Why do some sites have much better players than others?

I have been playing on partypoker, which I hear has some of the softest tables around at the lower levels. I hear that Absolute has much worse tables full of tight players. Why is this?

[TemetNosce]

IMO, sites that advertise heavily (e.g., Party) reach a larger percentage of the population, so they will tend to have a larger percentage of poor players in its player base.

Sites that don't advertise heavily, tend to rely on offering bigger and/or more frequent bonuses (e.g., Absolute). This tends to attract on average a more serious and knowledgeable poker player who wants to build a bankroll.

[joedot]

They all suck. don't believe anyone who tells you different.

[LargeCents]

[ QUOTE ]
I have been playing on partypoker, which I hear has some of the softest tables around at the lower levels. I hear that Absolute has much worse tables full of tight players. Why is this?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an excellent question.

It would be interesting if someone did a serious analysis of the quality of players at the various sites. Maybe measure objective stats, such as VPIP or simple winrates.

My impression is that fish feed off each other and make each other "fishier", if that makes sense. If an absolute shark sits down at a table, especially a shorthanded table, it might be enough to change the table dynamic. Get enough sharks onto a site, and the fishiest of the fish just get eaten. Eventually an equilibrium is established, just like in nature.

[smb394]

Even the fish think that Party is soft. They just don't know that they are among the many fish.

[tdarko]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, sites that advertise heavily (e.g., Party) reach a larger percentage of the population, so they will tend to have a larger percentage of poor players in its player base.

Sites that don't advertise heavily, tend to rely on offering bigger and/or more frequent bonuses (e.g., Absolute). This tends to attract on average a more serious and knowledgeable poker player who wants to build a bankroll.



[/ QUOTE ]
i don't agree. first of all there are fish everywhere but AP does have more tight players than a lot of sites and it's because of their neverending bonuses that they offer. basically its just a bunch of bonus whores there playing tight working to clear their requirements.

advertisement doesn't have to do with it IMO or else PS would be as soft as party.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
They all suck. don't believe anyone who tells you different.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are just being arrogant and blind. The skill level at different sites are much different. Maybe you kill them all, so be it for you, but some sites the players are terrible while others may just be ok.

Start ups generally have better players as "fish" do not search out new sites, they play at what they see on tv.

[Uglyowl]

Also a link from a sportsbook helps a ton /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[x2ski]

[ QUOTE ]
I have been playing on partypoker, which I hear has some of the softest tables around at the lower levels. I hear that Absolute has much worse tables full of tight players. Why is this?

[/ QUOTE ]

People play on Party Poker because, seriously, who doesn't like to party? The name is where it's at.

End of thread.

[PorscheNGuns]

Party's out of control affiliate program providing illegal rakeback boosted the number of players significantly. Because Party is so rich now, they can offer near the best tournaments. Paradise and UB used to be the biggest, but thats just because they had half-decent software and were among the first sites. Notice they didnt have out of control affiliates spamming every internet forum under God's sun, morning noon and night. Look at Party is 2002 and 2003. Then look at Party in 2004 and 2005. And now that the dirty work has been done and rakeback is a standard, they abolished it. Couple that with insane amounts of TV advertising and numerous skins, most significantly Empire, and you have an online poker powerhouse.

To answer your question, you must first ask: what can a competitor possibly do to dethrone Party as the largest site on the internet?

Answer that, and you'll know why Party is the biggest and best. (Plus Party software powns all)

-Matt

[TemetNosce]

While I would agree that Stars's ring games are not as soft as Party, the games have gotten considerably softer since their player base has grown. Stars TV ads have increased since Raymer gave them a two-peat in the WSOP, especially in 2005. I believe those ads have had an effect in bringing in more fishy players. I don't think it is a coincidence.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

I've never played there, but theoretically, PokerRoom should have the worst players since they get all the idiots who insist on using Macs.

[2ndGoat]

[ QUOTE ]
Also a link from a sportsbook helps a ton /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

And a casino. but sportsbook maybe moreso.

2nd

[Tilt]

[ QUOTE ]
I've never played there, but theoretically, PokerRoom should have the worst players since they get all the idiots who insist on using Macs.

[/ QUOTE ]

This used to be true, but then skins started offering good rakeback and bonus programs. The small site just got a lot of 2+2'ers added to it.