Full Tilt vs. Stars etc

    • feedfest
      feedfest
      Bronze
      Joined: 13.06.2009 Posts: 119
      Curious how you find the play on FTP compared to PStars and Party?

      Personally, I am only break even on FTP + rake.

      Stars seems much easier to win. More people making stupid bets. What is the consensus? Are players better on one site or the other? The same?

      Any thoughts welcome.
  • 14 replies
    • feedfest
      feedfest
      Bronze
      Joined: 13.06.2009 Posts: 119
      note, I actually love everything about FTP except for it being the one site I seem unable to really profit on. This is NOT in anyway a bash FTP thread or suggesting that there are any problems with it.

      Just wondering about player quality (ie is everyone else there really that much better than me? lol)
    • MigArt
      MigArt
      Bronze
      Joined: 05.06.2009 Posts: 130
      This would also be of interest to me, how the play in stars is compared to FT. I've always heard that it's way softer in FT, true?
    • feedfest
      feedfest
      Bronze
      Joined: 13.06.2009 Posts: 119
      Personally, I find the play at tilt to be at a higher level than on stars. But then, I think I may be on partial tilt at Full Tilt so hopefully we can get some objective opinions
    • CoreySteel
      CoreySteel
      Bronze
      Joined: 25.10.2006 Posts: 3,366
      Yep, it's "common knowledge" that average player at FTP is better than average player at PokerStars.
    • feedfest
      feedfest
      Bronze
      Joined: 13.06.2009 Posts: 119
      Originally posted by CoreySteel
      Yep, it's "common knowledge" that average player at FTP is better than average player at PokerStars.
      sarcasm?
    • KidPokersKid
      KidPokersKid
      Global
      Joined: 27.02.2009 Posts: 653
      I always thought that stars was weaker because a short time ago only stars offered tables at .01/.02 so I am sure that would bring worse players to stars but now I think FT offers them aswell so ... BTW i never played at stars though only FT and I have to say all the micro/low limits up to NL50 are beatable for sure.
    • roswellx
      roswellx
      Bronze
      Joined: 05.12.2008 Posts: 599
      Well If you are playing NL10 you might be victim of rake... Since they get 0.01$ for 0.15$ pot unlike the industry standards where 0.01$ is taken for 0.20$. I don't think the players are better on FTP than stars or vice versa.

      Sources:

      http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/rake.php

      http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/room/rake/
    • JuiceQuadre
      JuiceQuadre
      Bronze
      Joined: 05.10.2008 Posts: 2,688
      Originally posted by roswellx
      Well If you are playing NL10 you might be victim of rake... Since they get 0.01$ for 0.15$ pot unlike the industry standards where 0.01$ is taken for 0.20$. I don't think the players are better on FTP than stars or vice versa.

      Sources:

      http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/rake.php

      http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/room/rake/
      Do i get that chart right?
      Is rake at Stars at NL100+ only 1%?

      Also the rake is capped to 5$ at high stakes as well?


      edit
      If i got it right, at fulltilt rake is capped at 3$ but is 5%.. At Stars its capped at 5$ but is 1%..

      Would be interesting to do some calculations at what limits its more profitable for average player to play at stars and at what limits to play at FT.
    • CoreySteel
      CoreySteel
      Bronze
      Joined: 25.10.2006 Posts: 3,366
      Originally posted by feedfest
      Originally posted by CoreySteel
      Yep, it's "common knowledge" that average player at FTP is better than average player at PokerStars.
      sarcasm?
      lol no.
      I agreed with you :)
    • roswellx
      roswellx
      Bronze
      Joined: 05.12.2008 Posts: 599
      Due to the fact that I can't get rakeback at FTP, I really don't want to play there as rake and stuff kills your BR. What's the point when they get more rake than others and then give rakeback :s_evil:

      Pokerstars by all means is the best poker site to play imo. Direct rakeback would be great but anyway I'm ok with the current conditions.
    • Ejeckt
      Ejeckt
      Bronze
      Joined: 06.12.2008 Posts: 517
      Rakeback sites attract alot of grinders/multitablers and good players. Lots of casual players don't even know about rakeback.

      So yeah, that's one reason why there'll be tougher competition on FTilt, at least on the lowerstakes. The stars VIP program is prolly better than Tilt's rakeback for high-volume med/high stakes players. So those areas would prolly be more or less even on Stars/Tilt.

      Bot for micro/low stakes, I'd say that stars is way softer. Just because VIP programmes have become more important than actually winning at tables, for so many players :P
    • excelgeo
      excelgeo
      Silver
      Joined: 17.10.2008 Posts: 1,107
      when and if i reach midstakes i will rethink it

      but this variance is killing me atm
    • zamoda
      zamoda
      Bronze
      Joined: 16.03.2009 Posts: 509
      I believe rake at mid stakes are more or less equal at ps/ftp.

      Rakeback is better if you are not high volume player, and can't reach high VIP status at pokerstars but have BR to play at higher levels


      If you play SnGs look at the different blind level structures. See for yourself which you like more.


      Regular tournaments are not very popular at FTP and do not gather large fields if they do not have some sort of price pool guarantee(IMHO).


      Play at FTP is more fast paced (atleast it seems to me like that - more hands during the same time period). i dont know if it is the players or that FTP software responds better...
    • nathanrenard
      nathanrenard
      Bronze
      Joined: 09.02.2009 Posts: 816
      Depends on the level you are playing. Only. And yes, donks are everywhere.