I don't know of this is question is asked a lot, I certainlly do think so. But wich site is it profitable to play on when you don't have a rakeback deal?Pokerstars or FTP. And why? Are there any changes coming in 2011? I now play on FTP but don't got any bonus ore something, I have heard the Iron medals arent that interessting. And are the VIPstellar award bonusses staying on in 2011 on Stars?
Well if you don't have rakeback on FTP then Pokerstars is definitely bettter.
And why is Stars better? Because the traffic or the stellar award bonus?
ftp has a flat rakeback deal of 27%, you either have it or you don't. You don't so your rb there is 0%. (fwiw i didn't have rb on my ftp acount originally but signed up to rakebackpros anyway just incase, 3 months later i start getting rb :)Stars awards rakeback based on how much rake you pay, the more you pay/x amount of time, the higher your rb % is. regardless of how much you pay in rake your rb% will still be >0% up to around 40% (SNE) therefore stars is infinetly better for you......well not really since ftp has ironman/blackcard but w/eand if your seriously worried about traffic you should be playing on both sites.
Okay thanks yeah I mailed FTP but I am not beeing considered to get rakeback. I did get a Cashback bonus offer but I didn't get enough FTP to extend the bonus offer. Cause I was playing to learn and not a bonus grinder so I decided it to let it past.But the problem is I like FTP cause off the bad players wich are playing on FTP, but I don't know about Stars. I know Stars have a nice offer like the vip stellar awards but are the around in 2011 or are these bous offers going to dissapear? And thanks for youre advice all I think it is better for me to go to Pokerstars.
If you are playing low stakes it doesn't matter which site you are playing, because at $23 or below most players are worse than HUSNG members. Plus sometimes you get sat by total droolers. So since you claim that you are just starting out and have no rakeback on FTP you should just play on pokerstars right now.
I play the $5 regular speed.But i see the regular speed at stars is a 10min blind level, by ftp it is 6minTurbo is by stars 6 min and by ftp 3minutes So I should just play the regulars, speed right?
The longer the blind levels take to go up, the better reads you can get on your opponents and the more time you have to find some better hands rather than getting in an endgame shoving match and praying your hand holds.I started with regular speedson advice from Rypac and other instructors.It's easier to get a higher ROI with regular speeds, so you can do them on a slightly smaller bankroll.Later, you can try turbos and see what you think of them. You get more games in at the expense of ROI, but on average once you get better (and depending on your exact playing style), turbos may be the better option.But I would recommend starting with regular speeds and work on developing reads on opponents. Assuming you are more actively trying to adjust to your opponent, this will allow you to get a bigger edge.
I agree with most of the advice in this thread.One thing you mentioned were the rewards and bonuses being offered and if they would continue. In 2011, yes, I believe the rewards are essentially the same (PokerStars recently announced the changes, and they were more of a structural change but effectively meant the bonuses would stay the same).Even at the low levels, you should be getting effectively 15% or so rakeback on PokerStars in the lower VIP levels, which is better than FTP. You also have a slower structure to choose (regular speeds on Stars), and if you want a faster structure to start, Stars turbos are much easier to jump into than FTP (FTP turbos are very fast, the FTP regular speeds are similar to Stars turbos in structure).I would go with PokerStars if you do not have the ability to receive rakeback on FTP (if you signed up with an affiliate that did not offer rakeback to you then you would have no chance at rakeback on FTP).If you do end up signing up on Stars, we also offer a free subscription for very little rake paid (100 fpps, which is around $20 in rake I believe), so you can gain the advantage of a free premium membership to get you started.Let me know if you have any other questions.
I do already have a account on Stars so I don't think the offer you gave goesup for me Rypac? The advice you all gave is great and I made up my mind and are going to play on Pokerstars from now on. Thank you all.
A little off the subject, but I was interested in finding out about the "structural changes" to PokerStars VIP rewards...Basically everything remains exactly the same, except that milestone rewards are slightly simplified. The end result is that players receive exactly the same bonuses.Smaller stakes cash games (10NL and down) get extra VPIPs.
but if you just start and you have got a deal on FTP (27%). is FTP better in that case a better choice? and when is it a good desicion to switch to stars? or doesn't it really matter if you play higher (50dollar+) ?
with rakeraces, husng leaderboards, blackcard, 27% and ironman it wouldn't surprise me if you could get 50%+rakeback on fulltilt. If your playing supernova pace than stars would be better, if your playing supernova elite pace i doubt it makes that much differenceso im gona say:-Low stakes - fulltiltmidstakes grinder - starshighstakes grinder - doesnt really matter
wat is low stakes? till $50?
