Poker Rooms,does it really matter?

    • ReStart37
      ReStart37
      Bronze
      Joined: 10.04.2013 Posts: 574
      Good morning everyone!Yesterday,after my frustrating swingy session i was planning to move to another poker room.I play on Pokerstrars because i really like it,the design and stuff.Tried FTP but at that time i dont know why,i found it slow..
      I know many people play on other poker rooms like Everest,Carbon and IPoker because they consider there are softer tables there and so,more profitable playing there. But i start wondering,isnt that somehow deceiving?I mean,i believe there can be more fish and maniacs who just wants to play some cards and see how is their luck "today".But there are lots of people like them on Pokerstars too,the difference i guess can be that there are less regs on the other poker rooms.So,for example,you're playing on Everest and you're crushing NL10,25,50.Are you really crushing it like you should?Would you do the same on Stars or FTP?
      My question is,if we play all day long vs mostly crazy fish,sure we will profit,but will we make it on higher limits?Because since we never played much with good players we will get owned at higher limits which will lead us to a downswing and constant tilt?I know it is suppose to take the money from the fish,because its easier,but isnt that a bit of an obstacle to our learning and even mental game(because win nice pots with them is so nice,we dont lose much)?On higher limits they wont be there,i think

      So,to develop our game should we play where there are more fish,or should we go to thougher rooms?

      Sorry if this didnt make sense,but i woke up and i thought of this,had to write it before i forget it :D
  • 6 replies
    • spreeboy
      spreeboy
      Bronze
      Joined: 06.09.2010 Posts: 223
      Originally posted by ReStart37

      My question is,if we play all day long vs mostly crazy fish,sure we will profit,but will we make it on higher limits?Because since we never played much with good players we will get owned at higher limits which will lead us to a downswing and constant tilt?I know it is suppose to take the money from the fish,because its easier,but isnt that a bit of an obstacle to our learning and even mental game(because win nice pots with them is so nice,we dont lose much)?On higher limits they wont be there,i think

      So,to develop our game should we play where there are more fish,or should we go to thougher rooms?
      To win in poker, we need to have an edge vs players at our tables. We use statistics software, spend lots of time reviewing hands, participating in forums, etc. with the intention of improving our game and somehow increase our "edge"... so more edge better results right?

      That is why I believe that "table-selection" should be one of our top priority. Playing against weaker players or fishes should still be our main concern as regs because obviously we have higher edge. As long as we could still find fishes or weaker players at our limit, we should play with them.

      If our concern is to improve our game, we should try to move up to the next higher limit rather than playing vs the regs in our current limit. I am not saying that we avoid the regs at our limit, because it is impossible. We still have to compete with them along with the fishes at our tables. At micros and low stakes, we need to focus on hunting fishes as long as we can, and then shift to hunting weaker regs as we reach a certain limit where fishes are scarce. Forcing ourselves to lock horns against good regs at our limit will just unnecessarily increase our variance. Unnecessary because it is avoidable but we choose it somehow.

      To summarize my point, try to build your roll from fishes money and use it to move up to higher limits. If other sites are soft, then it is a good idea to transfer.

      However, I play in PS only not because I think its soft but because I trust them and love their software, thats all. I have no idea how soft other sites so I could not comment on that.

      Cheers
    • fuzzyfish
      fuzzyfish
      Bronze
      Joined: 12.01.2010 Posts: 862
      TBH the fact that so many regs want to play at Stars blows my mind. The competition is tough and you have to grind like a monkey to achieve a decent rakeback, while you get over 40% flat in many smaller and fishier rooms. I guess it's just a manifestation of some deep masochistic urges or something...
    • staktas
      staktas
      Bronze
      Joined: 28.03.2011 Posts: 1,346
      one word. Software.
    • sirilidion
      sirilidion
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.04.2008 Posts: 1,575
      Originally posted by fuzzyfish
      TBH the fact that so many regs want to play at Stars blows my mind. The competition is tough and you have to grind like a monkey to achieve a decent rakeback, while you get over 40% flat in many smaller and fishier rooms. I guess it's just a manifestation of some deep masochistic urges or something...
      Pokerstars may not give much rakeback, but there rake is much lower then most of the smaller rooms. Also it is much harder to get decent traffic in smaller rooms.
    • ramadas
      ramadas
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.09.2011 Posts: 462
      Originally posted by fuzzyfish
      TBH the fact that so many regs want to play at Stars blows my mind. The competition is tough and you have to grind like a monkey to achieve a decent rakeback, while you get over 40% flat in many smaller and fishier rooms. I guess it's just a manifestation of some deep masochistic urges or something...
      Can you just calculate EFFECTIVE rakeback and compare against stars and you will see.

      You pay more rake and get larger RB at other sites but effective rake back is less than stars.
    • SPeedFANat1c
      SPeedFANat1c
      Gold
      Joined: 04.01.2009 Posts: 5,074
      I somehow play at smaller site because with idea to support small site :D I mean not allow stars to have all monopoly :D
      BUt also the main reason is the strategy poits and rakeback.