Poker Stars= Bad For Players

[ILikeApples]

How does Poker Stars get away with it?
1. They do not offer signup bonuses
2. They do not allow rakebacks
3. They only have nine seats per table (for more pots per hour = more rake)

I don't understand how Poker Stars attract so many players. Maybe it's the fact that the last 2 WSOP champs came from Poker Stars. But if I was a new player, I don't want to play at any place that produces world class players. I want to play against fish. Any comments?

[MarkL444]

most people dont put as much thought into this as you do.

[AncientPC]

They offer occasional reloads.

Probably the rags to riches story of Moneymaker and Raymer.

New players don't know anything about rakeback, signup bonuses, etc.

They have good tournaments and options for private tournaments as well.

[ThaSaltCracka]

easily the best tournament site.

[Thythe]

1&3 are definite negatives, but rakeback is not allowed on any site. They just make it harder for people to get around the rules there. Really, rakeback is ridiculous. If everyone got rakeback, it's just the equivalent of lowering the rake by 25%.

[captZEEbo1]

[ QUOTE ]
They offer occasional reloads.

Probably the rags to riches story of Moneymaker and Raymer.

New players don't know anything about rakeback, signup bonuses, etc.

They have good tournaments and options for private tournaments as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't call Raymer "rags to riches" lol. I think he's a successful lawyer or something.

[slickpoppa]

i predict that one day party's crappy customer service and general shadiness will end up biting them in the ass and stars will overtake them

[MicroBob]

Obviously there are many who aren't familiar with Raymer's tourney abilities....so most who don't know much would consider him rags-to-riches regardless and that's all the matters.

Additionally, Moneymaker was an accountant too right?? I don't know what either of their incomes were though.

The fact is that Moneymaker turned $40 into $2.5-mil.
Raymer's satellite was $130 or so and he turned it into $5-mil.
I feel safe in calling that rags-to-riches.
Neither were well known BIG NAME tourney players and both seem to prove that ANYONE who can win a satellite on pokerstars has a chance to turn it into millions.



Pokerstars has some of the best software imo.
Their support-staff is the very best.
They offer frequent re-loads and lots of satellites to various tourneys, and so on.

When newbies sign-up at a sight they just go to whatever one they happen to hear about first and don't give a damn or know about rake-back or initial-depo offers.

I was one of those newbies a couple years ago...I signed-up at Stars because it was the first site that came up in my google search for internet-poker.
but that was at a time when stars had 2k players during peak-hours I think (or fewer), I didn't know what a tournament was (seriously) and I didn't know whether or not a flush beat a full-house.

The general poker-playing populace is more educated about the game now just because of all the TV coverage...but that doesn't mean they know diddly-squat about rake-back.

I was here for several months before I figured out that rake-back is for real and that it can be significant.

All of the spam for 'get 20% of your rake-back' I just assumed was total lies.

[skoal2k4]

I can't speak as far as the cash games go... but the tournaments and sng's are great there. Pokerstars also has great software and customer service is very prompt in answering questions and solving problems.

[TylerD]

1. True.
2. They do have a lower rake than most sites.
3. Fixed limit games are 10 handed.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
2. They do not allow rakebacks

[/ QUOTE ]

To put things in perspective for you, even after I get my rakeback from Empire, I am still paying less in rake to play at PokerStars.

Scott

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
i predict that one day party's crappy customer service and general shadiness will end up biting them in the ass and stars will overtake them

[/ QUOTE ]

I've gotten a personal reply from Lee Jones faster than an automated response from Party. Service like that will go a long way, and I sure as hell hope it takes them past Party so that I can earn as much at PokerStars one day.

Scott

[arod4276]

thythe,,,,to say that no sites allow rakeback is an absurd statement. arod4276

[MikeyObviously]

You just started playing a couple of years ago and have almost 7000 posts? wow!

[whiskeytown]

the biggest thing about them (besides the custom avatars which I'm not sure where else you can get right now) is they were among the first sites to offer good MTT's -

walk with me, if you will, to 1999 - when Paradise Poker was king and tourneys were, well, one table SNG's - other sites are ok - planet got hacked - Highlands went down...

and then these guys come up - your own icon - you get to keep notes on players in the game, and MULTI TABLE TOURNEYS -

first online Satellites I recall? - Pokerstars - they were a major innovator in the way poker rooms were set up - (now almost everyone has what they have - but they were one of the first) -

and that can make ya feel good about sticking around with them -

RB

[crockett]

You bring up excellent points but I feel they are on the edge of slipping behind when earlier they were leading the way.

Hand histories are pretty much a joke now. I just don't understand why they don't make the switch to instant HH's like other sites.

They really need to consider upping there bonus frequency as well as how easy it is to clear (just a little bit on this part).

