Dear Pleno.......Best Regards, Richard

[DMorgan]

Did you see my questions about the cartel above yours dan, did you try and break into that one?

Obvious troll is obvious, I'm answering them in order

[collster]

Starting to see why Colman describes the poker world as he does. Although it sounds like he has had a huge part in creating the monster he despises?

As a rec/fish thanks to tikay for sharing and others for expanding on the subject. I would occasionally play a $30 husng on stars...not anymore. It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out as more and more people like me get wind of the current setup.

Anyway,got to get back to my randomly seated low stakes mtts without a HUD.....ignorance is bliss!

[George2Loose]

If a rec is playing a few HU hypers I doubt he gives a shit anyway. U think when a rich businessman sits down in a big live cash game he doesn't realise he's a dog? some people just wanna spin or play for fun

[collster]

But George, do you think the rich businessman would be happy that as he arrives in the car park a team gathers with a plan to usher him to a table with pre selected opposition with far greater skills than him? rather than just an honest up front game with no secret background plan? would it be wrong to perhaps think that from time to time he might actually play against someone where he wouldn't always be the dog?

[DMorgan]

V interesting Dan. A couple of questions if you have the time.

You say you were in charge of the $100 cartel? Did you want to move up to $200s but found yourself blocked by the $200 cartel?

So in order to move up you had to play the very best $200 regs (you'd be on their radar / list of ppl trying to move up)? As in, they made it impossible for you to play even one sng with anyone but one of the cartel?

So did you settle at 100s because you were one of the best regs at that level but not as good as the 200 regs?

There isn't any sort of organised group for $200 turbos/regspeeds, all of the stuff about groups being closed is specific to hypers and no I don't agree that these groups should be 'closed' under any circumstances. I'm disappointed that stars didn't step in right at the start and ban this program, even more so that they still won't step in once their games stop being a meritocracy. When players that are good enough to play higher aren't being allowed because of an arbitary decisions from other players, that flies in the face of stars' strategy of marketing poker as a skill game.

Whether the groups exist or not you still have to play the best regs when you're trying to move up. Its heads up and there is one lobby per stake, its always going to be that way and thats how it should be imo. I was a 200s reg too but whether it was actually worth it or not I'm not sure. Games were a lot tougher and there was much less volume, I spent the same amount of time sat in 200s lobbies as I did in 100s lobbies this year and 200s only accounted for 22% of my games.

$300s were the tipping point for me, once you get to that level there just aren't enough fish sitting to make it worth all the action that you get from $500s+ players that are tired of twiddling their thumbs waiting hours between games. There are definitely players in the 100s group that could make money at 200s but their ROI would be much smaller than it would be at 200s and they don't want the variance.

[AlunB]

If a rec is playing a few HU hypers I doubt he gives a shit anyway. U think when a rich businessman sits down in a big live cash game he doesn't realise he's a dog? some people just wanna spin or play for fun

Two points on this

1. Most recs/fish aren't the mythical "rich businessman" who dominates these discussions. They are, IMO ofc, normal people often playing with money they can't really afford to lose and either a) wan't some entertainment value for their money or b) actually think they have a chance of winning

2. Playing against a silent and/or abusive p*** taking reg is not fun. At all.

There is this ludicrous idea, not that I am saying you think this, that all 'recs' are drooling morons who don't know what they are doing and don't care about money. Neither of those things are true for 99% of recs I would bet.

[DMorgan]

Of course the fish go skint quicker. They are never going to play a game against someone of similar ability.

They literally CANNOT win.

I'm going to ahead and assume that when you were crushing the $1ks it didn't cross your mind to give up your lobby just in case the next rec that came along wanted to play against another rec rather than against you.

Of course they can win, and do win about 48% of the time. Its still poker, we haven't created some black hole that swallows everyones money.

[collster]

Spot on alunb

[AlunB]

Of course the fish go skint quicker. They are never going to play a game against someone of similar ability.

They literally CANNOT win.

I'm going to ahead and assume that when you were crushing the $1ks it didn't cross your mind to give up your lobby just in case the next rec that came along wanted to play against another rec rather than against you.

Of course they can win, and do win about 48% of the time. Its still poker, we haven't created some black hole that swallows everyones money.

Tbh I don't actually think this is a particularly bad thing. As you say the alternative is worse. But it sounds horrendous and would 100% put any fish off playing. It makes it sound like they are being treated like livestock and corralled into games where they can be slaughtered in the most efficient way possible.

[The Camel]

Of course the fish go skint quicker. They are never going to play a game against someone of similar ability.

They literally CANNOT win.

I'm going to ahead and assume that when you were crushing the $1ks it didn't cross your mind to give up your lobby just in case the next rec that came along wanted to play against another rec rather than against you.

Of course they can win, and do win about 48% of the time. Its still poker, we haven't created some black hole that swallows everyones money.

But I was happy to take on anyone who chose to sit v me.

I wouldn't sit v people whose game I respected, but if they sat v me c'est le vie.

[Kmac84]

It's collusion IMO.

It denies recreational players the chance to play each other.

Stars should stop this practice ASAP. In fact I can't believe they allowed it in the first place.

