Softest Site

bman

I was just wondering which is the softest site for lower level cash games (about the .5/1 level)? Have Party's regular tables got harder since the Monster tables have been brought in?

Lafortezza

The average pot size has increased a bit since the Monster promo came in. But someone calculated that it's costing winning players about $8 per 100 hands, which is a reasonable chuck of anyone's winrate.
I'd say the biggest fishponds are those sites that don't allow Pokertracker, they will mostly be smaller sites like Bodog, and therefore might be less user friendly in terms of cashouts/cust service/software compared to Stars or Party.

Culchie

lafortezza wrote:

I'd say the biggest fishponds are those sites that don't allow Pokertracker, they will mostly be smaller sites like Bodog, .

Just a small point of correction.

It's up to Pokertracker to make themselves compatible to various/ad hoc poker sites (based obviously on supply/demand rule from their point of view) ....not the other way round.

staringelf

lafortezza wrote:

The average pot size has increased a bit since the Monster promo came in. But someone calculated that it's costing winning players about $8 per 100 hands, which is a reasonable chuck of anyone's winrate.
I'd say the biggest fishponds are those sites that don't allow Pokertracker, they will mostly be smaller sites like Bodog, and therefore might be less user friendly in terms of cashouts/cust service/software compared to Stars or Party.

nothing could be worse than party's software or cust service. my advice is to go to stars. lots of players, no crap monster promo taking all the fish and eating into your profit with the huge rake, excellent software, excellent cust service, lots of choice of games. party's games are no softer than stars - they USED to be but any difference now is neglible - all the big sites are huge fishponds, its just table selection.

bman

When you say table selection what exactly should you be looking out for? All mid sized stacks and to make sure your acting after the big stacks, high avg. pot and high num of hands per hour, or is there more to it?

El Stuntman

bman wrote:

When you say table selection what exactly should you be looking out for? All mid sized stacks and to make sure your acting after the big stacks, high avg. pot and high num of hands per hour, or is there more to it?

just look for any table that I'm on

mewso

Culchie wrote:

Just a small point of correction.

It's up to Pokertracker to make themselves compatible to various/ad hoc poker sites (based obviously on supply/demand rule from their point of view) ....not the other way round.

Some sites make it impossible for pokertracker to work with them like provding hand histories in a custom viewer and no way to get them into a text file etc. so sites are often the cause of the problem. I think hand histories should be a standardised format but that'll never happen.

Lafortezza

Culchie wrote:

Just a small point of correction.

It's up to Pokertracker to make themselves compatible to various/ad hoc poker sites (based obviously on supply/demand rule from their point of view) ....not the other way round.

Hi Culchie, from reading the PT forums I think Bodog hand histories are very difficult to convert to PT-friendly form. Pat on the PT forums said that no matter how many requests he had made to Bodog to slightly change their HH format they said 'not at this time'.