F
Freakakanus
Legend
Silver Level
Rob, 4 dogs, and Jesus Lederer play Full Tilt quite a bit. I think they would recommend it as a replacement to pokerstars.
J
jay88931
Rising Star
Bronze Level
I play on FT as well, moved over from Party about a year ago and never looked back.
Pros:
Great software... clean look, good features, aesthetically pleasing. Makes it easier to read pot/bet sizes. A bit cartoony at first glance, but customizable.
Smaller "fish factor", IMO. Both pro and con I suppose .. but good for improving your game.
Cons:
Coming from Stars, you'll prob be a little disappointed with the tournament offerings at first, but they're getting there. Fewer structure offerings and smaller payouts, but also proportionately smaller numbers of entrants (which could be a good thing if you don't like always having to get through 1500 people to win money).
Smaller player numbers (typically 15k+ during peak vs 100k+ on Stars). Not a problem during peak, but sometimes later at night Sit N Gos above $20 have trouble filling up.
All in all, I would recommend it. For whatever reason, I enjoy my overall online poker experience more at FT than I did at Party. I've dabbled over at stars, but can't stand the look of the software... just personal opinion.
Pros:
Great software... clean look, good features, aesthetically pleasing. Makes it easier to read pot/bet sizes. A bit cartoony at first glance, but customizable.
Smaller "fish factor", IMO. Both pro and con I suppose .. but good for improving your game.
Cons:
Coming from Stars, you'll prob be a little disappointed with the tournament offerings at first, but they're getting there. Fewer structure offerings and smaller payouts, but also proportionately smaller numbers of entrants (which could be a good thing if you don't like always having to get through 1500 people to win money).
Smaller player numbers (typically 15k+ during peak vs 100k+ on Stars). Not a problem during peak, but sometimes later at night Sit N Gos above $20 have trouble filling up.
All in all, I would recommend it. For whatever reason, I enjoy my overall online poker experience more at FT than I did at Party. I've dabbled over at stars, but can't stand the look of the software... just personal opinion.
beardyian
Scary Clown
Silver Level
I agree with a lot that has been said here, except i dont think it is a great site for bonuses, can be quite tough to clear and not a lot on offer apart from the initial buy-in.
Whilst i have often played there, i just dont feel as comfy as i do at other sites (P/Stars fav choice) but by all means give it a go, there a certainly worse site around
thats for sure.
Good luck
IanT
Whilst i have often played there, i just dont feel as comfy as i do at other sites (P/Stars fav choice) but by all means give it a go, there a certainly worse site around
thats for sure.Good luck
IanT
F Paulsson
euro love
Silver Level
I (almost) cleared the max FTP bonus before realizing that the extra rake (as compared to Stars) was actually costing me more money than the bonus made up for. Depending on which limit you play, this is definitely something you should look into.
At microlimits (< $1/$2) it shouldn't matter much. But at $1/$2, $2/$4 and $3/$6 the rake at FTP is pretty severe compared to Stars. That's what made me shift back to Pokerstars.
The players at FTP are usually more difficult to beat, but this isn't necessarily because they're "better", there just happens to be a crapload of tight/passive bonuschasers who only play premium hands (you get your bonus for the rake the table produced, not for the rake YOU produce) and since most of the beginner's money comes from taking advantage of the most common beginner mistake (playing too losely preflop) FTP is harder to beat at the microlimits compared to Stars. No doubt is it highly beatable for a lot of money though, you just have to adjust to it. But since many play by the books, and the low limit suggestions for these books usually presume that the players are loose preflop, they might not make as much of a profit at FTP as some of the other sites.
Just a thought.
/Fredrik
At microlimits (< $1/$2) it shouldn't matter much. But at $1/$2, $2/$4 and $3/$6 the rake at FTP is pretty severe compared to Stars. That's what made me shift back to Pokerstars.
The players at FTP are usually more difficult to beat, but this isn't necessarily because they're "better", there just happens to be a crapload of tight/passive bonuschasers who only play premium hands (you get your bonus for the rake the table produced, not for the rake YOU produce) and since most of the beginner's money comes from taking advantage of the most common beginner mistake (playing too losely preflop) FTP is harder to beat at the microlimits compared to Stars. No doubt is it highly beatable for a lot of money though, you just have to adjust to it. But since many play by the books, and the low limit suggestions for these books usually presume that the players are loose preflop, they might not make as much of a profit at FTP as some of the other sites.
Just a thought.
/Fredrik
SexyAceJoker
Rock Star
Silver Level
I didnt know that , I might stay in PS for quite sometime and maybe move to Fulltilt or UB. I was thinking of clearing the bonus by quad tabeling sit n goes and having 1 .50/1$ table open to make it fly ^_^ , Although i did like UB deposit bonus .
( How much bigger is the rake ) ?
( How much bigger is the rake ) ?