Figuring Out FullTilt's Iron Man vs PokerStar's VPP/FPP

Ok I have a headache trying to figure this out, but basically I think FullTilt's Iron Man program sucks butt. It's based on daily play, not monthly, meaning if you take a 7 day vacation or break from poker you get screwed.

Anyways, someone help me with this ...

FullTilt:

Cash game, you can earn up to 3 fulltilt points per hand. 1 point per $1 dropped in rake. They calculate this to a one-hundredth of a point.

You have to qualify for the Iron Man, which requires that you earn a certain number of FullTilT points PER DAY. Once you have enough points "per day" you then get bonus metals.

At the Iron Man store, a $600 bonus is 3000 metals. A $300 bonus is 1600 metals. A $100 bonus is 600 metals.


As you make Iron Man every month, they reward you by giving you more medals than the previous month.

So, in my example, lets say I go and qualify for Silver Status (which would mean 2,000 points roughly for the month, 100 per day for 20 days). That's roughly 10,000 hands at 50nl. It would take me 8 months to earn 600 metals, or the $100 bonus.

=============

PokerStars:

Cash Game.

$50 bonus is 5000 points. $285 bonus is 25000. $650 bonus is 50,000 points.

When you play, you get an FPP multiplier. If you reach SilverStar status, you get 50% multiplier, and gold is 100%. To get to Silver Status you need to get 1,500 VPPs (are these different from FPPs??!).

FPP is awarded for playing a hand when the rake reaches $0.40 for NL games below $1/2 blinds. You get a second FPP if the rake reaches $3, and a third is the rake is $5.

Since I play at FullTilt mainly, I have no way of judging how many hands = how many points.

I was wondering the same thing Ice. The Ironman promotion at FTP (in my opinion at least) really sucks. If they gave you a points multiplier for each level reached, then I think it'd be a ton better because you would actually be playing for something, and it would feel more like an actual bonus. Like you said, you have to play 128,123,943,296,954 or so hands to achieve the higher levels in the first place (unless you're playing 16 tables at like $2/4 NL), and even then you are very limited in the 'prizes' you might be able to receive. Also, is it just me or do you think you make points on pokerstars a whole lot faster than on full tilt? (unless this is due strictly to the points multiplier) See ya----

If you don't have rakeback at Tilt, switch to Stars.

Yeah I don;t have rakeback ... so it is making me think once i get to 100nl it'll definitely be time to switch to stars. But i'm not even at 20 buyins for 50nl yet (thus still playing at 25nl) but i am ever inching forward.

And yeah ... if you look at the VPP/FPP program with the bonus for stars as rakeback, its FAR better than playing at FullTilt with no rakeback.

Stars VPP's are worth like 28% rakeback if you attain SN afaik.

ironman puts me on raging tilt and is one of the reasons i moved away from FT (even though i had rakeback). another reason is the crappy software.

anyways stars VIP is better than sex if you get SN, in which case you get concierge services which have an amazing conversion rate.

Cool ... yeah pretty much that's how its breaking down for me right now. I dont think as much as I play that even Platinum on Stars is possible, but i suppose its nice to know its out there, unlike where i am at now.