I think up to $34.50 would be low stakes, 50s are mid stakes.
Low stakes - fulltiltmidstakes grinder - starshighstakes grinder - doesnt really matterreally good advice, but i guess highstakes is gonna be stars, cause of SNE rakeback (but maybe iron+27%+black card+rakeraces is gonna be higher). also - the traffic on stars is around x2 times higherdont know, now i'm playing on stars and soon will move my BR to fulltilt just cause of levels in HUSNG.i mean REG speeds at pokerstars are really slow, average games ~17.8 minutes 5.25 and ~16 minutes 10.5 (150 games there 6.25 and 180 games 10.5). also - stars level 25/50 is badass ;) you just need to feel it, it breaks the ice ;) so stars turbos are not so slow, but as i said - 25/50 ;( so FTP structure are more slighter than stars
When you play the Turbo speed on Stars it is the same as the regular speed on FTP, so maybe you think about it to move to FTP
the structure on FTP is is much more smooth, i dont like turbos on stars(cause of 25/50), but i play them. and i dont like $/h (that's what you really want to be high) on reg speeds. and ofc - stars rakeback on silver star is about 15% with stellar. so ill gona move on to FTP as soon as possible ;)
Hi there, I am new to the forum and I found this interesting. Why do you prefer STARS over FTP at mid stakes ( i guess 33 $+ and not 55$) ? Is this only true if we don't have RB deal ?I was thinking on moving to Stars ( as said in upper posts) but then I've done some calculation..... IF I would starst to play little more siriously: I would play 2 tbls at 33$ (turbos) for 6days a weak - that would be 864 per month wich would generate about 1.3k rake thats x 0,27 = 350$ RB. + Iron man medals.On the other hand that would be (PlatinumStar) 7663 VPPs and 13533 FPPs on Stars per month. I would get stellar awards some 10$ or so and thats all for the month. I would have to collect 50k FPPs to convert them into 650$. With that tempo of playing I would have to play 3months+ to get those 50k FPPs and on the other hand i would get 1050$ RB on Full Tilt.I am pretty sure that I missed sth or calculate sth wrong so PLEASE help me out. p.s.: sorry for my english it's not my first language
Platinum Star multiplies your VPPs better than 2x don't they?Also, the old figures were 93,000 vpps = $1500 I believe. Yes, the payout is at the end of the tunnel, so to speak (since you have to be platinum or supernova to get the best rewards).But yes, most of the others and I were referring to the poster not having rakeback on Full Tilt. If they won't give him rakeback, there's really no reason to play there. Many other places have softer games AND rakeback, Full Tilt offers games that are populated and that's really about it (aside from rakeback). Stars has populated games too and as I said, there are softer places than Stars and FTP out there.
I am having a account on a Carbon poker now there I have a rakeback deal from here so that is something better. But I also still play on Stars cause I like the structure and the software. But carbon Poker isn't that bad at all but the traffic is not so much as it is oon Stars but the players who are playing there on the stakes where I play are idiots even worse than me so I like.
I currently switched to Red Star because they currently have rakeback offers. Merge sites no longer have one.
Start your day with a
That doesn't work if you are raking $500+ per month though, as you can get 40-47% on Merge with that kind of rake (and some rake race type bonuses to get you into 50% range).Also, Red Star is on Cake, which is lower traffic and from what I read on 2p2 has been a little less reliable in the cashout and security department.Now, that doesn't mean that Red Star isn't your best choice, it really could be, but the main thing here is that the rake back % is not the only important variable in a decision.
And what about now, in 2013? I mean small stakes - 3,5 - 7 $.
FT is still a better option than PS? How much rakeback I can earn at FT now?
I think you get more rakeback at FT, but stars is still a better option because games run constantly at any time, and the rake itself is lower
I thought FTP value had gone down and Stars is still similar.
Of course, it depends on what stakes you play (for someone that is supernova or supernova elite, it seems Stars would by far have higher rewards), I'm not sure what volume that changes (or if it changes, maybe PS is better for all stakes now).
And of course, great point about the cost of rake. You don't want to look at the most rewards, but the cost of the rake after rewards. I'd rather have 10% rakeback on a $1 fee game at the $100 buyin level than 75% rakeback on a $5 fee game at the $100 buyin level. It sounds like an extreme example, but it's very close to some real ones (60% on iPoker gives you 2% rake, whereas PS effective rake is something like 1.5% for many hyper levels).