Playerview vs. GT++

jackdaniels · #1 05-24-2005, 04:10 PM

I am currently using GT++ and am wondering if there is any merit to moving to Playerview. I play on Stars if that makes any difference (shouldn't I'm guessing).

Does anyone here have experience with both and an opinion on which is best?

shant · #2 05-24-2005, 04:12 PM

I like Playerview a lot more. I can customize exactly what I want, it's less cumbersome and takes up less screen space. I feel like it works better, and it has the holecards from the last hand's showdown feature which is really cool.

I use GT++ for about 2 days when PV went pay, hated it, and stopped being cheap and just paid for PV. So worth it.

meep_42 · #3 05-24-2005, 04:13 PM

I don't think there's $50 difference, but I like PV better and use GT+.

-d

CallMeIshmael · #4 05-24-2005, 04:13 PM

I used GT+ until I moved to 8 tables... Then it started to lag, so I shelled out the cash for PV.

PV >>> GT+, IMO.

jackdaniels · #5 05-24-2005, 04:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
it has the holecards from the last hand's showdown feature

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I saw this in another thread (which prompted this question). Didn't realize it was not free anymore [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Thanks for the replies guys. I'll check out their free version (hoping there is a trial out there) and will make a decision after that.

PokerAce · #6 05-24-2005, 04:26 PM

There's another alternative being developed that's similar to PlayerView, but it's free. It's still early in development, but it works pretty well.

Here's a thread on it:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...o=&fpart=1

CallMeIshmael · #7 05-24-2005, 04:34 PM

Also... how many tables do you play?

If its 1-3, I would guess that PV is not worth the 50. Or at least, I would not be willing to pay it.

But, as you add tables, the holecards, plus the automatic table lookup, plus the less CPU use make it well worth it.

Catt · #8 05-24-2005, 04:42 PM

I play 2 tables (very rarely 3) and IMO Playerview is worth the $50. The "hotspot" feature in PV is also very valuable since I want access to most stats (like blindsteal stats, individual street aggression, etc.) but don't want to clutter up my board too much and I call on those stats relatively infrequently. I know that many balked at $50 when PokerTracker is $55, but just MHO. YMMV. Can't think of another acronym . . .

CallMeIshmael · #9 05-24-2005, 04:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I play 2 tables (very rarely 3) and IMO Playerview is worth the $50. The "hotspot" feature in PV is also very valuable since I want access to most stats (like blindsteal stats, individual street aggression, etc.) but don't want to clutter up my board too much and I call on those stats relatively infrequently. I know that many balked at $50 when PokerTracker is $55, but just MHO. YMMV. Can't think of another acronym . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a good point

I have the hotspot thing turned off because there is absolutely no way I could use it, but yeah, I'd imagine that would be really helpful for 1-3 tablers. (probably a bit higher too)

QTip · #10 05-24-2005, 04:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Also... how many tables do you play?

If its 1-3, I would guess that PV is not worth the 50. Or at least, I would not be willing to pay it.

But, as you add tables, the holecards, plus the automatic table lookup, plus the less CPU use make it well worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm thinking of making the switch now. Jordan, do you think it will be worth it when PE has their stats going on the tables? Just curious because they're almost done. I think I'll wait to see what I'll be missing.