to players attempting to go upper limits, but I just wonder what happens when a member of an upper cartel open sits lower levels just to get additional action. One may assume that general skill level of cartels increases from limit to limit, so does it make sence for higher regs to open sit lobbies or just sit literally everyone from below? Does it, for example mean, that a member of 1k's is automatically entitled to open sit all the lower lobbies?
4. Bumhunting is obv better than regwarring, but on the other side if a challenging player has an edge over a cartel's member sitting him, what prevents him from turning this regwar into a bumhunt? just sit such a reg and you will have an infinite fish pursuit. Just become a shark eating smaller sharks, thats it ))
Cool topic anyway, thanks to everyone for their thoughts.
1. I am guessing that Pokerstars have given them informal approval and that's why they've become so open about it.
2. Random registration could incorporate a challenge feature so players can play against named players. The regs seem to hate this idea of random registration though as it would result in fish playing games against other fish and they see that as profit lost for them.
3. I believe that the cartel have a sit list of players who they see as a threat and these are the players they take it in turns to sit against and drive out.
4. There is a black hole called the rake and it is difficult to overcome this even against a worse player who is reasonably competent. I don' think anyone bad enough to lose by a wide margin will stay in the cartel for long.
I am not convinced by any of the responses supporting the cartel. As others have pointed out poker is not a group versus one game and its primary intention is as a game not a living.
2. Random registration could incorporate a challenge feature so players can play against named players. The regs seem to hate this idea of random registration though as it would result in fish playing games against other fish and they see that as profit lost for them.
absolutely. another thing that is important is to keep in mind that the fish are those who keep the money coming. regs usually don´t transfer money, they withdraw. it´s vitally important to keep the fish happy and give them the illusion that they too can become rich playing cards. it´s better to give a random fish a good month, because he had lucky draws and keep him coming back than to drain him on a regular basis.
"absolutely. another thing that is important is to keep in mind that the fish are those who keep the money coming. regs usually don´t transfer money, they withdraw. it´s vitally important to keep the fish happy and give them the illusion that they too can become rich playing cards. it´s better to give a random fish a good month, because he had lucky draws and keep him coming back than to drain him on a regular basis."
- You're right, losing players that keep depositing need to be kept happy.
- Stars has said in the past that they are very happy because they have many choices in the lobby currently and that they sit and instantly get a game.
- In random registration (look at my example above), they would have a very low % chance of getting a game vs another losing player, not much of an improvement (bc there are so many regs always online).
- In random registration, they would lose their ability to choose who to face and avoid certain regs. They have 2 lobbies at each stake to choose now, and if they really hate all players at their stakes that are sitting, they can wait a few minutes for a new player to get into the lobby. With random registration, the superstitious loser (the best kind, the kinds that pick lucky roulette numbers for example) are going to hate random opponent selection and go play another game. Zoom is far less of a big deal because you're sitting with 6-9 other players. But in HU, if you dislike one guy and it's your opponent, it can ruin the experience if you're a recreational player that plays for entertainment.
- It's delusional to think that a losing player will have a good month just because of random registration. Again, it means he gets a game like 1 in 15 times against another losing player. So instead of winning 47% winrate in 100% of games, he's winning 47% winrate in 93% of games, and he's 50% (still losing on avg to the rake) in his other 7% of games. That changes just about nothing in his monthly expectation.
Random registration just kills a ton of players in this game and lowers everyone's profit. If you're looking for a good way to really reduce the volume and popularity of HUSNGs, push for random registration.
Now, if you lowered the rake, it could work awesome and be the very best possible system for HUSNGs. But the rake isn't being lowered, so it's a terrible option for our game.
- In random registration (look at my example above), they would have a very low % chance of getting a game vs another losing player, not much of an improvement (bc there are so many regs always online).
that is an argument i struggle to believe is true. if - under the regime of the cartel - a recreational player has a better chance of playing a fish than in a randomized system, the cartel clearly is not doing its job properly (i.e. keep the recreational players from becoming regs at their stake and keeping the fish for themselves).
- In random registration, they would lose their ability to choose who to face and avoid certain regs.
as already stated: i don´t just believe in poker as a way to make money for the talented and committed, i also regard poker as a sport and i don´t think it is good neither for the game as a whole nor for the individual player to keep avoiding those who are better.
yet i think there should be the option for individual players to challenge each other.
- It's delusional to think that a losing player will have a good month just because of random registration.
that statement depends to a certain degree on the first point.
the other half of the argument is not necessarily delusion, but statistics. a recreational player surely will not play 3000 games a month. if he only plays 100 or 200, chances are a lot greater he can catch a month here and there where he is lucky being seated with very weak players. under the regime of the cartel, he should - in theory - don´t even get a single match against a weaker opponent. again: if he does, the cartel is not up to the task and it´s rather pointless to actually have one in the first place.
Random registration just kills a ton of players in this game and lowers everyone's profit.
it won´t lower everyone´s profit. the fish may do a little better here and there, but should keep their results, the weak regs will have trouble, the strongest players shouldn´t care too much.
If you're looking for a good way to really reduce the volume and popularity of HUSNGs, push for random registration.
having those who want to make a living playing poker be in charge of the seating isn´t really that encouraging either.
i certainly agree that it is a huge problem to
a) keep the deserving players make money
b) keep the fish depositing money
although i may have sounded like it, i don´t claim to have the ultimate solution. i just think that a free market system in which everyone will have to compete vs. everyone else will eventually be the fairest.
but the decision is made by PS anyway, or has already been made as PS reps have stated, so we are just being hypothetical.
"that is an argument i struggle to believe is true. if - under the regime of the cartel - a recreational player has a better chance of playing a fish than in a randomized system, the cartel clearly is not doing its job properly (i.e. keep the recreational players from becoming regs at their stake and keeping the fish for themselves). "
I think you misread, I only meant that under random registration the chances of a game vs another losing player are 1/15, instead of 0/15. Better, sure, but it's like getting shot 15 times versus 14 times, the end result is the same 99.99% of the time, it's not an "advantage" for a losing player to get another one 1/15 times instead of 0/15 times, at least not really any different than being given the "advantage" of being shot 15 times vs 14 times. So it's not really a positive of random registration. That's all I mean.
"as already stated: i don´t just believe in poker as a way to make money for the talented and committed, i also regard poker as a sport and i don´t think it is good neither for the game as a whole nor for the individual player to keep avoiding those who are better.
yet i think there should be the option for individual players to challenge each other."
I agree that people should not avoid each other. That's why these groups exist, because winners kept avoiding each other and weak winners could move up several buyin levels very easily, without much resistence. The registration software gives incentive to waiting in line rather than sitting a person in a lobby (bc the line is blind). So groups were created so that regs had a reason to face other regs at times.
Random registration doesn't really improve upon this, it makes it a little worse, at least for regs. For weak regs it gives them less choice (bc they can move down and get avoided at a level that suits their skill level currently), for losing players it gives them a little less choice.
All players can, of course, pay double rake and start private games, but there's little incentive for that (bc of double rake). I'm not sure hypers are even offered in private games either.
"although i may have sounded like it, i don´t claim to have the ultimate solution. i just think that a free market system in which everyone will have to compete vs. everyone else will eventually be the fairest."
I agree, but the rake is too high to do random registration. If PS said "hey, we'll lower rake, and implement random registration" I would be championing that solution, as it solves most problems (except it doesn't likely solve PokerStars requirements to make the amount of revenue they want to on HUSNGs).
Regs would've never used seating scripts for HUSNGs if there were more lobbies or a way to not register vs another reg all the time. I mean, hypers rake 1-3% rake, and they last 2.5 minutes, and they are low edge, you cannot expect a professional to register in such crowded lobbies and simultaneously sit against another professional 50-80% of the time. That issue with the software/lobby dynamic, has created a situation where a person built a seating script that sits players.
Of course, anyone can buy the seating script (except the few the owner has banned... that's another issue entirely unfortunately), but in practice, you are right, it is essentially a script for professionals to use. That said, it is just a market adjustment to a problem with the seating in the crowded lobbies of PokerStars HUSNGs.
I was curious as to whether a randomised match making system would work.
Ryan has used the queues as a rough measure of the reg : fish ratios in the player pool.
