Pokerstars vs Ladbrokes 1-0

[Ralle]

I've been playing at Ladbrokes, but have started to find it almost boring. Then I recently tried Pokerstars. Wow! The difference is unbelievable. I don't think I exaggerate if I say that the play is twice as fast on Pokerstars. Also I find the graphics and interface as a hole to be superior at Pokerstars.

[dux]

Can't argue with you, you get up to go somewhere at stars/party/paradise, and you time out - I reckon I could make a sandwich get a drink and read a 2 + 2 post before the next hand gets dealt.

I haven't played at Pokerstars but I recently tried out Party Poker and compared to Ladbrokes the games are much faster. Time outs among players at the tables is very frequent at Ladbrokes, I don't know why this is, slow players, server problems or bad connections. However the Ladbrokes software has some design flaws that may cause som players to act slow. The games are however (to my experience) good at the lower limits.

/knö/forums/images/icons/smirk.gif

[Bubmack]

[Graham]

I score it more like this: Pokerstars minus few hundred: Ladbrokes plus thousands....$$ of course. Three cheers for Ladbrokes /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

Poker's meant to be boring if you're winning. Don't fall into the trap of wanting excitement too..! Ladbrokes players take a long time to give you money. Pokerstars players take virtually no time at all to not give you money.

G

[MS Sunshine]

"Poker's meant to be boring if you're winning. Don't fall into the trap of wanting excitement too..! Ladbrokes players take a long time to give you money. Pokerstars players take virtually no time at all to not give you money."

Very good post Graham, this is right to the heart of the matter. Poker is about winning money from people that play worse than you. About 5% of players are winning a BB or more per hour. IMO Below this is a group that is breakeven and small winner which might be almost 25% of players, that play well enough to be winning players, but play just above their ability.

It's not about fun. Or the best software, but winning money. The rest is just bull****.

I see breakeven $15-30 players looking down their noses at
low-limit winning player's posts and I want to scream "You may play better poker, but he is not going to wallow around even for life, like you, but steadily win month in and month out."

Sorry for the rant, but I haven't taken my meds yet today.

MS Sunshine

[mbpoker]

What's wrong with excitement? Fish is after excitement. Serious players are after fish.

Besides serious plyers need some energy injections too - nothing could be better than a few final tables in big tourneys.

[Graham]

Oh, nothing wrong with excitement at all. I just don't think it's very high on the priorities when picking my approach to poker.

Having said that I did play a PLO tournament on Stars early last night mainly for my own entertainment. Trouble is, Ladbrokes has the action buttons the other way round to other sites, which I've now got used to. Twice I raised all-in accidentally when meaning to fold. Won the first one with a gut-shot on the river vs 3 opps to put me in top 5, busted out the second...oops /forums/images/icons/blush.gif .