bye bye ftp....

[mrrigel]

I have played over 2000 games at full tilt. Started great but then slowly lost and lost and lost. I have played the same game for a long time so I felt like losing was gonna keep happening there and change was needed. Finally made the move to stars and i gotta say....light years ahead when it comes to level of play. Am I alone or just behind?

 

[SeanyJ]

Pretty sure you are just imagining things because the level of play at the two sites isn't really that different. If you were losing at Full Tilt you aren't just going to magically start winning because you moved to Stars.

 

[bosox]

don't get me wrong they all have donks, but The skill level of the competition on poker stars is higher then other poker sites

 

[cpett]

This is probably just a coincidence but lately I have been running HOT at the SNG's on Stars (9 cashes of the last 10) but terribly COLD on FT (1 cash out of the last 10).

 

[mrrigel]

Pretty sure you are just imagining things because the level of play at the two sites isn't really that different. If you were losing at Full Tilt you aren't just going to magically start winning because you moved to Stars.

I left ftp with profits...not much but still no red.

 

[SeanyJ]

Why would you go looking for better players to play against though? The reason you make money is when people make mistakes, good players aren't going to make as many mistakes. You might think it's frustrating when some idiot hits their gut shot straight draw to beat you but in the long run you'll make your money when he doesn't hit that draw.

Anyways I like Stars, it's the only place I play but if you think that you'll just start winning more because you've switched sites you're mistaken.

 

[mrrigel]

I agree completely...unless there's just to many of em. I sharkscope the entire table every game i play ( play a lot of sngos) and at ftp an avg of 6-7 players are red and at stars 3-4 so far. Its poker more than lottery. I hope.

 

[Onadar]

i play micro-limits, i have $5 - $10 at a couple of sites from freerolls. generally when i have a freeroll going on i usually play a micro-limit game along with it to keep from getting very bored, alot of donks in freerolls so you end up folding alot. i play 5 sites pretty regularly, depending on schedule i can grab a game night or day. i don't know what limits you are playing but i will gaurentee that it will not matter which site you play on, people will draw to just about anything and even a 2% chance to hit, will hit sometimes and the bigger the pot the more chance they will go for it.

 

[Monoxide]

Hmmm changing sites wont change much, maybe for a type of game ur looking for, like stars is the sng king.

 

[Chiefer]

if you suck at one site, you will suck at the other. we have all experienced ups and downs at both sites. i played great at stars, lost it all, now i'm playing great at tilt, chances are i will lose it all. i suck. changing sites won't help.

my suggestion. read, read, read. read this forum everyday, contribute as much as you can. read all the books you can get your hands on.

knowledge is power.

 

[Blazing_Saddler]

If you make good decisions more often than your opponents, then you will make money over time. It is as simple as that really. The Site you play on will make a difference, because some sites have more good players than others. pokerstars has a high number of good players I believe, which is one reason why I don't use it much, as well as there being no rake back, it makes no sense to use it. Plus I don't like the software one bit. That is all personnal choice though.

One thing that no one has mentioned though, is psycologically. If in your mind you believe a certain site is shafting you, then it can make sense to move, just because you will never make your best decisions while you have this in your mind. Some times a change does you good, just remember to keep trying to improve, and to make the best decision you can every time.

 

[robwhufc]

I agree completely...unless there's just to many of em. I sharkscope the entire table every game i play ( play a lot of sngos) and at Full Tilt Poker an avg of 6-7 players are red and at stars 3-4 so far. Its poker more than lottery. I hope.

That's just coincidence, most Pokerstars tables are at least 2/3rds red (a fair few by 4 figures, even at $10 games). If you think about it, there's going to be roughly the same percentage of winners and losers on every site.

I'd rather play bad players, but that's just me I suppose. Some of the players (at both sites) are simply dead money - they may donk you out now and again, but they've paid their $10 with little chance of cashing, and that's good, no?

 

[bill_nj]

One of the previous posters touched on this. There is something which if I remember correctly is called schooling. That may not be the correct term but the concept is that in any given hand a good player has the advantage over a bad player/fish but when a number of bad players/fish enter a hand they take the advantage away from the good player by increasing the number of possible suck outs that he faces.

The point is that there is a such thing as too many bad players. It can actually be better to play where there are fewer bad players as long as there are still some of them.

 

[mrrigel]

One of the previous posters touched on this. There is something which if I remember correctly is called schooling. That may not be the correct term but the concept is that in any given hand a good player has the advantage over a bad player/fish but when a number of bad players/fish enter a hand they take the advantage away from the good player by increasing the number of possible suck outs that he faces.

The point is that there is a such thing as too many bad players. It can actually be better to play where there are fewer bad players as long as there are still some of them.

thats what i'm talkin about........

 

[K_Kahne_Fan]

One of the previous posters touched on this. There is something which if I remember correctly is called schooling. That may not be the correct term but the concept is that in any given hand a good player has the advantage over a bad player/fish but when a number of bad players/fish enter a hand they take the advantage away from the good player by increasing the number of possible suck outs that he faces.

The point is that there is a such thing as too many bad players. It can actually be better to play where there are fewer bad players as long as there are still some of them.

Agreed. In the long run you're "supposed" to come out ahead, but when you play against a bunch of people who don't know/care and play any two cards and keep getting sucked out on... it sucks. Too many times on BD I would be ahead and get beat on the turn/river by a suckout. It still happens on Stars, but I don't get called as much, so I win without the showdown more often. I'm not saying BD is rigged with anything other than players who (at my level) will "give it a chance" because it's only ($1/$3/$6) and they don't have much to lose. