Pokerstars

roryc

Just opened my account there with a donation of $50 from a friend (credit card hasnt come through yet!). Site seems pretty good overall, no stupid hands every 2mins like PP or anything. Seems to be pretty good, although I think paddy Power has a few better qualities. I think the graphics on PP are a lot better, and I think Stars should show what hand you folded in bottom corner like PP

One of the main differences I see between the sites is how incredibly slow Pokerstars is. Anyone else notice this? It seems as if you could multi table 5 or 6 tables without any hassle. And they give you a full minute to decide?!?

One thing I did enjoy is the HUGE tourneys. I played in a tourney with 1,800 people last night! Madness. Top 180 got paid, I came 212.... Was playing for about 3 hours...

Washout

what was the buy in and payouts?

bohsman

There is no comparison between PPP and Stars, PPP are inferior in every way, I wouldnt play there except for the extremely soft cash games

Imposter

I think it's a case of rory being used to the PPP software. Give PS a while and you'll see the software is much better. The players are much better too though, which poses it's own problems.

califano

Forget about it A Lincoln is better than a Cadillac. its got more speed, more power........ more speed

"you said that already"

ionapaul

Tell us what's your player name on Stars, rory! Can't believe you think the graphics are better on PPP, I disagree with you there.

Culchie

rounders123 wrote:

Forget about it A Lincoln is better than a Cadillac. its got more speed, more power........ more speed

"you said that already"

Rounders, you feeling OK?

Nice to meet you last night in Drogheda, even though I was in the process of a re-buy :rolleyes: lol

Finished 5th for €400.

dingle

Started playing poker (online) a few months ago on PPP. After reading this thread I opened an account on PokerStars and here's a newbie's perspective on the differences I found. I agree with Roryc re. the graphics. I find PPP much better and easier to follow the game. The betting buttons/options etc on Pokerstars are a bit better. After playing a few games last night I found the standard of players on Pokerstars to be much higher (in other words I got my ass kicked) The variety of tournements on PokerStars is way better than PPP. I loved the SnG 2/3 table tourneys (these are my favourite type of game, but very rare and hard to get a seat on PPP)

Just a few observations. I'll probarly move to Pokerstars for the moment, though if I keep getting beat up it might prove to be too expensive

NickyOD

Stars is the best. I love that site. They are in a league of their own compared to other sites.

califano

Culchie wrote:

Rounders, you feeling OK?

Nice to meet you last night in Drogheda, even though I was in the process of a re-buy :rolleyes: lol

Finished 5th for €400.

Thats great going altogether Culchie, well done thats some run youre putting together.

pokertroll

NickyOD wrote:

Stars is the best. I love that site. They are in a league of their own compared to other sites.

I prefer the UI on Tribeca but stars is better in terms of features.

califano

dingle wrote:

I find PPP much better and easier to follow the game.

i agree with this but i havent played on ps enough to take in its full merits. on ps players who dont put their own avatar in which are many are left with the same stupid blank circle. the strobing light on the player whos turn it is isnt clear enough. it doesnt display your folded cards like ppp does or tell you your current best hand like ppp does. i know these last two arent essential but id rather have them than not. the chat isnt clear, the dealer chat is almost the same as players chat so you can miss comments if you arent intently looking.

Waylander

I think that most people tend to like the site they started playing on the most, which for me was Ladbrokes. But I have played allot on several different sites now and am fairly indifferent in the appearance regard as a result.

NickyOD

pokertroll wrote:

I prefer the UI on Tribeca but stars is better in terms of features.

The tribecca interface drives me nuts. Doesn't even have a slider. Also I hate the way you have to type in 400 to raise to 600 at 100/200 instead of just typing the amount you want to raise to i.e. 600 which is the way it is on all the other networks. I guess its all depends what you're used to but having played on basically every network I've always felt most comfortable on Stars. Full Tilt comes a close second.

Hitman Actual

Best of luck on Pokerstars, Rory.

I'm curious to know why people are so interested in knowing what hand they folded. Why does it matter? Am I missing something useful here?