I went a step further and estimated for a simple model of 3 categories of players:
- the raw amount of the pool each category represents (P)
- their volume relative to a fish (V)
- e(P) = effective game volume = the amount of games each category of player contributes (indicative of an randomised player pool)
If my assumptions are correct, I agree with Ryan => a randomised matchmaking system would be terrible for regs because their effective volume is currently too high.
The categories I used were:
Megalodons => the biggest sharks that can profitably beat on regs
Regs => skillful grinders who play high volumes of poker
Fish => everyone else => I could have built a more elaborate model with further subcategories but it seemed like 3 was enough to model what I wanted to
Results: (I encourage readers to challenge assumptions which they disagree so that I can rerun model to produce more accurate outputs)
Case 1: Randomised matchmaking
- Megalodons make more than in current system because they can get more action than they otherwise would where they are often avoided by Regs. Despite having a lower ROI because they will be playing a higher % of reg, their total profit would be higher.
- Regs lose money (-1.4%) net of the rake because 89% of their volume are vs other regs.
- Fish are slightly better off than current system because they get to play other fish 9% of the time instead of never.
Assumptions: Case 1 - Random Matchmaking
Rake (r)
2.00%
Megalodon
Number of tables
1
Games per hour
20
Hours per week
30
Weeks per year
48
Games per year
28,800
Win Rate
ROI
vs Megalodon
50.0%
-2.0%
vs Reg
52.0%
1.9%
vs Fish
55.0%
7.8%
Reg
Number of tables
2
Games per hour
20
Hours per week
30
Weeks per year
48
Games per year
57,600
Win Rate
ROI
vs Megalodon
48.0%
-5.9%
vs Reg
50.0%
-2.0%
vs Fish
54.0%
5.8%
Fish
Number of tables
1
Games per hour
15
Hours per week
10
Weeks per year
40
Games per year
6,000
Win Rate
ROI
vs Megalodon
45.0%
-11.8%
vs Reg
46.0%
-9.8%
vs Fish
50.0%
-2.0%
Annonymous Player Pool
P
V
e(P)
Megalodon
3%
4.8
3%
Reg
50%
9.6
89%
Fish
47%
1.0
9%
Expected Results
ROI
Volume
Profit (Buy ins)
Megalodon
2.3%
28,800
670
Reg
-1.4%
57,600
-820
Fish
-9.2%
6,000
-553
Case 2: Existing system with cartels
- Strict game selection ends in equlibrium where Megaldon's only play regs who are shot taking (30%) but otherwise get a disproportionate share of fish because regs won't play vs them.
- Megalodons will get less action so although their ROI will be higher, they make less overall.
- Regs do significantly better than in a randomised system because they play enough fish to overcome the rake while still defending their lobbies by playing some of their games vs other Regs.
- Fish do marginally (-0.8%) worse than in a randomised system. The effect is small because they are still facing an overwhelming volume of their games vs Megalodons & Regs.
Assumptions: Case 2 - Existing System with Cartels
Rake (r)
2.00%
Megalodon
Number of tables
1
Games per hour
5
<< Can't get action
Hours per week
30
Weeks per year
48
Games per year
7,200
Win Rate
ROI
vs Megalodon
50.0%
-2.0%
vs Reg
52.0%
1.9%
vs Fish
55.0%
7.8%
Reg
Number of tables
2
Games per hour
15
<<Exploitatively selective
Hours per week
30
Weeks per year
48
Games per year
43,200
Win Rate
ROI
vs Megalodon
48.0%
-5.9%
vs Reg
50.0%
-2.0%
vs Fish
54.0%
5.8%
Fish
Number of tables
1
Games per hour
15
<<Still ballin'
Hours per week
10
Weeks per year
40
Games per year
6,000
Win Rate
ROI
vs Megalodon
45.0%
-11.8%
vs Reg
46.0%
-9.8%
vs Fish
50.0%
-2.0%
Game Selection net of Cartel Collusion
Volume vs each category
Megalodon
Reg
Fish
Megalodon
0%
30%
70%
Reg
0%
40%
60%
Fish
6%
94%
0%
Expected Results
ROI
Volume
Profit (Buy ins)
Megalodon
6.0%
7,200
435
Reg
2.7%
43,200
1,168
Fish
-10.0%
6,000
-597
Case 3:
Q. What rake would allow regs to make a ROI = 2%?
A. -1.4% => Pokersite would need to pay players to play to sustain regs' 2% ROI profits with the assumed player pool distribution & volume tendencies.
Assumptions: Case 3 - Anonymous Equilibrium Rake for Reg ROI = 2%
Rake (r)
-1.40%
Megalodon
Number of tables
1
Games per hour
20
Hours per week
30
Weeks per year
48
Games per year
28,800
Win Rate
ROI
vs Megalodon
50.0%
1.4%
vs Reg
52.0%
5.5%
vs Fish
55.0%
11.5%
Reg
Number of tables
2
Games per hour
20
Hours per week
30
Weeks per year
48
Games per year
57,600
Win Rate
ROI
vs Megalodon
48.0%
-2.7%
vs Reg
50.0%
1.4%
vs Fish
54.0%
9.5%
Fish
Number of tables
1
Games per hour
15
Hours per week
10
Weeks per year
40
Games per year
6,000
Win Rate
ROI
vs Megalodon
45.0%
-8.7%
vs Reg
46.0%
-6.7%
vs Fish
50.0%
1.4%
Anonymous Player Pool
P
V
e(P)
Megalodon
3%
4.8
3%
Reg
50%
9.6
89%
Fish
47%
1.0
9%
Expected Results
ROI
Volume
Profit (Buy ins)
Megalodon
5.9%
28,800
1,693
Reg
2.0%
57,600
1,152
Fish
-6.1%
6,000
-364
Case 4:
Q. What if pokerstars made it a randomised system and reg : fish ratio rebalanced?
How many regs could be sustained?
A. About 6%, ie a winning player pool of about 9%. This is less than the amount that can currently be winning Regs with game selection practices. So if you're a weak Reg, you'll have to move down or move on if you want to remain a Reg at the level you play at.
Assumptions: Case 4 - Annonymous Equilibrium Reg % for Reg ROI = 2%
Very good simulation, but I suspect that in case 1 regs would quit playing after a while and Megalodons would keep playing each other lowering their ROI and profit...
It is unlikely Regs would grind out a whole year to lose 820 buyins (in expectation).
Case 1 would actually equilibrate toward case 4 => Regs would leave the player pool if they are losing.
If they couldn't adjust their strategy over some of the sample where they had -1.4% EV ROI they probably are a category 3 player!
Also the volumes in game selection cases should iterate as a function of fish volume.
The current assumptions for reg volume are probably too high within the context of the assumed distribution of games relative to the effective population volumes.
1. They're open about it because it involves like 80% of regulars from every stake. It's not a small club, it's literally becoming "everyone except weak regs." Not quite yet, but with the rules changes, it won't be long before the groups are "every reg at $60s and $100s that is willing to play other regs and works to make sure they are playing well."
2. Yes, anyone that thinks about how this works would hate it with the current rake. Right now, 15 regs might be waiting for one bad player. And after 5 minutes that one bad player sits. In a 2.5-3 minute game format, that means those 15 regs would face each other roughly 2 times before one of them sits a bad player. That is 30 games of reg vs reg for each 1 vs a bad player. Now, would this change and improve? Yes, but only if a ton of regs quit/moved down. And even then, if you have 5 guys waiting and 10 guys have quit, that's 10 reg vs reg games for 1 game vs a bad player. That's not really sustainable with the rake right now, so profits for EVERYONE would go down a ton, and many guys both inside and outside of groups would do far worse.
3. This is wrong. The groups sit the weak players, not the players they see as a threat. Players that can show they are better than the group now automatically get in pretty quickly (as little as 2 weeks of grinding vs the group). It makes no sense for the group to keep weak players, it only makes sense for the group to have the top 80-100 players in it, nobody wants to reg war all day, they just want to push the weakest regs out of the buyin level bc all those guys do is make money off losing players without any risk.
4. Yes, the rake is very difficult to overcome. This is why random registration is so bad. Look at the factual #s of people waiting in lines now, the only conclusion is that random registration would be a killer.
99% of the players (20,000-odd) aren't in the cartel nor are they trying to getting in it. I think I saw Arronwilson's name on one of the sit lists ! They have a random registration on Merge, and a similar rake. Players get games straight away and looking at the SS leaderboards some make money. The top one seems to be on 3.5% roi @ $80 abi.
