FTP vs Stars

    • jonnyjm
      jonnyjm
      Bronze
      Joined: 24.03.2008 Posts: 447
      Just wondering what peoples priorities are in regards to choosing which site to play?

      I love FTP and only played there before shut down. The only bad thing now is the loss of Pokerstrategy tracking, thus no learning material :/ Don't know weather to play at a site i love with no learning resources (FTP) or play at a site i dislike but remain able to learn (Stars). Shame there is no middle ground.
  • 53 replies
    • MP89EST
      MP89EST
      Bronze
      Joined: 30.03.2008 Posts: 385
      what kinda games do you play? How many tables? Since IMO there is definetly a middleground(other pokersites) for nearly every poker variant.

      But yeah I also love to play on ftp, but now can't due our country regulations.

      For me choosing a site depends if I think it is the best EV for me considering my roll, skills and future plans for poker.
    • abhi147
      abhi147
      Bronze
      Joined: 12.08.2011 Posts: 935
      as of now stars is better in almost everything
      the software may be the only thing but as far as traffic, fishiness, variety goes stars is better
      So if you dont already have an account with stars i suggest you get a tracked PS account and you should be good to go
    • YohanN7
      YohanN7
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.06.2009 Posts: 4,084
      I think I will maintain a lower status (silver) at PS while mostly playing where I want to play (which is, well you can guess it). Learning material can be found elsewhere. I miss the "entertainment" part of it though (watching videos).

      I was taught a lesson while playing on a well known network getting nice PS points. It's not worth a fraction of a percent extra in RB to play on unbearable software. Poker should be enjoyed whether you do it for living or as a hobby. The learning material is a problem, but I am not playing X hours per month at **** to be able to watch a gold video or two per month.

      /Johan = :f_confused:
    • OZSA
      OZSA
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.05.2009 Posts: 804
      sadly PS > FTP in every way, in rakeback, in rake, everything. FTP has too bad rake compared to stars therefor rakeback aswell.. and I played 2years on FTP I loved the soft, but you can't do anything about their rake. Especially the low limits <NL25 is killer, 7%++ rake.
    • Mikus8
      Mikus8
      Bronze
      Joined: 06.10.2011 Posts: 240
      Rush tournaments are the love of my life therefore fulltiltpoker
    • moneyback88
      moneyback88
      Basic
      Joined: 17.10.2012 Posts: 27
      Originally posted by abhi147
      as of now stars is better in almost everything
      the software may be the only thing but as far as traffic, fishiness, variety goes stars is better
      So if you dont already have an account with stars i suggest you get a tracked PS account and you should be good to go
      Are you for real? How the fuck the software is better? You cant change cards, you cant have other tables other than fucking green, the pot numbers in small tables are shit, the stack sizes with small tables and hud are hard to read, when a player eliminates and you have race table it is very difficult to count the number of people, when you have bet size fixed and you small the tables only the two are visible. Why the hell is fucking tilt better than stars? How idiot can you be and say this?

      Now with 30% rakeback max full tilt sucks. Rake is more in full tilt etc etc It is better to close it again


      Use your fucking brain homo
    • luitzen
      luitzen
      Bronze
      Joined: 03.04.2009 Posts: 664
      Just saying you disagree isn't enough?
    • YohanN7
      YohanN7
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.06.2009 Posts: 4,084
      It is a matter of taste. There is good taste. Then there is bad taste. People can have either.

      /Johan = :f_confused:
    • abhi147
      abhi147
      Bronze
      Joined: 12.08.2011 Posts: 935
      Originally posted by moneyback88
      Originally posted by abhi147
      as of now stars is better in almost everything
      the software may be the only thing but as far as traffic, fishiness, variety goes stars is better
      So if you dont already have an account with stars i suggest you get a tracked PS account and you should be good to go
      Are you for real? How the fuck the software is better? You cant change cards, you cant have other tables other than fucking green, the pot numbers in small tables are shit, the stack sizes with small tables and hud are hard to read, when a player eliminates and you have race table it is very difficult to count the number of people, when you have bet size fixed and you small the tables only the two are visible. Why the hell is fucking tilt better than stars? How idiot can you be and say this?

      Now with 30% rakeback max full tilt sucks. Rake is more in full tilt etc etc It is better to close it again


      Use your fucking brain homo
      Err
      I said the SOFTWARE MAY BE the only thing
      I personally dont like it much i prefer stars software as its simpler but that mainly is because ive played mostly on stars and only tried FT few days back after its relaunch
      But most people like the FT software

      In anycase why are you screaming?
    • NightFrostaSS
      NightFrostaSS
      Bronze
      Joined: 25.10.2008 Posts: 5,255
      Originally posted by OZSA
      sadly PS > FTP in every way, in rakeback, in rake, everything. FTP has too bad rake compared to stars therefor rakeback aswell...
      Doesn't seem like I'd be paying more rake on FTP than on PS so far. Tho I've been playing a bit tighter.
    • gadget51
      gadget51
      Bronze
      Joined: 23.06.2008 Posts: 5,622
      Hi all,

      @moneyback88:

      We try to promote civility and friendliness on the forums and would appreciate you doing the same.
      Flaming someone in such a manner is neither appreciated nor acceptable as per our forums rules:

      Our forum principles

      Please refrain from using such a tone in future.

