|
|
#191
10-27-2005, 04:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Some answers to the requests
[ QUOTE ]
And, if you haven't noticed, there are plenty of fish at Stars. [/ QUOTE ] There is at least one- Stars is the only site I play on any more. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] I doubt I give enough action to get into the VIP club, but the idea certainly intrigues me. Can't wait to hear more about it, as well as the new lobby. Keep up the good work, Lee! |
|
#192
10-27-2005, 04:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Some answers to the requests
[ QUOTE ]
ummm....stars IS advertising on TV. (as well as in magazines etc). Should they just go to every bar in the U.S. and personally invite every drunk they can find? There are 50k+ players on at stars in the evenings. Even amongst the few hundred who play 3/6 ring and higher the games are beatable. I don't know. It feels like this is kind of complaining to the site-manager that it's THEIR fault that their players don't cap pre-flop with 94o. Opponents don't have to be drunk and stupid in order to be beatable. [/ QUOTE ] I didn't mean it in the sense that the games weren't beatable and that it's the manager's responsibilty to make me money. What I meant was that all of the changes(which are great) and the marketing they do seems to be geared towards the good players, while other sites(i.e. Party Poker) are clearly making an effort to bring in fish. To be completely honest I'd rather have a site full of fish with a crappy lobby, than a site full of sharks with all kinds of bells and whistles I don't really need(although they are nice). Although I could be completely wrong, I'm hardly a marketing expert. It just seems that if made an effort to bring in the fish, the sharks would follow anyway, and they'd clearly be the biggest and the best. Right now there are simply more profitable places to play and at the end of the day this is what decides where I'l play. |
|
#193
10-27-2005, 05:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Some answers to the requests
I can see 7 6-max tables playing 5-10 on Stars now - 2:30 PT.
How is Party's rake lower for 5-handed? I think it's the other way around. rake/pot: Party: $1/$20, $1.50/$30, $2/40 Stars: $1/$20, $2/$40 |
|
#194
10-27-2005, 05:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Some answers to the requests
I was under the impression Stars was charing $3 rake for 5 handed play. That must of changed recently, recently being within a year as I have not played there at all in 05.
Although playing 10-20 the $30 1.50 is pretty insignificant, my arguement still has plenty of merit. I am just trying to prove the point that with 25-30% rakeback at a Party Skin or 30%+ on Prima or UB or Absolute with bonuses, there is no way Stars is competitive with one insignifcant saving in their rake structure. 6max players pay more rake than full table players. FPP's do nothing for the limit player as my NL tourney game is horrible. Seeing as the only big tournament that is limit that I can think of is the PartyMillion Cruise, I highly doubt Stars is going to let us use FPPs to enter it. Hopefully the Stars' VIP program will address this, but at this juncture, there is still absolutely no reason for the player I am describing would ever want to play at Stars over their competitors. |
|
#196
10-27-2005, 06:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Some answers to the requests
>I was under the impression Stars was charing $3 rake for 5 >handed play. That must of changed recently, recently being >within a year as I have not played there at all in 05.
I don't think it was changed. Was always like that. But yes, if you can get 25% RB on Party and you play 10/20 it makes sense to play there. Are you getting RB direct or through affiliate? |
|
#198
10-27-2005, 07:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Some answers to the requests
[ QUOTE ]
I think someone should start a thread exclusivly aimed at telling lee jones what we want in a vip club. Im too chicken to do it myself. [/ QUOTE ] How about less suckouts? That would be a good start [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] |
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
