PartyPoker the softest, PokerStars the toughest?

  • 11 replies
    • Zheelvern
      Zheelvern
      Bronze
      Joined: 29.10.2007 Posts: 704
      iPoker is the softest.
    • taavi1337
      taavi1337
      Bronze
      Joined: 29.05.2009 Posts: 2,920
      You shouldn't trust that article, it's such an ode for PartyPoker.
    • wasy8
      wasy8
      Black
      Joined: 29.01.2009 Posts: 1,507
      Stars being the toughest sounds about right, FTP being second toughest.

      not 100% sure about party but i'm going to be clearing a FDB there anyway
    • MichaelGotAA
      MichaelGotAA
      Bronze
      Joined: 23.03.2010 Posts: 90
      I play micro stakes on Full Tilt, Ipoker & Party Poker & I find Party Poker the easiest to win on, Ipoker 2nd & Full Tilt the toughest of the 3. Thats how it is for me.
    • KidPokersKid
      KidPokersKid
      Global
      Joined: 27.02.2009 Posts: 653
      Relating the two graphs is important but things that will skew results are:
      1) Party allows name changes most other sites do not
      2) Stars max tables are 24, party is 14 & ft is 16
      3) Bodog has a 4 table max
      These things I think are accurate and are small things that will skew results slightly.
    • SickAtHome
      SickAtHome
      Bronze
      Joined: 19.05.2010 Posts: 465
      Maybe its just me, but Party doesn't offer good rake or rakeback.
      Ex. SNG Party = $2.40 + 0.60
      SNG PokerStars = $3.00 + 0.40

      Pretty big difference?

      And party doesn't make it nice for regs to play there, less multitabling, etc.
      Plus, after this article, there's going to be a few more regs on Party.
    • gavinonymous
      gavinonymous
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.12.2008 Posts: 1,146
      I interpret it differently.

      Stars has more fish, therefore the sharks are bigger winners and play more tables to catch them.

      The difference between skill level of sharks and the rest of the huge field of players on stars is bigger than that of party poker. at party poker, sharks and fish are closer in skill..

      Players winning on party poker don't do so as easily as they could on stars.

      I think this is due to the huge popularity of stars over part0 bringing in many more casual players, and the lower rake at stars (especially in sng's).

      If anything I'd say stars is softer if you use good table selection.
    • fuzzyfish
      fuzzyfish
      Bronze
      Joined: 12.01.2010 Posts: 862
      I left Partypoker after they introduced two different buy-in tables at microstakes. Now you can either play against full stacked tight players or bunch of short-stacked donks. I dont find either of those acceptable so I left for the Stars (sounds poetical, doesnt it).

      Stars has shitloads of regs of whom some are good and some arent, but they are all tight and boring to play against. Then again due to a large player pool you can find a lot of fish too, although that might mean that you have to jump tables often when the fish are depleted by regs.

      About VIP-systems - stars vip-system is excellent, Partys vip system is... well its next to nothing.

      P.S. Partypoker doesnt have american players ;)
    • Hahaownedlolz
      Hahaownedlolz
      Bronze
      Joined: 24.04.2009 Posts: 1,755
      Originally posted by gavinonymous
      I interpret it differently.

      Stars has more fish, therefore the sharks are bigger winners and play more tables to catch them.

      The difference between skill level of sharks and the rest of the huge field of players on stars is bigger than that of party poker. at party poker, sharks and fish are closer in skill..

      Players winning on party poker don't do so as easily as they could on stars.

      I think this is due to the huge popularity of stars over part0 bringing in many more casual players, and the lower rake at stars (especially in sng's).

      If anything I'd say stars is softer if you use good table selection.
      hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Keep telling that to yourself, maybe you'll believe the crap you just said one day.
    • Hopey
      Hopey
      Bronze
      Joined: 05.03.2010 Posts: 193
      That article doesn't specify how much the winning players are winning either. Stars could potentially have a load of people winning like 1bb/100hands in the long term- who aren't very good players, but can exploit fish in the long run. It's also possible that the losing players are spewing it everywhere. They see an ad on the TV, log on to FT or stars and just lose. I think its very hard to say blank is the softest and blank is the toughest. I guess it depends on style etc.
    • Volrath89
      Volrath89
      Bronze
      Joined: 23.07.2008 Posts: 2,170
      Originally posted by Hahaownedlolz
      Originally posted by gavinonymous
      I interpret it differently.

      Stars has more fish, therefore the sharks are bigger winners and play more tables to catch them.

      The difference between skill level of sharks and the rest of the huge field of players on stars is bigger than that of party poker. at party poker, sharks and fish are closer in skill..

      Players winning on party poker don't do so as easily as they could on stars.

      I think this is due to the huge popularity of stars over part0 bringing in many more casual players, and the lower rake at stars (especially in sng's).

      If anything I'd say stars is softer if you use good table selection.
      hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Keep telling that to yourself, maybe you'll believe the crap you just said one day.

      I actually agree in most part with what gavinonymous said. I haven't played on party so idk about the gap beetween fish and reg, but what he said about stars is true.