However cdon has convinced me that random registration by itself will make it difficult to win a lot. A possible solution is to change the format so there is more chance for the good players to win more often. PS have changed formats before. If the 10/20 level lasted three minutes that would probably do it.
Top players will still make money in a random system.
It will just mean that a lot of regs will need to move down in stakes or quit (as in case 4).
Such is the nature of a market driven system. And it would probably happen very quickly given how risk averse most regs are.
Introducing a random system would be like a oligopoly suddenly being flooded with market entrants.
Margins held artificially high from lack of competition would be eroded until such a point that weaker participants would need to exit the market for there to be any profit left at all.
That said, if reg ratios continue to increase further, then there won't be enough fish to sustain the games at a level which is worth playing them even with collusive agreements in place. At that point the weakest regs would exit. The formation of cartels in itself signals this point is approaching. So if you're an aspiring reg looking to build a business in the hyper turbo market, it's never been harder to start up or a less attractive investment proposition :(
In hyper turbos, perhaps, but it's only been around a few years.
You're still better off today playing hyper HUSNGs than turbos (the fastest format of the time) 6 years ago. Or regular speeds 8+ years ago (there were no turbos until 2006 or so).
You're making good points that all hammer home one major point: There are too many regs, how do the weakest get pushed down to lower stakes/quit?
Right now, the solution has been to form groups. The groups used to not be fair (not allowing the best in them necessarily or easily), they now allow people that earn their way in. It decreases the amount of weak regs from each stake a certain amount. Random registration would further these changes based on your assumptions (and I really agree there, it would likely do that). It would also make more reg vs reg games happen, which from a professional's standpoint, is inefficient/less valuable. Even if you survive at your buyin level, you're still sitting with another reg far more often than today. That sucks for the best players (compared to today's climate, or even pre group systems).
I am starting to understand both sides of the story better now.
On one hand it is about "sustainability of the game", meaning to keep this game format a profitable one for it to survive and thrive and not die off.
On one hand it is about challenging the integrity of the way this game atmosphere has morphed into.
Most of the people who are very concerned with the "division" model, feels shortchanged. With the recent changes in the "entry requirement", it has certainly put "sustainability of the game" as the main consideration, and making tweaks to make sure the "elite" is really the elite. I think this is perhaps a inevitable "middle ground" to the two objectives of the two extreme groups.
On the research on whether in a random assignment system will be better or worse for "professional regs", this would probably need more quantitative research to justify. As there are so many factors leading up to a good conclusion, your guess is as good as my guess. Until that is quantifiable, i think perhaps the current new improved system is the most effective system to keep the ecosystem going.
I am quite convinced that as long as the poker sites do not do any changes, the so called "division" would stay around for sometime.
My initial thoughts perhaps for aspiring regs would be the following
1) grab a list of the division you are keen to join
2) search up their data, select the lower ROI ones
3) Form a "aspiring reg" club, share knowledge (not hand history though) on who the weaker regs are
4) Challenge the weaker regs and try to obtain the requirement to join the division
For aspiring regs, they have below good advantages
a) they do not need to depend on poker earnings to sustain their life style. This lift off a lot of pressure and allow them to look at the game in a fresh and fun way of which many professional regs may have difficulty in "enjoying" the game
b) they do not feel obligated to pump in hours like the pros (yet). This "learning" process can be highly enjoyable and stimulating. Many good ideas come from enjoying something you want to be good at.
c) Reg sees fishes as fishes. (think about it)
Alright. That's all for now. Great discussion so far. Appreciate all the inputs from all the good people here.
"On the research on whether in a random assignment system will be better or worse for "professional regs", this would probably need more quantitative research to justify."
In practice the division system it will only protect those at the top of the cartels. The others will be in endless reg wars to defend their positions from those trying to get in. There will be a downward spiralling effect for these poor s*ds as they will continue to be targeted because they will have lower, probably negative rois from the endless reg warring and will be perceived to be weaker cartel members ripe for further targeting. It will be better for the few cartel members who are above challenge (maybe thirty players) and worse for the rest of the playing population (maybe twenty thousand). Random registration can be seen in operation on Merge. The very best players win well and the lesser regs are more like "rakeback pros". It can be seen quantitatively by analysing the Merge leaderboard on Sharkscope. If truth be told the cartels were better for more players when the cartel members couldn't be challenged from outside.
Your entire post ignores the process of improving your own game and improving.
When I started in the $5 level, I was not the same player as when I moved up to the $100 level.
The weakest won't be "torn down with low ROIs" forever, you work on your game, improve, reap the benefits as one of the top players in your buyin level, then fight to move up. You move up, fight to stay in, then end up being a top reg in your level again. Repeat. There's a clear path to success for those that want to put in the time and effort, and nothing is more competitive and fair than that imo.
I'm not sure what more analysis we need about random registration. Factually speaking, no matter if there are 2 or 200 regs at a level, the very best players are going to be forced into facing other regs many more times than today, and today we have a system that sorts out which regs belong and which level just fine (post changes that is, pre changes I agree, there were huge issues that needed addressing, and given the complaints, so did many others).
"The weakest won't be "torn down with low ROIs" forever, you work on your game, improve, reap the benefits as one of the top players in your buy-in level"
With the cartel system of entry I doubt whether anyone will ever progress. They will get stuck in the vortex at the bottom of the cartel forever regardless of ability because they will always be playing against good players trying to get in who keep their ROI low which will keep them as targets for players who are trying to get in. It will just be an endless reg war. If you were starting now you'd end up as a struggling $60 player at the bottom of the cartel. Something like this is happening already. There are players in the $30 games who are much better than those in the $60 cartel but they stay there because it's too difficult to move up with cartels operating. All the new system seems to achieve is to raise the bar to the top half of the cartel. I hope I'm wrong but I don't see how given the strong demand to get into the cartel.
Brandon, those are all great points, except they are now a week too late.
The system has changed, if a player is clearly better at the $30s, he can get into the $60s in 2-5 weeks of playing at the $60s.
If you add up where this leads to, it means that only the best at each level will be in the groups now, so people trying to get in won't be a large # for very long, and the only pressure will be on the very weakest players in the groups, if at all.
"Brandon, those are all great points, except they are now a week too late."
Does the cartel only meet once a year or something ?
"The system has changed, if a player is clearly better at the $30s, he can get into the $60s in 2-5 weeks of playing at the $60s."
Getting in at or near the bottom is a poisoned chalice as the player will be challenged and reg warring all the time against others trying to get in.
"people trying to get in won't be a large # for very long, and the only pressure will be on the very weakest players in the groups, if at all."
There will be a large number of people trying to get in as this is the only way of being profitable in the games. The pressure will be on the newest members not the weakest as they will have low rois from the reg warring of getting in. The only comfortable cartel members will be those who were in the top half before the new system started as they won't be challenged much if at all. Who would you play to get in someone with +2% roi or someone with -1% or 0% roi ?
Pokerstars must love this system as it ensures a lot of reg warring which wouldn't otherwise happen.
"this is the only way to be profitable at the games."
Your answer is half correct, but I don't think it's a problem even if it were 100% correct.
Before, you had 150 regs in the 60s. Lines got too long and no regs would really battle to weed out the weak ones. So now the top 100 decide to make a group where you HAVE to fight the 50 weakest. Most of those 50 weakest are not in the group and are still making money, they've moved down, to a buyin where they can be profitable, even if some regs sit them.
If they improve and work on their game, they can get into the 60s group and will fight both winners and losers.
But essentially, too many regs came into the game and because the auto registration software in use gives you less incentive to sit other regs, we ended up with a situation where people sat other regs less as the lines got longer, not more. This was the market correct to that problem.
There won't be forever wars, it'll soon be figured out in the $60s and $100s who is really the best. There will always be some guys improving and fighting to get in, but the % won't be huge. And the weakest guys in groups won't be forever bogged down at all, as long as they keep improving their game, they will stop being sat by people trying to get in (who will either find a weaker target, of it one does not exist, they will move down a buyin to where they are a stronger player).
The system has players constantly moving around if they improve, and that's the way it ought to be. This whole notion of a closed door system is a really poor thought by the people that believe in it (not you Brandon, this is a wider point) and really hurting the reputation of this game by increasing complaints.
