Poker sites prediction...

[paperboyNC]

Pokerstars numbers are always way inflated compared to party. As you can see, Party has almost 10x the number of SNGs and 4x the number of ring games.

FR $3/$6 tables: Party 27, Stars 6
FR $5/$10 tables: Party 22, Stars 7
SH $5/$10 tables: Party 32, Stars 10

$33 sngs: Party 110, Stars 15

FR $100/200: Party 4 tables (with 20 waiting), Stars 0
FR $30/60 & 50/100: Party 29 tables, Stars 6

$0.02/$0.04 tables: Party 0, Stars 30
$0.05/$0.10 tables: Party 0, Stars 32
$0.25/$0.50 tables: Party 2, Stars 35

Big Freeroll tourneys: Party 2000, Stars 3500

[rhizome]

[ QUOTE ]


$0.02/$0.04 tables: Party 0, Stars 30
$0.05/$0.10 tables: Party 0, Stars 32
$0.25/$0.50 tables: Party 2, Stars 35


[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to see stars get rid of these nano-limit tables . More than likely, these people will happily play .50/1 if that were the lowest available table.

Maybe I'm wrong?

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]

PartyPoker.com and PartyPoker.net show the same numbers, so unless they only list their real-money players on their play-money site, it does include play money.

[/ QUOTE ]


You are ignoring the possibility that perhaps they just HAPPEN to have the EXACT same number of real-money and play-money players logged-on at the same time (and, evidently at all times).

PP has the best marketing scheme. I hate that paradise and stars advertise to people that want to become pros or some baloney. Their commercials suck. it makes no sense to me.

PP advertises to mom's, seniors, 18 year olds, security workers, casual players - aka fish. Their ads are much more upbeat and fun to watch. I was asking my girlfriend yesterday after watching a string of these ads from various sites where she would go play if she decided to try poker. It was a definate "party poker". This is why PP has such a huge share of the market. I don't care how great a site is, if it doesn't have a good ratio of casual players to serious players, I'm not playing there.

Rasputin:
yeah, that sounds about right. and I guess I shouldn't forget that all the 5x Stars bonuses are pretty easy to clear at the mid and high stakes, which likely helps keep those folks around

Betadecay:
yeah, I think that's about right. I personally wouldn't mind Paradise spending a bit less on ads and give monthly or so bonuses [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

PartyPoker.com and PartyPoker.net show the same numbers, so unless they only list their real-money players on their play-money site, it does include play money.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are ignoring the possibility that perhaps they just HAPPEN to have the EXACT same number of real-money and play-money players logged-on at the same time (and, evidently at all times).

[/ QUOTE ]
I never considered that. Wow.

Of course, to maintain this precise balance, when a new real-money player signs up, they would have to kill one of the play-money players.

That's why online poker isn't legal in the US.

[ QUOTE ]
I personally wouldn't mind Paradise spending a bit less on ads and fix their damn software and hire an English-speaking support department.

[/ QUOTE ]
FYP. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

They are the best, WAY BETTER THAN PARTY! God only knows why so many people like Party???

[Timer]

[ QUOTE ]
They are the best, WAY BETTER THAN PARTY! God only knows why so many people like Party???

[/ QUOTE ]

Enough is enough. Stars sucks. Their software sucks. Their interface sucks. Their games suck. They use play money players in their totals and Party doesn't. If you wan't confirmation of this just physically add them up sometime--I did.

I can't stand Stars, and I don't know anyone who likes playing on that site. Party has all the games. They have all the side game action, and they have plenty of tournament action as well.

I've written Stars about all of the things I think are wrong with thier site, but they just don't care. I even wrote a very long post (which I never posted) comparing the two sites--pro and con. Party wins hands down.

Oh yea, Party has some SERIOUS problems, mostly with software glitches, but overall it still wins.

Maybe I'll put up that comparison post one of these days.

[Marc H]

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to see stars get rid of these nano-limit tables . More than likely, these people will happily play .50/1 if that were the lowest available table.

Maybe I'm wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think today's $.02/.04 player is next year's $.50/1 player, but if you make him start at $.50/1 he may never start playing at all.