|
|
|
|
#1
08-19-2005, 06:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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?
|
|
#2
08-19-2005, 07:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why do some sites have much better players than others?
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.
|
|
#3
08-21-2005, 01:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why do some sites have much better players than others?
[ 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.
|
|
#4
08-21-2005, 05:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why do some sites have much better players than others?
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.
|
|
#6
08-21-2005, 01:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why do some sites have much better players than others?
[ 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.
|
|
#8
08-21-2005, 09:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why do some sites have much better players than others?
[ QUOTE ]
Also a link from a sportsbook helps a ton [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] And a casino. but sportsbook maybe moreso. 2nd
|
|
#9
08-21-2005, 12:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why do some sites have much better players than others?
[ 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.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