There are a few factors that I could think of that would contribute to quantifying whether a random assignment system will be beneficial to the overall hyper HUSNG ecosystem
1) Number of new entrants ( new ones or those who are oppressed ) that would join the game when there is a random assignment system
2) Number of new entrants that would play this format when new market is joining this player pool (for example : china or usa )
3) Rake
4) Quality of the skill of the general population
Having said these, let's assume that if a random assignment system will still result in Professionals earning money ( albiet lesser), and allow a bigger pool of players to be profitable. The ultimate question is whether poker sites would like to implement that.
I think our good friend cdon has mentioned that it is all about the amount of rake that the poker site is concerned about. If they are not making any changes, then perhaps the volume of games (thus rake) is "optimized" with the current setting.
Unless we can provide some sort of a value proposition to the poker site that they will get more rake if they allow a random assignment system. Sad to say, nothing is going to change.
I am still very open and hopeful about whether a random assignment system will eventually happen. But as of now, I tend to sort of like "give in" to what is made available to us. The new set of requirements is a significant lowered down requirement compared to last time.
I believe that everyone who wants to work hard and become as good as they want to be have the ability to beat the game. One could be so good, they can probably have an edge against some weak "division members". And the beauty of it is that once you reach that level, the so called "Professional Regs" become your " Professional Regular Fishes". You gain both edge and volume.
Anyway, weekend is here. Have a good weekend to all.
"but the cartel environment makes them less attractive"
Shes leading the mafia and says it makes hypers less attractive. (Yes, especially to new players. I wouldnt start hypers aswell if I would know 30s is max and then I have to play regs only to join a team... AT POKER. A team game lol.) PokerStars is already working on a solution. Its simply completely unethicaland should be punished. No player is supposed to have an advantage on someone else. No matter if its lobby blocking or hh sharing. But cartell members doesn't understand that at all, as long as their winrate is fine. Disgusting
Pretty frustrating that PokerStars is just watching because they don't wanna scare of the regs.
Your post couldn't be further from the truth. PokerStars is almost certainly well aware that if 10% of the regs quit, that impacts their bottom line zero. There are plenty, plenty of regs. That's why these groups started, to weed out the weak regs and hold all regs accountable to play other regs (not just bumhunt losing players).
When at their best, these groups make the game more competitive and rewarding for hard working players.
There have been issues, but the $60s and $100s groups have by and large been very successful since changing systems to allow players in based on merit, not subjective voting.
I also don't see why it is "a joke" that someone helping manage, lead or run an organization or group can't hold the opinion that the group can be ran much better? Improvement from within is a very valid pursuit.
What a great post TTLH! Hopefully we will get some more replies for your post :D
You make some good points TTLH.
- Forming a new group completely makes sense if the current group is not made up of the best players (otherwise it's not effective). Since the changes are made, you only need 2-3 weeks of good grinding clearly showing you're better than the people in the group in order to get in, so my prediction is that the group will soon be made up of only the best players, so there is likely no need/purpose to form a new group.
- Random assignment is a terrible idea, at the current rake (and PS is not lowering the rake), it would reduce most profitable players' profits.
- I don't think groups are unfair by nature. You have to understand why they were made: Nobody was fighting other regs so there were too many regs waiting in line to bumhunt. If it's unfair for groups of regs to say "enough, you have to face the weak regs that are just bumhunting" then I do disagree with that entirely. Now, what was unfair was the method of inclusion into the group. That has been fixed with the new rules published in the last 48 hrs.
- If it's unfair to "force" someone to face you as a reg or as a group of regs, then where was everyone the last 8 years as regs did nothing but sit losing players? Shouldn't we be fighting for the losing player's "right to sit who he wants?"
- In HUSNG, you are forced to face who sits you when you open sit. That's a fundamental aspect of this game and it makes it less about bumhunting than in cash games.
- HU cash was basically ruined by bumhunting. No regs would play each other bc they could avoid action.
All that said, I like Hester's system where if you play x% of games at your buyin each month vs regs you are "automatically in the group." I think that would allow people to individually choose who to sit and it would naturally result in the best players being in a group, without the complaints over "group sit lists." However, there isn't enough support for that idea, battlenet doesn't work without lowered rake which won't happen, so I believe the changes that were made (as a direct result of complaints/feedback from the community) by the groups are the best thing that could've happened.
We have their response in the link
"From PokerStars point of view, we don't see this is a problem as long as players are not blocked from playing a tournament when they want to. If players are forced to move down in stakes because they are not able to hold their own against the other regulars, that is not something we are going to concern ourselves with.
Thanks,
Baard"
This is not reasonable. Even the cartel do not expect anyone to "hold their own" against their cartel. Here are their proposed "entry" requirements as posted on 2+2.
$60’s
2300 games = -0.75% ev
3200 games = -1.00% ev
What is wrong with those entry requirements?
-1.75% EV ROI means you are beating the other player (because of rake). These are very easy requirements to meet if you are a top 80-100 player at your buyin level. If you're not, then move down or work harder to become one.
There are too many regulars/professionals that want an easy ride (IE, only to play bad players) in hypers. It is unreasonable to complain just because you now need to fight some regs in order to get to play bad players. You have no right to sit bad players all day and be left alone by good ones.
If that sounds harsh, these were the exact complaints that the hu cash bumhunters made every single time Stars tried to fix hu cash for the better.
"What is wrong with those entry requirements?
-1.75% EV ROI means"
...the only winners are Pokerstars. Baard is being specious as he is aware of that.
"These are very easy requirements to meet if you are a top 80-100 player at your buy-in level. If you're not, then move down or work harder to become one."
What gives any group of players the right to decide who should and shouldn't get access to what games ? Everyone's money is the same. I don't want to play HU hypers all day every day. Why should I be hustled by a cartel who are trying to drive me out ("groups can focus on their original purpose:....keep the weak regs....out.") ?
"There are too many regulars/professionals that want an easy ride"
That's what the cartel looks like. Why should they get better access to the easy games ?
"It is unreasonable to complain just because you now need to fight some regs"
Why should anyone have to play unprofitable games with their own money ? It is up to Pokerstars to drum up their own business by making the games worth playing.
"- Random assignment is a terrible idea, at the current rake (and PS is not lowering the rake), it would reduce most profitable players' profits."
A fair game is a "terrible idea" ? Don't you think that the profits should be distributed fairly ? There are other software solutions. Pokerstars could prevent players from sitting first twice in a row or three times in a row etc etc.
exactly. just take the brick and mortar comparison:
imagine you go in a casino and tell the floor you want to be seated at 2/4 table. but the floor does not seat you. a bunch of regs decide on which table you play and until you´ve proven to play a decent game, you may only be allowed to play at the table with the tough regs who are looking for new fish. a floor manager who would condone this kind of policy would be fired and banned from any casino that casino is affiliated with.
again: just because a reg WANTS to make money playing poker does not mean he is entitled to. a recreational player´s money is worth just the same and such players have just the same right to an easy opponent as the full time pros. that might annoy some players, but their money or their time is just not any more valuable than the money and time of a random fish. the only fair way is random assignment of opponents. keep in mind that zoom is highly popular and the best players are still making money. and if because the weaker regs can´t beat the game anymore and look somewhere else to make money, maybe that is just what the game needs.
Responding to your responses.
"...the only winners are Pokerstars. Baard is being specious as he is aware of that." No, that is just entry requirements. Once you are in, as you say, it is going to be more profitable.
"What gives any group of players the right to decide who should and shouldn't get access to what games ?" Nobody is taking away your access to the games. Once you sit first, you have NO rights as to who sits you, whether an individual decides to play you 100% of the time or 10 players or 100. If you want to choose your game, you can sit second. Nobody is preventing that. My question would be, what gives you the right to feel you can sit in a game, openly registered, and choose the types of players that sit you? That is really unfair, and has never been allowed in a SNG.
"Why should anyone have to play unprofitable games with their own money ?" If you think this point is valid, then any losing player should be able to say in a SNG "I don't want to play anyone better than me, just let me sit and only allow worse players to sit." You realize how silly that is, right?
