Re: Stars bigger than Party, gotta Love it! :)
 

[ 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%.

Re: Stars bigger than Party, gotta Love it! :)
 

[ 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.

Re: Stars bigger than Party, gotta Love it! :)
 

If party counted play money like stars does, they'd be double their numbers.

Re: Stars bigger than Party, gotta Love it! :)
 

[ 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?

Re: Stars bigger than Party, gotta Love it! :)
 

[ 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.

Re: Stars bigger than Party, gotta Love it! :)
 

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

Re: Stars bigger than Party, gotta Love it! :)
 

Party numbers do count play money. Just Stars has more of them.

Re: Stars bigger than Party, gotta Love it! :)
 

[ 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.

Re: Stars bigger than Party, gotta Love it! :)
 

[ 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).

Re: Stars bigger than Party, gotta Love it! :)
 

[ 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.