which poker room to choose

    • yashabarinsky
      yashabarinsky
      Bronze
      Joined: 16.11.2007 Posts: 1
      i heard many opinions about poker rooms and rake amount returned but i did not find the info i wanted in the internet.

      which poker room is more profitable for (gives you more money back)?
  • 10 replies
    • ciRith
      ciRith
      Bronze
      Joined: 25.03.2005 Posts: 18,556
      On the microlimits the rakeback s not important at all. You should consider the site which has the most tables for your beginning limits.

      If you are already playing higher (1/2$ FL or 100$-200$ NL or something like that) then you get the most raw rakeback on Interpoker or FullTiltPoker.
      But Interpoker has not many FL tables.

      If you want to know where to start with the 50$ from us I recommend you either Titanpoker (enough tables for Nl and enough for micro FL too) or Partypoker (enough tables for every game you choose except Omaha or Stud).

      Another point is that it's very hard to clear the FullTiltPoker bonus and you lose the chance to get a 600$ bonus if you deposit on your own (this is the same for Titanpoker).
    • ManniXXX
      ManniXXX
      Bronze
      Joined: 05.09.2007 Posts: 707
      I agree with cirth, Party and Titan are very soft and you'll have no trouble finding fishes there.

      I have to disagree about the Full Tilt bonus being hard to clear though. I cleared it relatively quickly and what's more it gets released in $5 chunks so the risk is lessened. As was said though, you won't be able to benefit from the massive $600 bonus at a later date if you chose FT so I would go with Party or Titan.
    • ciRith
      ciRith
      Bronze
      Joined: 25.03.2005 Posts: 18,556
      Originally posted by ManniXXX
      I have to disagree about the Full Tilt bonus being hard to clear though. I cleared it relatively quickly and what's more it gets released in $5 chunks so the risk is lessened. As was said though, you won't be able to benefit from the massive $600 bonus at a later date if you chose FT so I would go with Party or Titan.
      Hmm I only heart about the clearing and I was refering to the 600$ (makes no sense to refer to it anyway ^^). Thx for telling. :)
    • ManniXXX
      ManniXXX
      Bronze
      Joined: 05.09.2007 Posts: 707
      Well any $600 bonus is gonna be pretty hard to clear :P I know that the 5 dollar chunks were released pretty quickly for me even at micro limits. The only real problem would be an insufficient time limit for the $600 bonus, but again the fact it's released in chunks helps this too.
    • SonicXT
      SonicXT
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.06.2007 Posts: 4,736
      Originally posted by ciRith
      On the microlimits the rakeback s not important at all. You should consider the site which has the most tables for your beginning limits.
      I wouldn't agree. I got over 1000 $ of rake in 2 weeks at NL50 which is still a microlimit. No rakeback vs 27 % rakeback might mean a difference of 150 $ a week for me.
    • ManniXXX
      ManniXXX
      Bronze
      Joined: 05.09.2007 Posts: 707
      Originally posted by SonicXT
      Originally posted by ciRith
      On the microlimits the rakeback s not important at all. You should consider the site which has the most tables for your beginning limits.
      I wouldn't agree. I got over 1000 $ of rake in 2 weeks at NL50 which is still a microlimit. No rakeback vs 27 % rakeback might mean a difference of 150 $ a week for me.
      I can kind of see cirths point though, especially if your considering SSS at NL10 on FT. Personally I would rather play SSS at Partypoker with no rakeback rather than FT with rakeback, at NL10 anyway.
    • Dykiller
      Dykiller
      Bronze
      Joined: 19.02.2008 Posts: 167
      I played on FTP, Stars and PP

      IMO PP is the easiest then Stars then FTP. Micro limit on FTP seems hard to me.
    • ciRith
      ciRith
      Bronze
      Joined: 25.03.2005 Posts: 18,556
      Originally posted by SonicXT
      Originally posted by ciRith
      On the microlimits the rakeback s not important at all. You should consider the site which has the most tables for your beginning limits.
      I wouldn't agree. I got over 1000 $ of rake in 2 weeks at NL50 which is still a microlimit. No rakeback vs 27 % rakeback might mean a difference of 150 $ a week for me.
      NL50 is no beginner limit. Ok I said micro but it should be clear what I meant? :)

      Have you played on other sites? Maybe the rakeback can't compensate the better player which is again contra rakeback. (I have nothing for rakeback but focusing on rakeback as a beginner is really not the way to go if you assk me. If you concentrate your energy 100% on your game instead of searching for the best rakeback I think you earn more money in the long run. I don't know how the players play at FTP so I could be wrong anyway (for a non beginner only).)
    • SonicXT
      SonicXT
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.06.2007 Posts: 4,736
      It depends, the level of play at the lowest of micro-limits is horrible wherever you go, a good player won't play NL2-NL25 (unless he's a good player just starting a career with BRM)
      But at the lowest limits with the highest rakes, the rakeback can mean a difference in winrate of 1.5-2 PTBB/100, which isn't something you'd just ignore I think as the opposition should be equally beatable everywhere (especially for full ring and SSS at micro-limits)
    • ciRith
      ciRith
      Bronze
      Joined: 25.03.2005 Posts: 18,556
      Good point and it may be that I'm simple not used to the rake system at many pokersites. The time I played the micro limit I nearly go no points at Stars (no at all) or PP (no real rakeback).
      Additionally I have a FL focus so most sites are way tougher with rakeback (not the ultra micros but 0.5/1$ should be already a difference between Interpoker/FTP and Titan/PP).

      Anyway. I think my point was that you shouldn't focus on rakeback in the beginning. Learing how to play is way more important!