I believe if they developed a one year "new player" marketing campaign, added hard drive HH's, matched Party in bonuses and push there name very hard in what will be the largest WSOP ever they could definately put a big dent in Party. If they can move some of the fish from Party it will just start a domino effect because all the regulars will follow the school.

A lit bit off topic...has any else noticed connection problems while playing tournaments? I can ring play four tables no problem. But if I'm playing a tournament, I'm getting afraid to even check the lobby because I run the risk of being disconnected.

[FishBurger]

I think new players just go to which ever site they have heard about. When I signed up at Party two years ago, I did it because one of my friend's told me they played there. I was pretty much clueless about signup bonuses and rakeback.

As far as the software goes, I guess I'm alone in my view, but I actually hate Stars' software. I hate that stupid butt-puckering sound that is made when someone checks and I hate having to look at all the ugly mugs the other douche bags I'm playing against put in their circles.

I also hate the way the word "check" or "call" or whatever hangs around in the circle after a person has acted. It makes it tough to know who the action is actually on. Plus, in single-table SnGs, there is no empty chair when someone gets knocked out -- you actually have to count the number of players still in the tourney.

I much prefer Party's software. The bet amounts are right there by the stack. Each time a player bets the amount is enumerated right next to the player's stack of chips. There is a flashing arrow that is only on the player when he is acting. The player's icons are standard and not unpleasant to look at.

Also, at Party, I know I always have 30 seconds to act. It seems like at Stars I only get 10 seconds to act if I don't have my hand on my mouse while I'm thinking. And I have to hit that damn time button if I want extra time.

Stars software irritates me in many ways, but I do like the fact that the turbo SnG fees are 30% less than Party's or Stars' regular SnGs.

[mackthefork]

I use Party for Limit ring games (v soft), Stars for MTTs(good structure) and the Turbo SNGs, Ladbrokes for NL ring (players as soft a Party with 100 bb stacks). I think a lot of people have similar opinions, everything about Stars is better than Party except for the softness of the players (v important), thats why people go there.

Regards Mack

[mosch]

[ QUOTE ]
But if I was a new player, I don't want to play at any place that produces world class players. I want to play against fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly you lack ambition.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
Hand histories are pretty much a joke now. I just don't understand why they don't make the switch to instant HH's like other sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Patience young padawah, it's in beta testing right now.

Scott

[wulfheir]

i received a 25% signup bonus in december at stars.
they have 10 player ring games.

[Isura]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if I was a new player, I don't want to play at any place that produces world class players. I want to play against fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly you lack ambition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker is not about "competition", it is about making money. I think the poster has ambition to make more money by playing against fish. Quoting Sklansky, "You can be the 10th best player in the world, but still be a loser if you play against the top 9 players all the time."

[ThePinkBunny]

They have good software, good support and by only offering reloads and not having affiliates, they prevent abuse of this, which will keep them more profitable.

Affiliates at other sites were designed for advertising, not for rakeback... although I think most sites turn a blind eye, knowing its still profitable for them.

[cjs]

It's also a great place to learn the game. When my son wanted to learn online poker I gave him a few books and let him start at stars micros. I got him to learn tightness and aggressiveness. When he got to .50/1 I moved him to party. It was the best thing I could ever had done for him.

He is now as good a player as I am and if he had my bankroll he could play at my level.

[jrz1972]

Actually you're not entirely alone. I hate the software at Stars. In addition to the problems you mentioned, I also have a hard time maintaining a connection for some reason. (I frequently drop down into the 80% range even when everyone else at my table is at 99% or 100%. WTF?)

[lorinda]

I've gotten a personal reply from Lee Jones faster than an automated response from Party

The only time he ever replied to me, I didn't even send the email to him.
All the other times he just ignored it.

Support might be good there, but the management don't tend to reply unless they are either getting something out of you, or you've upset all the support memebers.

Lori

[LinusKS]

Affiliates are an expensive scam. If all the time and effort that goes into rakeback went into lower rakes, better software, etc., we'd all be better off.

It's true they don't do signup bonuses. One benefit of that is that they don't have people with 12 different accounts so they can get 12 signup bonuses operating at their site. They are also -btw - much more serious about detecting and eliminating collusion than Party.

All in all, they're just a much better, more professionally run site than Party.

Hopefully they'll stick around - and offer more reloads and/or improve their loyalty program - so that they can continue to be a threat to Party.

God knows if Party becomes the Microsoft of internet poker, we'll all be in trouble.

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. They do not allow rakebacks

[/ QUOTE ]

To put things in perspective for you, even after I get my rakeback from Empire, I am still paying less in rake to play at PokerStars.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you say how you came up with that?

Stars charges
$1 at $20
$1 at $40, and
$1 at $70.