"A fair game is a "terrible idea" ?" You talk about the only winner being PokerStars, battlenet would basically do that. If there are 15 regs waiting for a game and 1 losing player plays every 5 minutes, how many regs would war until they found that losing player? It would be osmething like 30 reg war games to 1 losing player match in that time period. That's horrible, and if you want a bunch of weak AND medium regs to quit, and the best regs to be left with at least some profit, keep arguing for that system.
" Don't you think that the profits should be distributed fairly ?" Absolutely not. I think every player should have the opportunity to EARN their profit. If you can't beat the 80-100th best regular at a level for -1.77% ROI over a few thousand games, then you should just move down to the level below and fight weaker players. This shouldn't be some hand holding collusion of regulars where nobody plays good players and everyone just exploits losing players. How you feel that is fair but groups are unfair it defies logic. I know it might be easier if everyone could just find weak players all day and avoid strong, but cash games can allow you to do that (and that's why games like HU Cash have died).
Look, your complaints were great up to a few days ago when the groups were unfair and weren't letting in deserving people. But now that they have, you do not acknowledge this in the slightest and you're complaining that Stars doesn't let you hunt losing players without regs hunting you. That's entitlement, selfish entitlement. If you were a losing player, nothing would've changed for you. If you were aspiring to be a top 100 player at your level (there are less than 200 regs at each level, so this isnt' that exclusive), you would be happy to see these changes bc they are fair and reward the players that work hard and stay disciplined, allowing them to move up levels by a fair and objective criteria (results). If you were a player that just liked to bumhunt and the sharky software flaws (blind que, can't sit ppl until they get a lobby) allowed you to bumhunt without many regs fighting you before, then you need to adjust to the times and understand that the games will be dead if everyone holds hands and avoids reg warring.
On PS 7 there is a button which randomly registers u to the specific sng. As for me it should be the only way to register to husng. And we will not need any third-party software for registering. And that will give us a chance to play with "mortals" on 60+ levels)))
This is what we need to respond to.
"From PokerStars point of view, we don't see this is a problem as long as players are not blocked from playing a tournament when they want to. If players are forced to move down in stakes because they are not able to hold their own against the other regulars, that is not something we are going to concern ourselves with.
Thanks,
Baard"
The first point has no efficacy as Baard is conflating cause and effect. Colluders don't block other players from playing completely they just sit against them in order to disadvantage them.
Here are how Pokerstars are supposed to run their gaming
"The regulatory core principles the Commission [IoM Gaming Supervision Commission] upholds are;
....to ensure that the facilities offered by license holders are fair and that players receive their true winnings."
Here is what Pokerstars say about collusion
"Collusion is a form of cheating in which two or more players signal their holdings or otherwise form a cheating partnership to the detriment of the other players at the same table....If any player is found to be participating in any form of collusion his or her account may be permanently closed."
Is it fair whilst a cartel operates ? Clearly not as players on the "sit list" are unfairly targeted by the cartel. Is the cartel a cheating partnership to the detriment of other players ? It's a game playing partnership to the detriment of other players whose intent is to increase their own profits unfairly at the expense of other players so I would say so.
It is fair because if you can beat the group players you are now automatically allowed in the group. They aren't unfairly keeping any reg that is good from joining.
All of your points fall apart unless you've been complaining for years that all the winning players keep the losing players from sitting in the lobby first without being sat.
Cash games have this type of game selection.
That's also why the casino point is pretty poor, casino poker is far different from online. Should we say online needs to be dealt slower because I get 20 hands per hour live? Should we only say I can one table because I can't multi table live? Of course not. The argument of "you can't do this in a casino" is very flawed, they are far different games (software, HUD, formats offered, players from different countries in different places, rake prices, etc.).
The cartel members will be sharing their notes about new players which means the cartel builds up a profile of a new player exponentially quicker than the new player can about the cartel.
This is collusion & unfair.
If there's any evidence that a 80-100 person skype chat of a division is targeting players with notes, it should be easy to report. Most guys in every level are not going to want to collude against one player, it only takes one person to report it and I'd be shocked if someone did not.
Now, this type of stuff going on privately between some people inside and outside groups? Absolutely, we'd be naive to think otherwise, it's gone on for years. If you see it, report it, but it has nothing to do with a group.
1. It's a nice interview but since I suppose cartels are kinda out of law (I repeat, kind of, if to take into consideration the meaning of the term itself, community's and rooms' attitude towards such groups and so on) it was not a really good idea to reveal the habits and rules of the cartel (as far as I remember mr.gr33n1e left the question about cartels without comments what was natural and wise from his side ))). It's like mafia, and mafia doesn't blah-bla-blah a lot about itself. This fact says to me that such a brave exposal of cartels' superiority may lead to proper action from the Stars' side. At least I hope so.
2. I believe that suggested system of game randomizing will make it senseless to open sit a lobby for the bumhunting reasons and it will just turn to some sort of zoom format. Thus it naturally breaks down the conditions for the cartels to exist, but at the same time there should be an option for players to get into tournaments with specific players. There's nothing bad in personal challenges accepted by both parties.
3. Everyone talks about cartels with respect to players attempting to go upper limits, but I just wonder what happens when a member of an upper cartel open sits lower levels just to get additional action. One may assume that general skill level of cartels increases from limit to limit, so does it make sence for higher regs to open sit lobbies or just sit literally everyone from below? Does it, for example mean, that a member of 1k's is automatically entitled to open sit all the lower lobbies?
4. Bumhunting is obv better than regwarring, but on the other side if a challenging player has an edge over a cartel's member sitting him, what prevents him from turning this regwar into a bumhunt? just sit such a reg and you will have an infinite fish pursuit. Just become a shark eating smaller sharks, thats it ))
Cool topic anyway, thanks to everyone for their thoughts.
My best regards,
Alex
1. I am guessing that Pokerstars have given them informal approval and that's why they've become so open about it.
2. Random registration could incorporate a challenge feature so players can play against named players. The regs seem to hate this idea of random registration though as it would result in fish playing games against other fish and they see that as profit lost for them.
3. I believe that the cartel have a sit list of players who they see as a threat and these are the players they take it in turns to sit against and drive out.
4. There is a black hole called the rake and it is difficult to overcome this even against a worse player who is reasonably competent. I don' think anyone bad enough to lose by a wide margin will stay in the cartel for long.
I am not convinced by any of the responses supporting the cartel. As others have pointed out poker is not a group versus one game and its primary intention is as a game not a living.
absolutely. another thing that is important is to keep in mind that the fish are those who keep the money coming. regs usually don´t transfer money, they withdraw. it´s vitally important to keep the fish happy and give them the illusion that they too can become rich playing cards. it´s better to give a random fish a good month, because he had lucky draws and keep him coming back than to drain him on a regular basis.
"absolutely. another thing that is important is to keep in mind that the fish are those who keep the money coming. regs usually don´t transfer money, they withdraw. it´s vitally important to keep the fish happy and give them the illusion that they too can become rich playing cards. it´s better to give a random fish a good month, because he had lucky draws and keep him coming back than to drain him on a regular basis."
- You're right, losing players that keep depositing need to be kept happy.
- Stars has said in the past that they are very happy because they have many choices in the lobby currently and that they sit and instantly get a game.
- In random registration (look at my example above), they would have a very low % chance of getting a game vs another losing player, not much of an improvement (bc there are so many regs always online).
- In random registration, they would lose their ability to choose who to face and avoid certain regs. They have 2 lobbies at each stake to choose now, and if they really hate all players at their stakes that are sitting, they can wait a few minutes for a new player to get into the lobby. With random registration, the superstitious loser (the best kind, the kinds that pick lucky roulette numbers for example) are going to hate random opponent selection and go play another game. Zoom is far less of a big deal because you're sitting with 6-9 other players. But in HU, if you dislike one guy and it's your opponent, it can ruin the experience if you're a recreational player that plays for entertainment.
- It's delusional to think that a losing player will have a good month just because of random registration. Again, it means he gets a game like 1 in 15 times against another losing player. So instead of winning 47% winrate in 100% of games, he's winning 47% winrate in 93% of games, and he's 50% (still losing on avg to the rake) in his other 7% of games. That changes just about nothing in his monthly expectation.
Random registration just kills a ton of players in this game and lowers everyone's profit. If you're looking for a good way to really reduce the volume and popularity of HUSNGs, push for random registration.
