View Full Version : Party vs. PokerStars
nyc999
09-15-2005, 11:06 PM
Currently playing the $5 and $10 SNGs on Party, I'm considering a switch over. I've read a lot about the differences in play, but am just wondering how many games are going at a time (i.e. is it easy to always find a game) and can you multi-table. Any help appreciated.
smb394
09-15-2005, 11:19 PM
Not sure about game availability...
Also, the rake at the $5 SNGs is $0.50 rather than Party's $1. So 10% rake is better than 20% rake.
For the rest, try the search function (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/search.php?Cat=)
edit: for max tables, see posts below. Sorry for the error
trainslayer
09-15-2005, 11:22 PM
yes there are always games going on. I also like the 6.50 turbos (10 min levels) and the 12+1 6man games(pays two places).
Benal
09-15-2005, 11:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
you can 5-table on Stars
[/ QUOTE ]
Lets get the facts straight. On Stars, 5 tables is the max for cash games, and 20+ tables for SNGs and tournies (not sure what the actual max is)
Uglyowl
09-16-2005, 12:08 AM
$5+$.50 SNG while clearing a bonus. Pokerstars is paying you a dime a tourney to play!
NoChance
09-16-2005, 12:14 AM
If I could get rakeback at Stars, I think I would make the switch myself. I've been thinking about it a lot lately. I have always liked it there but they never had a "ton" of games going at any particular limit. That has changed now in 2005.
Rasputin
09-16-2005, 09:42 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If I could get rakeback at Stars, I think I would make the switch myself. I've been thinking about it a lot lately. I have always liked it there but they never had a "ton" of games going at any particular limit. That has changed now in 2005.
[/ QUOTE ]
If I could get rakeback there, I would never play anywhere else. As it is, I play mostly at FullTilt because it's the most like Stars but with rakeback.
mbpoker
09-16-2005, 07:32 PM
How much rake back you are getting at Fulltilt? Is it directly from them or from an affiliate?
jmillerdls
09-16-2005, 08:08 PM
I don't get this. I thought they have 100% return for tournaments, so you would make 50c per 5+.5 tournament? Thus, making it basically without a fee. Or am I seeing this wrong?
otter
09-16-2005, 08:11 PM
I was in Vegas during the WSOP and through the Orleans open. Pokerstars did a lot of advertising as I'm sure most of you know and they even had Raymer playing at Orleans in low limit games. I had theorized that the action would pick up there, but never restarted playing there. Is the action good/loose(er) on pokerstars than it was, say a year and a half ago? Is the tourney action good too (sng's).
Tony Corbett
09-16-2005, 09:33 PM
You get 5 FPPs for each $1 of entry fee, and 5 FPPs clears $1 of bonus, but they don't give out half points so for the tourneys with a $0.50 entry fee they round up to 3 FPPs. This means a $5 + $0.50 tourney clears $0.60 of bonus.
MicroBob
09-16-2005, 09:52 PM
they are getting up to 60k players during peak hours.
a year and a half ago I doubt they had even broken 30k players (but I haven't looked it up).
more players also equals more fish obviously.
if you have 50k+ players on a site they aren't all going to exactly be Howard Lederers.
The site has definitely grown...and the play is probably fishier too (although it's hard for me to be objective because I also happen to be a better player than I was then).
I don't think it has as much to do with Stars presence at the WSOP or Raymer's appearance at the Orleans. I think it has more to do with the continuation of the Moneymaker boom and all of their TV ads.
It's not JUST Raymer and Moneymaker (although they are significant factors obviously).
This July there were 5600 players in the WSOP main event.
A full 1100 of them...about 20-freaking-percent...were there via pokerstars (including yours-truly).
You get over 1,000 people walking around Vegas and the Rio wearing PokerStars gear and I think that's going to have an impact.
Also - they treat their players so freaking well.
I can't imagine many of the qualifiers NOT staying loyal to Stars and not continuing to play there.
They are currently doing a pretty decent job on their site of developing excitement for the WCOOP events.
The fields for these events are really big as are the prize-pools.
There are just very very few things that Stars doesn't do right.
Something no one's mentioned (or my brain is broken) is that Stars' SNG tables are 9-handed, which makes winning less profitable than at Party, even with the lower rake.
Also you start with 1500 chips to Party's 800, the chips-to-blinds ratio is higher at the start (IIRC), and the players are slightly better, so games take longer, reducing your hourly take further.
On the other hand, it better suits some people's playing styles to have more chips to work with. I find that I consistently cash more often at PS.
All things considered, I'd usually rather give my money to PokerStars, and they have a special place in my heart as the site where I built my BR from low double digits, playing .05/.10 and .25/.50 limit and $5 SNGs.
[ QUOTE ]
Something no one's mentioned (or my brain is broken) is that Stars' SNG tables are 9-handed, which makes winning less profitable than at Party, even with the lower rake.
[/ QUOTE ]
While the prizes for winning may be less, you will also win more often. I think it's a wash.
Like you said, the deeper stacks will benefit the good players, but it also makes the tournament last longer, so it's pretty much up to your personal preferences there.
mbpoker
09-17-2005, 04:46 PM
Stars also has turbo S & G which are closer to the crapshoot Party style.
JeffSpicoli
09-17-2005, 06:36 PM
Dude, I've been known to Party but...
On Stars, there's a 5-table limit on ring games...but NO LIMIT on the number of tournament tables you can open. If you don't believe it, keep opening tournament tables...you won't be shut off by Mr. Hand or anyone else.