      Have fun and regards all,

      Mal.
    • EmanuelC16
      EmanuelC16
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.01.2010 Posts: 13,897
      Originally posted by NightFrostaSS
      Originally posted by OZSA
      sadly PS > FTP in every way, in rakeback, in rake, everything. FTP has too bad rake compared to stars therefor rakeback aswell...
      Doesn't seem like I'd be paying more rake on FTP than on PS so far. Tho I've been playing a bit tighter.
      So far rake is equal for me too and I've played the same stakes on both sites.
    • YohanN7
      YohanN7
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.06.2009 Posts: 4,084
      And now, back to topic!

      Ah!

      Came to think of this: Not even Poker Stars prefer Stars software over Full Tilt's. The next version of Stars is not even an update. It's new from scratch. The Full Tilt software will, on the other hand, be kept. :D

      (I think Stars is ok software though.)

      /Johan = :f_confused:
    • OZSA
      OZSA
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.05.2009 Posts: 804
      guys, its math
      No limit holdem only
      Stars rake
      Rake % Cap (6max-9max)
      NL2 3.5% 0.3$
      NL5 4.15% 1$
      NL10 4.5% 1.5$
      NL25 4.5% 2$
      NL50 4.5% 2.5$

      FTP
      Rake % Cap (6max-9max)
      NL2 6.6% 2$
      NL5 6.6% 2$
      NL10 6.6% 2$
      NL25 5% 3$
      NL50 5% 3$

      Not only the cap is higher on FTP, but they take 1cent rake of each 15cent pot at NL2, NL5, NL10, and they take 1cent rake of each 20cent pot at NL25 and higher.
      I loved FTP, but there is no way, anyone could say that FTP and Stars are "somewhat" equal, they are far from equal because of the rake.
    • YohanN7
      YohanN7
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.06.2009 Posts: 4,084
      3.5% rake at NL2? Typo?
    • EmanuelC16
      EmanuelC16
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.01.2010 Posts: 13,897
      Originally posted by OZSA
      guys, its math
      No limit holdem only
      Stars rake
      Rake % Cap (6max-9max)
      NL2 3.5% 0.3$
      NL5 4.15% 1$
      NL10 4.5% 1.5$
      NL25 4.5% 2$
      NL50 4.5% 2.5$

      FTP
      Rake % Cap (6max-9max)
      NL2 6.6% 2$
      NL5 6.6% 2$
      NL10 6.6% 2$
      NL25 5% 3$
      NL50 5% 3$

      Not only the cap is higher on FTP, but they take 1cent rake of each 15cent pot at NL2, NL5, NL10, and they take 1cent rake of each 20cent pot at NL25 and higher.
      I loved FTP, but there is no way, anyone could say that FTP and Stars are "somewhat" equal, they are far from equal because of the rake.
      Incremental vs full pot rake makes a difference as well. You are saying it's different and we are saying it's close, not that it's the exact same. We weren't comparing all stakes either. We said for the stakes we've played on both sites.
    • suitedaces1701
      suitedaces1701
      Platinum
      Joined: 30.10.2011 Posts: 661
      Only Tableninja for pokerstars so PS :D
    • bennisboy
      bennisboy
      Bronze
      Joined: 11.04.2011 Posts: 711
      Originally posted by moneyback88
      Originally posted by abhi147
      as of now stars is better in almost everything
      the software may be the only thing but as far as traffic, fishiness, variety goes stars is better
      So if you dont already have an account with stars i suggest you get a tracked PS account and you should be good to go
      Are you for real? How the fuck the software is better? You cant change cards, you cant have other tables other than fucking green, the pot numbers in small tables are shit, the stack sizes with small tables and hud are hard to read, when a player eliminates and you have race table it is very difficult to count the number of people, when you have bet size fixed and you small the tables only the two are visible. Why the hell is fucking tilt better than stars? How idiot can you be and say this?

      Now with 30% rakeback max full tilt sucks. Rake is more in full tilt etc etc It is better to close it again


      Use your fucking brain homo
      This is my favorite post ever on Pokerstrategy

      Thanks for sharing
    • OZSA
      OZSA
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.05.2009 Posts: 804
      Originally posted by EmanuelC16
      Originally posted by OZSA
      guys, its math
      No limit holdem only
      Stars rake
      Rake % Cap (6max-9max)
      NL2 3.5% 0.3$
      NL5 4.15% 1$
      NL10 4.5% 1.5$
      NL25 4.5% 2$
      NL50 4.5% 2.5$

      FTP
      Rake % Cap (6max-9max)
      NL2 6.6% 2$
      NL5 6.6% 2$
      NL10 6.6% 2$
      NL25 5% 3$
      NL50 5% 3$

      Not only the cap is higher on FTP, but they take 1cent rake of each 15cent pot at NL2, NL5, NL10, and they take 1cent rake of each 20cent pot at NL25 and higher.
      I loved FTP, but there is no way, anyone could say that FTP and Stars are "somewhat" equal, they are far from equal because of the rake.
      Incremental vs full pot rake makes a difference as well. You are saying it's different and we are saying it's close, not that it's the exact same. We weren't comparing all stakes either. We said for the stakes we've played on both sites.
      Even if you play NL10000 stars has less rake :)
      if you guys dont believe me, see their official page. and no, NL2 stars 3.5% is not a typo

      http://www.pokerstars.eu/poker/room/rake/
      http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/rake.php