Now, if you lowered the rake, it could work awesome and be the very best possible system for HUSNGs. But the rake isn't being lowered, so it's a terrible option for our game.
that is an argument i struggle to believe is true. if - under the regime of the cartel - a recreational player has a better chance of playing a fish than in a randomized system, the cartel clearly is not doing its job properly (i.e. keep the recreational players from becoming regs at their stake and keeping the fish for themselves).
as already stated: i don´t just believe in poker as a way to make money for the talented and committed, i also regard poker as a sport and i don´t think it is good neither for the game as a whole nor for the individual player to keep avoiding those who are better.
yet i think there should be the option for individual players to challenge each other.
that statement depends to a certain degree on the first point.
the other half of the argument is not necessarily delusion, but statistics. a recreational player surely will not play 3000 games a month. if he only plays 100 or 200, chances are a lot greater he can catch a month here and there where he is lucky being seated with very weak players. under the regime of the cartel, he should - in theory - don´t even get a single match against a weaker opponent. again: if he does, the cartel is not up to the task and it´s rather pointless to actually have one in the first place.
it won´t lower everyone´s profit. the fish may do a little better here and there, but should keep their results, the weak regs will have trouble, the strongest players shouldn´t care too much.
having those who want to make a living playing poker be in charge of the seating isn´t really that encouraging either.
i certainly agree that it is a huge problem to
a) keep the deserving players make money
b) keep the fish depositing money
although i may have sounded like it, i don´t claim to have the ultimate solution. i just think that a free market system in which everyone will have to compete vs. everyone else will eventually be the fairest.
but the decision is made by PS anyway, or has already been made as PS reps have stated, so we are just being hypothetical.
cheers
s.
"that is an argument i struggle to believe is true. if - under the regime of the cartel - a recreational player has a better chance of playing a fish than in a randomized system, the cartel clearly is not doing its job properly (i.e. keep the recreational players from becoming regs at their stake and keeping the fish for themselves). "
I think you misread, I only meant that under random registration the chances of a game vs another losing player are 1/15, instead of 0/15. Better, sure, but it's like getting shot 15 times versus 14 times, the end result is the same 99.99% of the time, it's not an "advantage" for a losing player to get another one 1/15 times instead of 0/15 times, at least not really any different than being given the "advantage" of being shot 15 times vs 14 times. So it's not really a positive of random registration. That's all I mean.
"as already stated: i don´t just believe in poker as a way to make money for the talented and committed, i also regard poker as a sport and i don´t think it is good neither for the game as a whole nor for the individual player to keep avoiding those who are better.
yet i think there should be the option for individual players to challenge each other."
I agree that people should not avoid each other. That's why these groups exist, because winners kept avoiding each other and weak winners could move up several buyin levels very easily, without much resistence. The registration software gives incentive to waiting in line rather than sitting a person in a lobby (bc the line is blind). So groups were created so that regs had a reason to face other regs at times.
Random registration doesn't really improve upon this, it makes it a little worse, at least for regs. For weak regs it gives them less choice (bc they can move down and get avoided at a level that suits their skill level currently), for losing players it gives them a little less choice.
All players can, of course, pay double rake and start private games, but there's little incentive for that (bc of double rake). I'm not sure hypers are even offered in private games either.
"although i may have sounded like it, i don´t claim to have the ultimate solution. i just think that a free market system in which everyone will have to compete vs. everyone else will eventually be the fairest."
I agree, but the rake is too high to do random registration. If PS said "hey, we'll lower rake, and implement random registration" I would be championing that solution, as it solves most problems (except it doesn't likely solve PokerStars requirements to make the amount of revenue they want to on HUSNGs).
Regs would've never used seating scripts for HUSNGs if there were more lobbies or a way to not register vs another reg all the time. I mean, hypers rake 1-3% rake, and they last 2.5 minutes, and they are low edge, you cannot expect a professional to register in such crowded lobbies and simultaneously sit against another professional 50-80% of the time. That issue with the software/lobby dynamic, has created a situation where a person built a seating script that sits players.
Of course, anyone can buy the seating script (except the few the owner has banned... that's another issue entirely unfortunately), but in practice, you are right, it is essentially a script for professionals to use. That said, it is just a market adjustment to a problem with the seating in the crowded lobbies of PokerStars HUSNGs.
I was curious as to whether a randomised match making system would work.
Ryan has used the queues as a rough measure of the reg : fish ratios in the player pool.
I went a step further and estimated for a simple model of 3 categories of players:
- the raw amount of the pool each category represents (P)
- their volume relative to a fish (V)
- e(P) = effective game volume = the amount of games each category of player contributes (indicative of an randomised player pool)
If my assumptions are correct, I agree with Ryan => a randomised matchmaking system would be terrible for regs because their effective volume is currently too high.
The categories I used were:
Megalodons => the biggest sharks that can profitably beat on regs
Regs => skillful grinders who play high volumes of poker
Fish => everyone else => I could have built a more elaborate model with further subcategories but it seemed like 3 was enough to model what I wanted to
Results: (I encourage readers to challenge assumptions which they disagree so that I can rerun model to produce more accurate outputs)
Case 1: Randomised matchmaking
- Megalodons make more than in current system because they can get more action than they otherwise would where they are often avoided by Regs. Despite having a lower ROI because they will be playing a higher % of reg, their total profit would be higher.
- Regs lose money (-1.4%) net of the rake because 89% of their volume are vs other regs.
- Fish are slightly better off than current system because they get to play other fish 9% of the time instead of never.
Assumptions: Case 1 - Random Matchmaking
Rake (r)
2.00%
Megalodon
Number of tables
1
Games per hour
20
Hours per week
30
Weeks per year
48
Games per year
28,800
Win Rate
ROI
vs Megalodon
50.0%
-2.0%
vs Reg
52.0%
1.9%
vs Fish
55.0%
7.8%
Reg
Number of tables
2
Games per hour
20
Hours per week
30
Weeks per year
48
Games per year
57,600
Win Rate
ROI
vs Megalodon
48.0%
-5.9%
vs Reg
50.0%
-2.0%
vs Fish
54.0%
5.8%
Fish
Number of tables
1
Games per hour
15
Hours per week
10
Weeks per year
40
Games per year
6,000
Win Rate
ROI
vs Megalodon
45.0%
-11.8%
vs Reg
46.0%
-9.8%
vs Fish
50.0%
-2.0%
Annonymous Player Pool
P
V
e(P)
Megalodon
3%
4.8
3%
Reg
50%
9.6
89%
Fish
47%
1.0
9%
Expected Results
ROI
Volume
Profit (Buy ins)
Megalodon
2.3%
28,800
670
Reg
-1.4%
57,600
-820
Fish
-9.2%
6,000
-553
Case 2: Existing system with cartels
- Strict game selection ends in equlibrium where Megaldon's only play regs who are shot taking (30%) but otherwise get a disproportionate share of fish because regs won't play vs them.
- Megalodons will get less action so although their ROI will be higher, they make less overall.
- Regs do significantly better than in a randomised system because they play enough fish to overcome the rake while still defending their lobbies by playing some of their games vs other Regs.
- Fish do marginally (-0.8%) worse than in a randomised system. The effect is small because they are still facing an overwhelming volume of their games vs Megalodons & Regs.
Assumptions: Case 2 - Existing System with Cartels
Rake (r)
2.00%
Megalodon
Number of tables
1
Games per hour
5
<< Can't get action
Hours per week
30
Weeks per year
48
Games per year
7,200
Win Rate
ROI
vs Megalodon
50.0%
-2.0%
vs Reg
52.0%
1.9%
vs Fish
55.0%
7.8%
Reg
Number of tables
2
Games per hour
15
<<Exploitatively selective
Hours per week
30
Weeks per year
48
Games per year
43,200
Win Rate
ROI
vs Megalodon
48.0%
-5.9%
vs Reg
50.0%
-2.0%
vs Fish
54.0%
5.8%
Fish
Number of tables
1
Games per hour
15
<<Still ballin'
Hours per week
10
Weeks per year
40
Games per year
6,000
Win Rate
ROI
vs Megalodon
45.0%
-11.8%
vs Reg
46.0%
-9.8%
vs Fish
50.0%
-2.0%
Game Selection net of Cartel Collusion
Volume vs each category
Megalodon
Reg
Fish
Megalodon
0%
30%
70%
Reg
0%
40%
60%
Fish
6%
94%
0%
Expected Results
ROI
Volume
Profit (Buy ins)
Megalodon
6.0%
7,200
435
Reg
2.7%
43,200
1,168
Fish
-10.0%
6,000
-597
Case 3:
Q. What rake would allow regs to make a ROI = 2%?
A. -1.4% => Pokersite would need to pay players to play to sustain regs' 2% ROI profits with the assumed player pool distribution & volume tendencies.