Chips...
Stars has the same chips (1500) at all buy-in levels...not like Party where higher buy-ins ($50 and up) get 1000 chips. In other words, on Stars you get 1.9x (1500/800) as many chips on a comparable low buy-in sng on Party. Righteous bucks indeed.
Level times...
Stars reg - blinds increase every 10 min...about 12 hands
Stars turbo - blinds increase every 5 min...about every 6-8 hands...plays more comparably to a Party sng in which the blinds increase every 10-hands. The extra hits on the bong matter, but if you know how to Party, you'll be fine.
Blind structure...
Stars and Party have the same blinds structure thru level 6 (100/200)...at which point Party goes to 150/300...Stars stays at 100/200 but adds an ante...it causes a little more brain damage at the bubble. And, dude, as you move to other sites, check it out before you fire up the bong. The blind structures are on other sites (Tilt, UB, P-Room, Prima sites (by far the gnarliest), etc. can be, like, totally confusing.
Buy-ins and payouts...
Stars turbo - have a higher buy-ins but are a better value than a comparable Party tourney...note: the 9 player v 10 player difference doesn't really matter given how the buy-ins are structured. Check it out...
Party - 10 handed
Stars - 9 handed
Party $5 w/ $1 fee (20%)
10 players
$50 prize pool
Stars turbo $6 w/ $.50 fee (8%)
9 players
$54 prize pool
Similarly...
Party $10 + $1 (10%)
$100 prize pool
Stars turbo $15 + $1 (7%)
$135 prize pool...again, righteous bucks!
As for length of tourney and time to the bubble...just my observations and sometimes I'm pretty wasted...
Typical Stars reg sng...70 minutes to finish...at the bubble at 50+ min...you'll late for class, for sure...
Typical Stars turbo...<60 minutes to finish...at the bubble at 35-40 min...more comparable to my experience on Party.
Action...
The sngs seat faster on Party, but Stars has improved a lot over the last year. The turbos (again, comparable to Party in tourney time and payoff) seat the fastest.
Minor notes...Stars sng lobby and instant hand history function are totally awesome...at least compared to Party. On Stars, you can agree to chop...not that you would, but you can.
Dude, the only real downside to playing on Stars is that they allow babies and pets at the tables. Don't forget to shut the images off, it can get pretty ugly out there.
Last thing, if you're into free stuff...the Stars items (hats, clothing, etc.) is better quality and will actually fit to the size marked. Plus, the Stars beanie is cooler and matches the Vans.
Keep passing the bong...
J
[ QUOTE ]
Dude, I've been known to Party but...
[/ QUOTE ]
An entire post in character. Niiice.
Rasputin
09-18-2005, 10:28 PM
[ QUOTE ]
How much rake back you are getting at Fulltilt? Is it directly from them or from an affiliate?
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry for the late response, I was away for the weekend. It's 25% from an affiliate that I found in the classifieds here.
Timer
09-18-2005, 11:50 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Like you said, the deeper stacks will benefit the good players...
[/ QUOTE ]
Why is starting with a deep stack rather than a shorter one beneficial to the good players?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like you said, the deeper stacks will benefit the good players...
[/ QUOTE ]
Why is starting with a deep stack rather than a shorter one beneficial to the good players?
[/ QUOTE ]
The deeper the stacks, and the slower the blinds increase, the greater the advantage is for the good players. Basically, it is because the good players will have more opportunites to take advantage of their superior skills. With smaller stacks or a shorter blind structure, it becomes more of a crapshoot, giving the bad players a better chance of making the money.
Timer
09-19-2005, 01:10 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like you said, the deeper stacks will benefit the good players...
[/ QUOTE ]
Why is starting with a deep stack rather than a shorter one beneficial to the good players?
[/ QUOTE ]
The deeper the stacks, and the slower the blinds increase, the greater the advantage is for the good players. Basically, it is because the good players will have more opportunites to take advantage of their superior skills. With smaller stacks or a shorter blind structure, it becomes more of a crapshoot, giving the bad players a better chance of making the money.
[/ QUOTE ]
Completely false.
mattw
09-19-2005, 01:18 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like you said, the deeper stacks will benefit the good players...
[/ QUOTE ]
Why is starting with a deep stack rather than a shorter one beneficial to the good players?
[/ QUOTE ]
The deeper the stacks, and the slower the blinds increase, the greater the advantage is for the good players. Basically, it is because the good players will have more opportunites to take advantage of their superior skills. With smaller stacks or a shorter blind structure, it becomes more of a crapshoot, giving the bad players a better chance of making the money.
[/ QUOTE ]
Completely false.
[/ QUOTE ]
the above theory regarding deep and short stacks is generally accepted. if you are going to state others wise, include your thoughts, dont just say wrong.
Timer
09-19-2005, 01:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like you said, the deeper stacks will benefit the good players...
[/ QUOTE ]
Why is starting with a deep stack rather than a shorter one beneficial to the good players?
[/ QUOTE ]
The deeper the stacks, and the slower the blinds increase, the greater the advantage is for the good players. Basically, it is because the good players will have more opportunites to take advantage of their superior skills. With smaller stacks or a shorter blind structure, it becomes more of a crapshoot, giving the bad players a better chance of making the money.
[/ QUOTE ]
Completely false.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, you're right. Ignore my first response.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.