View Full Version : Stars bigger than Party, gotta Love it! :)
HavanaBanana
12-29-2005, 12:25 AM
As we speak 70k Stars vs 68k Party.
nh
ToT
imported_leader
12-29-2005, 12:33 AM
good
obsidian
12-29-2005, 12:34 AM
As we speak:
$10/20
party - ~60 games
stars - 10
$15/30
party - 25
stars - 4
$20/40
party - 25
stars - 0
$30/60
party - 23
stars - 7
No, not yet.
Lloyd
12-29-2005, 12:40 AM
Party MTTs down for maintenance. So yeah, Party blows but the numbers are definitely influenced.
Arnfinn Madsen
12-29-2005, 12:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
As we speak:
$10/20
party - ~60 games
stars - 10
$15/30
party - 25
stars - 4
$20/40
party - 25
stars - 0
$30/60
party - 23
stars - 7
No, not yet.
[/ QUOTE ]
It is because they do not reward mid/high limit players well enough.
Hint to Lee: double FPP for $3 raked hands, you need more mid/high limit players.
Stars has a ton of play money and micro limit players (and lots of low $ tourney players). As Obsidian points out, game liquidity at mid level ring games is much better at Party.
But I'd certainly like to see Stars improve and draw more mid-limit players!
[ QUOTE ]
Hint to Lee: double FPP for $3 raked hands, you need more mid/high limit players.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sniper
12-29-2005, 02:52 AM
[ QUOTE ]
game liquidity at ALL ring games is much better at Party.
[/ QUOTE ]
FYP
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
game liquidity at ALL ring games is much better at Party.
[/ QUOTE ]
FYP
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok I've gone this long without figuring it out, call me a [censored], but I must ask now. WHAT DOES FYP MEAN!?!?!
Edit: thanks wikipedia!
kiddj
12-29-2005, 02:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hint to Lee: double FPP for $3 raked hands, you need more mid/high limit players.
[/ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually... don't you need more fish?
I'm not saying there are none, but there could always be a little more. Am i right, or am i right... or am i right???? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif
tonypaladino
12-29-2005, 02:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
game liquidity at ALL ring games is much better at Party.
[/ QUOTE ]
FYP
[/ QUOTE ]
ISSCKM
[/ QUOTE ]
FYP
smoore
12-29-2005, 03:11 AM
I should seriously consider killing him.
Fixed Your Thread.
Alobar
12-29-2005, 04:08 AM
is stars like party where it counts one person 4 tabling as 4 people?
StacysMom
12-29-2005, 04:12 AM
[ QUOTE ]
is stars like party where it counts one person 4 tabling as 4 people?
[/ QUOTE ]
It must be.
SoftcoreRevolt
12-29-2005, 05:20 AM
[ QUOTE ]
As we speak 70k Stars vs 68k Party.
nh
ToT
[/ QUOTE ]
Sample size
Arnfinn Madsen
12-29-2005, 09:11 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hint to Lee: double FPP for $3 raked hands, you need more mid/high limit players.
[/ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually... don't you need more fish?
I'm not saying there are none, but there could always be a little more. Am i right, or am i right... or am i right???? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
This will attract fish as much as it will attract sharks. Quicker to get that TV etc..
Awhile back, I claimed that Stars would be the undisputed bigger site by the end of January. Quite a few disagreed if I remember correctly.
Still, Party is much larger if you are talking about mid-high limit games, though if Stars gradually starts to surpass Party and it becomes accepted, that will change too.
Interestingly, I only ever made the claim that Stars would surpass party because I was talking about the "world's biggest poker room" banner that Party always has displayed, and what stars would do when they surpassed them.
... And I notice that Stars now has, at the very top of their website...
"three world Champions welcome you to the World's Largest Poker Website"
In terms of sheer numbers, anybody still think Party will be bigger by Feb 1?
