There is a stellar reward bonus in pokerstars which is not as much as rakeback i believe but gives you some money anyways. If you feel comfortable in tilt its ok. I am playing in stars just because it is just more trustforthy and its working very well in all parts.Stellar reward bonus means that you get a bonus up to 1k for every points you earn. Last few bonuses are for higher levels. It means that you have to play higher games. First 3 10 dollar bonuses comes pretty fast even with lowest levels.
Full tilt will be better (with rakeback) if you are playing micros and aren't playing a ton if you are solely comparing FT to PS for "rakeback earnings", as PS stellar rewards will take a decent amount of volume to clear. Honestly though, for husng grinders, rakeback doesn't account for a whole lot, but recieving it is better than not.You can't go wrong either way, I'd recommend just playing at whichever site has the husng structure that you like the most.
Personally I prefer the software from Stars above Full Tilt, that's the reason I play mainly on Stars.At the micro stakes I don't think there is any difference between the two and if you are making your choice based on whether you have rake back or not I would definately go for Full Tilt. If you play a lot rake back really makes a difference.As long as you are not SN on Stars I think you are better off choosing FT for that particular reason.
p-jizzle how can u say that RB doesn't account for a whole lot?? Take a guy that has 100k rake and a 50% rb deal.. 50k rb.. no sure, it doesn't matter =)
I should have been a bit more clear, i was comparing FT vs PS not rakeback vs no rakeback. For mico stakes players that aren't putting in a ton a volume playing husngs, then it's better to play at FT because you won't be making SuperNova at PS. For the OP, in terms of bankroll building it will be better to play at FT.
Stars has the regular speeds which are much slower (10 min blind levels, 75bb starting stacks) and allow for beginners to get an edge more quickly it seems (and a larger edge at that, which is mentally important to many that won't handle 1-4% ROI variance well).Rakeback on FTP is important, I wouldn't recommend anybody choosing FTP over Stars without rakeback at the low stakes (high stakes changes somewhat).But even with rakeback, a $5 player that plays 400 games a month pays $100 in rake, so he gets $27 back on FTP and maybe $12 or something back on Stars, depending on the bronze or silver star VIP levels. That's 3 buyins, certainly important, but if he tilts off a few less buyins playing a slower, higher edge structure, he'll certainly profit better on Stars overall (with a high edge and not tilting off buyins).
considering you have rakeback there tilt seems like the better option
There is a stellar reward bonus in pokerstars which is not as much as rakeback i believe but gives you some money anyways. If you feel comfortable in tilt its ok. I am playing in stars just because it is just more trustforthy and its working very well in all parts.Stellar reward bonus means that you get a bonus up to 1k for every points you earn. Last few bonuses are for higher levels. It means that you have to play higher games. First 3 10 dollar bonuses comes pretty fast even with lowest levels.
@Lucky_HussleWhat do you mean by "PokerStars is more trustworthy and working very well in all parts"?
Stars seems to handle shaky internet connections better than Full Tilt, maybe that's what he meant.
Full tilt will be better (with rakeback) if you are playing micros and aren't playing a ton if you are solely comparing FT to PS for "rakeback earnings", as PS stellar rewards will take a decent amount of volume to clear. Honestly though, for husng grinders, rakeback doesn't account for a whole lot, but recieving it is better than not.You can't go wrong either way, I'd recommend just playing at whichever site has the husng structure that you like the most.
Personally I prefer the software from Stars above Full Tilt, that's the reason I play mainly on Stars.At the micro stakes I don't think there is any difference between the two and if you are making your choice based on whether you have rake back or not I would definately go for Full Tilt. If you play a lot rake back really makes a difference.As long as you are not SN on Stars I think you are better off choosing FT for that particular reason.
p-jizzle how can u say that RB doesn't account for a whole lot?? Take a guy that has 100k rake and a 50% rb deal.. 50k rb.. no sure, it doesn't matter =)
I should have been a bit more clear, i was comparing FT vs PS not rakeback vs no rakeback. For mico stakes players that aren't putting in a ton a volume playing husngs, then it's better to play at FT because you won't be making SuperNova at PS. For the OP, in terms of bankroll building it will be better to play at FT.
Stars has the regular speeds which are much slower (10 min blind levels, 75bb starting stacks) and allow for beginners to get an edge more quickly it seems (and a larger edge at that, which is mentally important to many that won't handle 1-4% ROI variance well).Rakeback on FTP is important, I wouldn't recommend anybody choosing FTP over Stars without rakeback at the low stakes (high stakes changes somewhat).But even with rakeback, a $5 player that plays 400 games a month pays $100 in rake, so he gets $27 back on FTP and maybe $12 or something back on Stars, depending on the bronze or silver star VIP levels. That's 3 buyins, certainly important, but if he tilts off a few less buyins playing a slower, higher edge structure, he'll certainly profit better on Stars overall (with a high edge and not tilting off buyins).