Iago

[off-topic hijacking]

NickyOD wrote:

I guess its all depends what you're used to but having played on basically every network I've always felt most comfortable on Stars. Full Tilt comes a close second.

Nicky would you recommend playing at full Tilt? what's the standard like there?

Anyone else played there and have any thoughts? I'm going to set up a rakeback deal and start playing on a wider range of sites and this is first on my list at the moment. A sign-up bonus that includes tournament play is exactly what I need.


Just a question on rakeback, obviously it's always beneficial but to see any real results/difference to bankroll you'ld have to be playing in the region of 15-20K hands per month, true/false? also do reg fees for tournaments count in the rakeback deal?

Cheers...

[/off-topic hijacking]

Imposter

Iago wrote:

Just a question on rakeback, obviously it's always beneficial but to see any real results/difference to bankroll you'ld have to be playing in the region of 15-20K hands per month, true/false? also do reg fees for tournaments count in the rakeback deal?

It depends on the game. On Empire depending on how loose and aggresive you are you could get around 100$ back per 4k hands (more if you're a maniac). If you paly Omaha then it's likely to be more at similar stakes (as the pots are usually bigger at lowish stakes). I don't think rakeback is given for tournaments on Empire.

roryc

bohsman wrote:

There is no comparison between PPP and Stars, PPP are inferior in every way, I wouldnt play there except for the extremely soft cash games

think I'll have to agree there. Don't think i'll be going back to Paddy Power after tasting this.......

Ste05

Waylander wrote:

I think that most people tend to like the site they started playing on the most, which for me was Ladbrokes. But I have played allot on several different sites now and am fairly indifferent in the appearance regard as a result.

I agree with this, when I started playing it was on Ladbrokes too, then when I moved over to PPP I think I didn't like it as much, but after changing sites now it doesn't really bother me.

I'm currently on Stars too and I would put it ahead of PPP, Ladbrokes, Party, by a long way, but I must say UB comes a close second for me. There are parts of that interface that I really miss, i.e. the notes, pot size bet button,....

On the Full Tilt topic, I'd be interested to here any comments on them too, Nicky how would you compare it to UB??

Juan Pablo

Moved onto Full Tilt around a month ago, have very little free time at the mo so am only getting an hour here and there each week to play but I have to say I really like FT. In comparison to UB i'd say I'd prefer UBs interface, but only just. Other than that I feel FT is superior to navigate around and has more options (heads up Omaha!) than anyother site I have played on bar Stars. Mostly americans on FT (unlike PPP/UB with their Euro loons on the Omaha tables!) whom I find a little easier to play against as well. Along with its 100% deposit bonus (which does take time to clear) I'd highly reccomend FT. I'd be interested to hear Nickys comments on FT as he's put in a lot more time on the site than I have, but overall my first impressions of it are good. Do turn off the avatars though!

okidoki987

Have to agree with all the comments about Pokerstars.
When I started off 2 years ago, I played Paradise and Pokerstars.
Paradise was sold about 8 months ago for an outragous amount of money and has gone to the dogs since. Got a few whippings so decided to try Party Poker instead. After too many "river killings" decided to try PP (having seen them talked about here) but not a fan of the graphics so went back to Pokerstars. It's not the easiest site to win money on as they seem to have some of the toughest players on it (or maybe it's just me ).

ionapaul

The sub-$50 STT players on Stars arn't great, to be honest, haven't played above this level. I'm mediocre at very best, yet I can make a small monthly profit playing the $10-$35 STTs there. I hear that the level of play on Full Tilt is the highest around.

NickyOD

Juan Pablo wrote:

I'd be interested to hear Nickys comments on FT as he's put in a lot more time on the site than I have,

Yeah I started playing there the month the site start and at first I really hated it. They had a lot of teething problems and the interface was buggy, no HH back then and very few features. It once took 2 weeks for me to cashout to Neteller!! Since then things have improved and It's definitely grown on me. The only serious problem I have with Full Tilt is their support. It is shockingly bad. If I have a problem I usually end up emailing one of the pros and I find get a quicker response.