Assumptions: Case 3 - Anonymous Equilibrium Rake for Reg ROI = 2%
Rake (r)
-1.40%
Megalodon
Number of tables
1
Games per hour
20
Hours per week
30
Weeks per year
48
Games per year
28,800
Win Rate
ROI
vs Megalodon
50.0%
1.4%
vs Reg
52.0%
5.5%
vs Fish
55.0%
11.5%
Reg
Number of tables
2
Games per hour
20
Hours per week
30
Weeks per year
48
Games per year
57,600
Win Rate
ROI
vs Megalodon
48.0%
-2.7%
vs Reg
50.0%
1.4%
vs Fish
54.0%
9.5%
Fish
Number of tables
1
Games per hour
15
Hours per week
10
Weeks per year
40
Games per year
6,000
Win Rate
ROI
vs Megalodon
45.0%
-8.7%
vs Reg
46.0%
-6.7%
vs Fish
50.0%
1.4%
Anonymous Player Pool
P
V
e(P)
Megalodon
3%
4.8
3%
Reg
50%
9.6
89%
Fish
47%
1.0
9%
Expected Results
ROI
Volume
Profit (Buy ins)
Megalodon
5.9%
28,800
1,693
Reg
2.0%
57,600
1,152
Fish
-6.1%
6,000
-364
Case 4:
Q. What if pokerstars made it a randomised system and reg : fish ratio rebalanced?
How many regs could be sustained?
A. About 6%, ie a winning player pool of about 9%. This is less than the amount that can currently be winning Regs with game selection practices. So if you're a weak Reg, you'll have to move down or move on if you want to remain a Reg at the level you play at.
Assumptions: Case 4 - Annonymous Equilibrium Reg % for Reg ROI = 2%
Rake (r)
2.00%
Megalodon
Number of tables
1
Games per hour
20
Hours per week
30
Weeks per year
48
Games per year
28,800
Win Rate
ROI
vs Megalodon
50.0%
-2.0%
vs Reg
52.0%
1.9%
vs Fish
55.0%
7.8%
Reg
Number of tables
2
Games per hour
20
Hours per week
30
Weeks per year
48
Games per year
57,600
Win Rate
ROI
vs Megalodon
48.0%
-5.9%
vs Reg
50.0%
-2.0%
vs Fish
54.0%
5.8%
Fish
Number of tables
1
Games per hour
15
Hours per week
10
Weeks per year
40
Games per year
6,000
Win Rate
ROI
vs Megalodon
45.0%
-11.8%
vs Reg
46.0%
-9.8%
vs Fish
50.0%
-2.0%
Annonymous Player Pool
P
V
e(P)
Megalodon
3%
4.8
9%
Reg
6%
9.6
36%
Fish
91%
1.0
55%
Expected Results
ROI
Volume
Profit (Buy ins)
Megalodon
4.8%
28,800
1,392
Reg
2.0%
57,600
1,152
Fish
-5.7%
6,000
-340
Very good simulation, but I suspect that in case 1 regs would quit playing after a while and Megalodons would keep playing each other lowering their ROI and profit...
"If you want to win, you must not lose!"
You are correct.
It is unlikely Regs would grind out a whole year to lose 820 buyins (in expectation).
Case 1 would actually equilibrate toward case 4 => Regs would leave the player pool if they are losing.
If they couldn't adjust their strategy over some of the sample where they had -1.4% EV ROI they probably are a category 3 player!
Also the volumes in game selection cases should iterate as a function of fish volume.
The current assumptions for reg volume are probably too high within the context of the assumed distribution of games relative to the effective population volumes.
1. They're open about it because it involves like 80% of regulars from every stake. It's not a small club, it's literally becoming "everyone except weak regs." Not quite yet, but with the rules changes, it won't be long before the groups are "every reg at $60s and $100s that is willing to play other regs and works to make sure they are playing well."
2. Yes, anyone that thinks about how this works would hate it with the current rake. Right now, 15 regs might be waiting for one bad player. And after 5 minutes that one bad player sits. In a 2.5-3 minute game format, that means those 15 regs would face each other roughly 2 times before one of them sits a bad player. That is 30 games of reg vs reg for each 1 vs a bad player. Now, would this change and improve? Yes, but only if a ton of regs quit/moved down. And even then, if you have 5 guys waiting and 10 guys have quit, that's 10 reg vs reg games for 1 game vs a bad player. That's not really sustainable with the rake right now, so profits for EVERYONE would go down a ton, and many guys both inside and outside of groups would do far worse.
3. This is wrong. The groups sit the weak players, not the players they see as a threat. Players that can show they are better than the group now automatically get in pretty quickly (as little as 2 weeks of grinding vs the group). It makes no sense for the group to keep weak players, it only makes sense for the group to have the top 80-100 players in it, nobody wants to reg war all day, they just want to push the weakest regs out of the buyin level bc all those guys do is make money off losing players without any risk.
4. Yes, the rake is very difficult to overcome. This is why random registration is so bad. Look at the factual #s of people waiting in lines now, the only conclusion is that random registration would be a killer.
99% of the players (20,000-odd) aren't in the cartel nor are they trying to getting in it. I think I saw Arronwilson's name on one of the sit lists ! They have a random registration on Merge, and a similar rake. Players get games straight away and looking at the SS leaderboards some make money. The top one seems to be on 3.5% roi @ $80 abi.
However cdon has convinced me that random registration by itself will make it difficult to win a lot. A possible solution is to change the format so there is more chance for the good players to win more often. PS have changed formats before. If the 10/20 level lasted three minutes that would probably do it.
Top players will still make money in a random system.
It will just mean that a lot of regs will need to move down in stakes or quit (as in case 4).
Such is the nature of a market driven system. And it would probably happen very quickly given how risk averse most regs are.
Introducing a random system would be like a oligopoly suddenly being flooded with market entrants.
Margins held artificially high from lack of competition would be eroded until such a point that weaker participants would need to exit the market for there to be any profit left at all.
That said, if reg ratios continue to increase further, then there won't be enough fish to sustain the games at a level which is worth playing them even with collusive agreements in place. At that point the weakest regs would exit. The formation of cartels in itself signals this point is approaching. So if you're an aspiring reg looking to build a business in the hyper turbo market, it's never been harder to start up or a less attractive investment proposition :(
In hyper turbos, perhaps, but it's only been around a few years.
You're still better off today playing hyper HUSNGs than turbos (the fastest format of the time) 6 years ago. Or regular speeds 8+ years ago (there were no turbos until 2006 or so).
You're making good points that all hammer home one major point: There are too many regs, how do the weakest get pushed down to lower stakes/quit?
Right now, the solution has been to form groups. The groups used to not be fair (not allowing the best in them necessarily or easily), they now allow people that earn their way in. It decreases the amount of weak regs from each stake a certain amount. Random registration would further these changes based on your assumptions (and I really agree there, it would likely do that). It would also make more reg vs reg games happen, which from a professional's standpoint, is inefficient/less valuable. Even if you survive at your buyin level, you're still sitting with another reg far more often than today. That sucks for the best players (compared to today's climate, or even pre group systems).
I am starting to understand both sides of the story better now.
On one hand it is about "sustainability of the game", meaning to keep this game format a profitable one for it to survive and thrive and not die off.
On one hand it is about challenging the integrity of the way this game atmosphere has morphed into.
Most of the people who are very concerned with the "division" model, feels shortchanged. With the recent changes in the "entry requirement", it has certainly put "sustainability of the game" as the main consideration, and making tweaks to make sure the "elite" is really the elite. I think this is perhaps a inevitable "middle ground" to the two objectives of the two extreme groups.
On the research on whether in a random assignment system will be better or worse for "professional regs", this would probably need more quantitative research to justify. As there are so many factors leading up to a good conclusion, your guess is as good as my guess. Until that is quantifiable, i think perhaps the current new improved system is the most effective system to keep the ecosystem going.