Think you might be right there Mr Camel. I must say though, there is part of me that likes the idea that in order to establish yourself at a level, you have to beat the tough regs over a large sample, but yeah, way too much control over the lobby.

I doubt the 'recs' know about this at all. Most of the people on this forum, myself included, didn't know about it, and while most of us ain't pros, we are poker enthusiasts and not 'recs' in the new player sense.

Might be worth an article, your stuff is widly read online. 

I find this whole think to in bad taste, I no longer play on Stars at all as I felt I was just giving money away no matter what game I was playing. 

[The Camel]

Of course the fish go skint quicker. They are never going to play a game against someone of similar ability.

They literally CANNOT win.

I'm going to ahead and assume that when you were crushing the $1ks it didn't cross your mind to give up your lobby just in case the next rec that came along wanted to play against another rec rather than against you.

Of course they can win, and do win about 48% of the time. Its still poker, we haven't created some black hole that swallows everyones money.

Tbh I don't actually think this is a particularly bad thing. As you say the alternative is worse. But it sounds horrendous and would 100% put any fish off playing. It makes it sound like they are being treated like livestock and corralled into games where they can be slaughtered in the most efficient way possible.

Spot on Alun.

[DMorgan]

But I was happy to take on anyone who chose to sit v me.

I wouldn't sit v people whose game I respected, but if they sat v me c'est le vie.

Its the same within the groups, there is no rule about members not being able to play other members. In fact the hypers groups have a rule that if someone from the sit list joins your games, you have to give them action for 30 mins minimum.

The aim of the groups isn't to try to leverage the games so that everyone in the group plays 100% of their games against recs. We're taking the game to the regs that we consider weaker. There is way more reg warring now than there ever was before, therefore increased rake generation, therefore stars doesn't give a toss.

[cambridgealex]

Did you see my questions about the cartel above yours dan, did you try and break into that one?

Obvious troll is obvious, I'm answering them in order

It wasn't a troll at all I didn't see that you were answering questions in order, I genuinely thought maybe you'd missed my post in the melee.
 

[SuuPRlim]

kinda off topic but a point I really wanna make;

Of course they can win, and do win about 48% of the time. Its still poker, we haven't created some black hole that swallows everyones money.

Will Hill, Ladbrokes, Paddypower. 3 Companies with a combined networth of over £1billion.

Where has this money come from, gambling losses, people lose money at gambling, and they will always lose money at gambling. I am net lifetime 6figure£ loser at those three companies combined and within the last 18months they've all decided that they no longer welcome my business, thanks for all the cash you've lost to us taking the worst of it over the last 5 years David, but we've got half an inkling you might not be a total fucking moron so no chance to get your money back now.

In essence it's a hit and run, no subtlety, no "I'm busy right now lets play next week" just a straight nope you can have £3.74 on this 6/4 shot if you like to gamble with us. If a pro poker player did this in a live cash game would be banned from playing again.

Pro poker players in general get a severely hard time over their ethical conduct for, I believe, 2 reasons - firstly it's a more personal game, person vs person not single person vs a faceless organisation (where if you wanna take angst up with someone you have to speak to someone in a call centre) so much easier to direct the anger at an individual, and secondly, and I think most importantly, because a few particularly irritating guys who've stuck there neck out and behaved so terribly (calling people out as fish, posting on forums treating people who lose at poker like idiots who can't count to ten) their ego and lack of social intelligence and tact has, and is costing pro poker players over and over.

It comes from a mixture of social naivety, ignorance and ego.

Now people seem to think of every pro poker player as a "snake" and "vulture" just preying on the weak rec players who innocently want to gamble their money on a level playing field.

In most cases this is really a very unfair image - I've never forced anyone to gamble with me, no-one puts a gun to anyones head and says "right, you've got £2,000 in the bank, time to play at LEAST £1,000 of that at HU SNG's" a man, through his own free will has elected to play a HU SNG and as it is with stars he will 100% play a pro, but there is 1 lobby per stake on stars, the only chance he ever had of not playing a pro before was if he happened to stroll along when every reg player was in bed. It's not misleading, it's not cheating, you can't see his cards, no-one is saying "hey come play thi sHU SNG you got a great chance of winning", he isn't playing on a "no-pros" site, if someone has a real issue playing against pro poker players then they certainly can't play on pokerstars and will have to set up a homegame with their pals.

The other thing people always forget in this discussions is exactly the point Dan made, it's still poker, it's still gambling and it doesn't matter how bad you are at poker you have plenty chance to win, especially in a HEADS UP TURBO sit and go. If it was as easy as "find a punter and play him" and you snap get all his money then I'd be sat on my yacht in barbados and not typing this.

In my career my biggest single losses have often come from short(ish) very high variance games against gambley rec players and biggest wins often from long periods vs weaker pro's. It isn't a 100% skirmish for rec money like people think it is out there in pro gambling. I think the guys who leave money to lay stuff at 1000 on BF that has already finished to trick a few clueless punters into trying to sting them are worse, and it's not like any of those guys are looking to take Tony Bloom on each saturday on the PL markets.

So in answer to this question;

So which games is it actually safe for us fish to play without having scheming pros taking every advantage they can?

it's no games, and you also can't bet at any high street bookie, or play betfair - but I hear you can play connect4 over skype