Fidel
GrannyMae
12-29-2005, 10:01 AM
Still, Party is much larger if you are talking about mid-high limit games, though if Stars gradually starts to surpass Party and it becomes accepted, that will change too.
this will never happen.
do you see why?
<font color="white">RB </font>
solucky
12-29-2005, 12:17 PM
from the 70K on Stars 55 K play on microlimits that Party dont offer /images/graemlins/smile.gif. At sample PL 25 Stars NO table. Guess for NORMAL RINGGAMES stars is not bogger than Paradise pokerroom.
teddyFBI
12-29-2005, 12:17 PM
Perhaps if you let affiliates share in their players' MGR, we might have a little more incentive to send new players your way...
Sniper
12-29-2005, 04:03 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Awhile back, I claimed that Stars would be the undisputed bigger site by the end of January. Quite a few disagreed if I remember correctly.
[/ QUOTE ]
Party holds 50% Market Share... I would be surprised if Stars was even up to 7%.
roundest
12-29-2005, 04:56 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Awhile back, I claimed that Stars would be the undisputed bigger site by the end of January. Quite a few disagreed if I remember correctly.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's because it won't happen. Take away the play money players and the micro-limits and I doubt Stars has half of the traffic that Party does.
I just took a rough count of curiosity.
Currently on Stars:
7,616 active tables
~3500 play money ring games
~1400 play money sng's and a lot of them are 2-5 table sng's
~450 micro-limits tables running
Waaaaayyyy over half the traffic there is play money.
If party counted play money like stars does, they'd be double their numbers.
Ro-me-ro
12-29-2005, 08:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If party counted play money like stars does, they'd be double their numbers.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was under the impression that their figures also include play money players too -- same as with us?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hint to Lee: double FPP for $3 raked hands, you need more mid/high limit players.
[/ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually... they need to do something at $2 rake too. I think they should go by Full Tilt's example, and give 1 FPP per $1 in rake,thus $2 rake = 2 FPP's and $3 rake = 3 FPP's. The VIP bonus should be calculate after that.
Lots of time's I am playing at a 6 max table with less than 6 players on it, so the rake gets capped at $2. So I shouldn't be punished for the situations where rake cannot reach $3.
Uglyowl
12-29-2005, 08:36 PM
Currently 1,640 active real money Party Hold'em tables vs. 876 Pokerstars.
1522 tourney tables at Party vs. 1357 Pokerstars.
They are very close in tourney play, but Party still dominates the ring games.
Source: www.whichpoker.com (http://www.whichpoker.com)
mbpoker
12-29-2005, 10:57 PM
Party numbers do count play money. Just Stars has more of them.
Timer
12-29-2005, 11:06 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Lots of time's I am playing at a 6 max table with less than 6 players on it, so the rake gets capped at $2. So I shouldn't be punished for the situations where rake cannot reach $3.
[/ QUOTE ]
You might want to rethink this last sentence.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lots of time's I am playing at a 6 max table with less than 6 players on it, so the rake gets capped at $2. So I shouldn't be punished for the situations where rake cannot reach $3.
[/ QUOTE ]
You might want to rethink this last sentence.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your right -- I worded that badly. What I mean, is that the number of FPP's should increase with the amount of rake paid -- It shouldn't give out x at $1 and x*2 at $3 -- it should go up incremenetly with the amount of rake paid. (I was in no way advocating that the $2 cap is bad).
imported_leader
12-30-2005, 12:44 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lots of time's I am playing at a 6 max table with less than 6 players on it, so the rake gets capped at $2. So I shouldn't be punished for the situations where rake cannot reach $3.
[/ QUOTE ]
You might want to rethink this last sentence.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your right -- I worded that badly. What I mean, is that the number of FPP's should increase with the amount of rake paid -- It shouldn't give out x at $1 and x*2 at $3 -- it should go up incremenetly with the amount of rake paid. (I was in no way advocating that the $2 cap is bad).
[/ QUOTE ]
I'll take any increase at all.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.