I am quite convinced that as long as the poker sites do not do any changes, the so called "division" would stay around for sometime.
My initial thoughts perhaps for aspiring regs would be the following
1) grab a list of the division you are keen to join
2) search up their data, select the lower ROI ones
3) Form a "aspiring reg" club, share knowledge (not hand history though) on who the weaker regs are
4) Challenge the weaker regs and try to obtain the requirement to join the division
For aspiring regs, they have below good advantages
a) they do not need to depend on poker earnings to sustain their life style. This lift off a lot of pressure and allow them to look at the game in a fresh and fun way of which many professional regs may have difficulty in "enjoying" the game
b) they do not feel obligated to pump in hours like the pros (yet). This "learning" process can be highly enjoyable and stimulating. Many good ideas come from enjoying something you want to be good at.
c) Reg sees fishes as fishes. (think about it)
Alright. That's all for now. Great discussion so far. Appreciate all the inputs from all the good people here.
Regards
TTLH
"On the research on whether in a random assignment system will be better or worse for "professional regs", this would probably need more quantitative research to justify."
In practice the division system it will only protect those at the top of the cartels. The others will be in endless reg wars to defend their positions from those trying to get in. There will be a downward spiralling effect for these poor s*ds as they will continue to be targeted because they will have lower, probably negative rois from the endless reg warring and will be perceived to be weaker cartel members ripe for further targeting. It will be better for the few cartel members who are above challenge (maybe thirty players) and worse for the rest of the playing population (maybe twenty thousand). Random registration can be seen in operation on Merge. The very best players win well and the lesser regs are more like "rakeback pros". It can be seen quantitatively by analysing the Merge leaderboard on Sharkscope. If truth be told the cartels were better for more players when the cartel members couldn't be challenged from outside.
Your entire post ignores the process of improving your own game and improving.
When I started in the $5 level, I was not the same player as when I moved up to the $100 level.
The weakest won't be "torn down with low ROIs" forever, you work on your game, improve, reap the benefits as one of the top players in your buyin level, then fight to move up. You move up, fight to stay in, then end up being a top reg in your level again. Repeat. There's a clear path to success for those that want to put in the time and effort, and nothing is more competitive and fair than that imo.
I'm not sure what more analysis we need about random registration. Factually speaking, no matter if there are 2 or 200 regs at a level, the very best players are going to be forced into facing other regs many more times than today, and today we have a system that sorts out which regs belong and which level just fine (post changes that is, pre changes I agree, there were huge issues that needed addressing, and given the complaints, so did many others).
"The weakest won't be "torn down with low ROIs" forever, you work on your game, improve, reap the benefits as one of the top players in your buy-in level"
With the cartel system of entry I doubt whether anyone will ever progress. They will get stuck in the vortex at the bottom of the cartel forever regardless of ability because they will always be playing against good players trying to get in who keep their ROI low which will keep them as targets for players who are trying to get in. It will just be an endless reg war. If you were starting now you'd end up as a struggling $60 player at the bottom of the cartel. Something like this is happening already. There are players in the $30 games who are much better than those in the $60 cartel but they stay there because it's too difficult to move up with cartels operating. All the new system seems to achieve is to raise the bar to the top half of the cartel. I hope I'm wrong but I don't see how given the strong demand to get into the cartel.
Brandon, those are all great points, except they are now a week too late.
The system has changed, if a player is clearly better at the $30s, he can get into the $60s in 2-5 weeks of playing at the $60s.
If you add up where this leads to, it means that only the best at each level will be in the groups now, so people trying to get in won't be a large # for very long, and the only pressure will be on the very weakest players in the groups, if at all.
"Brandon, those are all great points, except they are now a week too late."
Does the cartel only meet once a year or something ?
"The system has changed, if a player is clearly better at the $30s, he can get into the $60s in 2-5 weeks of playing at the $60s."
Getting in at or near the bottom is a poisoned chalice as the player will be challenged and reg warring all the time against others trying to get in.
"people trying to get in won't be a large # for very long, and the only pressure will be on the very weakest players in the groups, if at all."
There will be a large number of people trying to get in as this is the only way of being profitable in the games. The pressure will be on the newest members not the weakest as they will have low rois from the reg warring of getting in. The only comfortable cartel members will be those who were in the top half before the new system started as they won't be challenged much if at all. Who would you play to get in someone with +2% roi or someone with -1% or 0% roi ?
Pokerstars must love this system as it ensures a lot of reg warring which wouldn't otherwise happen.
"this is the only way to be profitable at the games."
Your answer is half correct, but I don't think it's a problem even if it were 100% correct.
Before, you had 150 regs in the 60s. Lines got too long and no regs would really battle to weed out the weak ones. So now the top 100 decide to make a group where you HAVE to fight the 50 weakest. Most of those 50 weakest are not in the group and are still making money, they've moved down, to a buyin where they can be profitable, even if some regs sit them.
If they improve and work on their game, they can get into the 60s group and will fight both winners and losers.
But essentially, too many regs came into the game and because the auto registration software in use gives you less incentive to sit other regs, we ended up with a situation where people sat other regs less as the lines got longer, not more. This was the market correct to that problem.
There won't be forever wars, it'll soon be figured out in the $60s and $100s who is really the best. There will always be some guys improving and fighting to get in, but the % won't be huge. And the weakest guys in groups won't be forever bogged down at all, as long as they keep improving their game, they will stop being sat by people trying to get in (who will either find a weaker target, of it one does not exist, they will move down a buyin to where they are a stronger player).
The system has players constantly moving around if they improve, and that's the way it ought to be. This whole notion of a closed door system is a really poor thought by the people that believe in it (not you Brandon, this is a wider point) and really hurting the reputation of this game by increasing complaints.
There are a few factors that I could think of that would contribute to quantifying whether a random assignment system will be beneficial to the overall hyper HUSNG ecosystem
1) Number of new entrants ( new ones or those who are oppressed ) that would join the game when there is a random assignment system
2) Number of new entrants that would play this format when new market is joining this player pool (for example : china or usa )
3) Rake
4) Quality of the skill of the general population
Having said these, let's assume that if a random assignment system will still result in Professionals earning money ( albiet lesser), and allow a bigger pool of players to be profitable. The ultimate question is whether poker sites would like to implement that.
I think our good friend cdon has mentioned that it is all about the amount of rake that the poker site is concerned about. If they are not making any changes, then perhaps the volume of games (thus rake) is "optimized" with the current setting.
Unless we can provide some sort of a value proposition to the poker site that they will get more rake if they allow a random assignment system. Sad to say, nothing is going to change.
I am still very open and hopeful about whether a random assignment system will eventually happen. But as of now, I tend to sort of like "give in" to what is made available to us. The new set of requirements is a significant lowered down requirement compared to last time.
I believe that everyone who wants to work hard and become as good as they want to be have the ability to beat the game. One could be so good, they can probably have an edge against some weak "division members". And the beauty of it is that once you reach that level, the so called "Professional Regs" become your " Professional Regular Fishes". You gain both edge and volume.
Anyway, weekend is here. Have a good weekend to all.
Regards,
TTLH
"but the cartel environment makes them less attractive"
Shes leading the mafia and says it makes hypers less attractive. (Yes, especially to new players. I wouldnt start hypers aswell if I would know 30s is max and then I have to play regs only to join a team... AT POKER. A team game lol.) PokerStars is already working on a solution. Its simply completely unethical and should be punished. No player is supposed to have an advantage on someone else. No matter if its lobby blocking or hh sharing. But cartell members doesn't understand that at all, as long as their winrate is fine. Disgusting
Pretty frustrating that PokerStars is just watching because they don't wanna scare of the regs.
Your post couldn't be further from the truth. PokerStars is almost certainly well aware that if 10% of the regs quit, that impacts their bottom line zero. There are plenty, plenty of regs. That's why these groups started, to weed out the weak regs and hold all regs accountable to play other regs (not just bumhunt losing players).
When at their best, these groups make the game more competitive and rewarding for hard working players.
There have been issues, but the $60s and $100s groups have by and large been very successful since changing systems to allow players in based on merit, not subjective voting.
I also don't see why it is "a joke" that someone helping manage, lead or run an organization or group can't hold the opinion that the group can be ran much better? Improvement from within is a very valid pursuit.
Pages