I want to correct a general misconception here....

[Syntax]

Over the weekend I have played about 30 hours between Empire Poker, PokerStars, and Ultimate Bet. I played some 1/2 & 2/4 LHE, and .5/1 NL HE at each site. I also played a couple $10-$30 SNG's.

Everyone seems to think that the Party skins are just loaded with fish and the other sites are much tougher games.

At the limits I mentioned, I don't think that statement could be further from the truth, and I doubt that many of the people making those statements have played on all these sites recently.

The rake at Party is the highest of all the sites at those levels. At UB you can pretty much play rake free with thier almost unlimitited amount of bonus dollar offers. The tourney structure at Stars offers the best opportunity to turn a good profit for any solid tournament player.

I really don't understand why it seems to be a consensus here that the easist and best games are at Party, thats just not the reality of it.

[Alobar]

I can't think of an easier game to beat than the party 2/4 LHE. I dont even waste my time clearing bonuses at UB because it takes forever and I make more money playing at party with out a bonus and their high rake.

[Syntax]

How do suggest that clearing the bonus dollars at UB takes forever? Maybe they've changed something since your last visit, but I played all afternoon on a 1/2 table and a .5/1 NL table and averaged about $8 hour total in bonus dollars clearing. Plus those points are worth tournament entries like Aruba satellelites or even a new 2+2 book. Thats great equity and at a lower rake. The games are not any tougher then the ones at Party.

[Alobar]

just look at the avg pot size for a 1/2 or 2/4 game at party, then compare it to one at stars. At party there are several tables over 10BB/pot, at the other sites its not even close to that.

[Syntax]

[ QUOTE ]
just look at the avg pot size for a 1/2 or 2/4 game at party, then compare it to one at stars. At party there are several tables over 10BB/pot, at the other sites its not even close to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never agree with the lobby numbers at Party but I will entertain your challenge:






There really isnt that much of a differnce as you can plainly see. Of course there are a lot more games going at empire, but they arent "better".

Also theres a big differnce in the software. Ive neve had a problem with the Party interface before, but after playing about 4 hours on UB and then jumping onto an Empire table, I felt like I was playing with a kids toy. The graphics are so flat and weak compared to the 3D stuff at UB. UB is not perfect by any means, but anyone thats played both will probably get what Im saying.

[Mac237]

it looks like you're hiding the full tables at empire

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
it looks like you're hiding the full tables at empire

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course he is! How else could he make his point?

Jimbo

[JTrout]

Haven't I read on here that Party counts the pot differently than other sites?
Counts uncalled bets as part of the pot or something?

[Syntax]

No, I didnt even pay attention, I always have that box checked. Why would I care about full tables? Its hard enough to find and empty seat when theres "supposed" to be only 8 or 9 players seated. Heres another screen shot with all tables. Once again, not much different. If you don't believe me, open up the sites and check for yourself!!

[MicroBob]

yes...i noticed the tables were hidden on his empire shot as well.



i'm ACTUALLY ON both sides of this issue i think.

i agree with syntax that the play at UB and stars is not 'unbelieveably tight' when compared to party.
i'm also running into more and more rocks at party and slightly fewer super-fishies (while i've also run into the occasional super-fish at the other sites).


but i also agree that party's games are still the fishiest.....just not by such a great margin anymore.

with the bonus-money available at other sites i think a decent 1/2 to 3/6 player might be able to squeak out better profits by bonus-chasing a little bit WHILE keeping party as their main base.
especially so when one considers the lousy rake-structure at party.

at least, that's been my strategy lately.


also....since no one has said it yet....party counts the last uncalled bet into their pot-avg's whereas most sites don't.

for limit 2/4, i would suggest that the avg party pot size should be lowered by $1 to more accurately compare to other sites.

also....most people have reported that the SF% on the p-tracker from party play is not really that much higher. around 34-38% on most of their 1/2 to 3/6 tables i think

again, i do think that party's tables are fishier than the others....but not so much so that it is worth ignoring all the bonuses being offered elsewhere.


right now, i have the best of both worlds....i'm finishing off the hands for a bonus AND i'm doing it at party.
but in a couple-hunderd more hands i'll be done with party for now and off to absolute or UB or p-room where i have stored up a combined $1000 of virtually rake-free play.