Compared to (at Party):

$1 at $20
$0.50 at $30
$0.50 at $40
$0.50 at $50, and
$0.50 at $60.

So you're paying an extra $0.50 at
$30-$40 and $50-$60,

and an extra $1 at $60-$70.

How does that come out to a 25% difference (assuming 25% is standard rakeback)?

Or are you using your PT stats to compare?
And if so, what level do you play?

[carlo]

I'm not sure I get it--but for example at $30 the rake at Stars is $1 and at Party is $1.50. At $50 the rake at Stars is $2 and at Party is $2.50. At $60 the rake at Stars is $2 and at Party is $3.
Party rake is higher but of course it will depend on your playing limits. If the game always goes over $70 pots there is no difference. If you are playing 3/6, generally the pots are about 6x the big bet at both sites($36) which means you will pay more rake at Party. Also, at the lower limits(.5/1) the Party rake is .5 at $5(10%) while at Stars it is .25(5%).

Stars is solid and not as gimmicky, its balance sheet would almost have to be in better shape than Party because of the fewer give-aways. If there is an internet poker collapse,there is no doubt in my mind that I would never want to own Party stock.

MY .02. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

regards,
carlo

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you say how you came up with that?

Stars charges
$1 at $20
$1 at $40, and
$1 at $70.

Compared to (at Party):

$1 at $20
$0.50 at $30
$0.50 at $40
$0.50 at $50, and
$0.50 at $60.

So you're paying an extra $0.50 at
$30-$40 and $50-$60,

and an extra $1 at $60-$70.

How does that come out to a 25% difference (assuming 25% is standard rakeback)?

Or are you using your PT stats to compare?
And if so, what level do you play?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, those stats are from PT. They are only from $1-$2 to $3-$6 though. If I remember correctly, the average rake in my databases was ~4% at Party and ~2% at Stars (before rakeback).

Scott

[Player12345]

[ QUOTE ]

I hate having to look at all the ugly mugs the other douche bags I'm playing against put in their circles.



[/ QUOTE ]

you can turn this off so you don't see any.

you can also remove the avatars at party.

also, you can also turn the sounds off. if you want sounds but don't like the one's offered, just change the wav file.

[r3vbr]

Pokerstars has the best software, wich is also constantly updated (about once a week). They have the most pleasant atmosphere to play in for both ring games and especially tournaments. Also, there is a lot of fish there nowadays, making it almost as easy as partypoker. Not to mention the best customer support I've ever seen by ANY internet company (including amazon, ebay, and the likes)

Pokerstars will soon rule the poker world, they are a superior and more professional company. You'll see.

[playersare]

I heard they had this great billionth hand promo going on last month...

[TobDog]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is not about "competition", it is about making money. I think the poster has ambition to make more money by playing against fish. Quoting Sklansky, "You can be the 10th best player in the world, but still be a loser if you play against the top 9 players all the time."

[/ QUOTE ]

Somebody is watching "Tilt" too much! There is a thread for that in WPT area. I know they quoted noted poker writers. Just noticed no one jumped on that one yet.

[Transference]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is not about "competition", it is about making money.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about humor, do poker players get a good joke? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[carlo]

How do you change the "wav file"-thanks.

regards,
carlo

[PDX_David]

I cannot stand the lobby at Party. When I click on a table I want the info there as soon as I click. I don't understand why it takes so long. For me, Stars has the best software, and I can turn off anything I don't like. I am not crazy about the table setup at Party either. I like to watch others berate eachother and the Party chat window is just too small.

I have only emailed Stars support 2 times. Once because I thought money was missing. They promptly sent me a detailed list of all of the transactions for a couple of months. My mistake on the money missing.

The other email was to request a late night PST low buyin MTT. I had a response from support within a couple of hours that my request had been forwarded to Lee Jones. The next day I had an email from Lee that he thought it was a great idea and now there is a $10 MTT at 12:15AM. Not as low a buyin as I was thinking but...

For me Stars is the best all around. Although, I am thinking of taking up a first time deposit bonus at Party to see if the fishing is as good as I hear.

pdx

[lorinda]

I have done work for stars on several occasions, my earnings to date are as follows:

Merchandise: 0
Dollars: $0
FPP's: 0
Name in lobby of something I worked on: 1

I even needed 5 cents to cashout because of a second consecutive cashout fiasco where their software basically put me under the minimum cashout. They effectively told me I had to win it at the tables-despite the fact that my original cashout was a long way over the minimum- although in fairness they thought I needed a whole dollar.
I then accused them of being greedy and they couldn't see why.

Lori

[Player12345]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you change the "wav file"-thanks.

regards,
carlo

[/ QUOTE ]

honestly i have not changed the default at stars, but i would imagine it is in a sound folder. i've changed a party one and it was quite simple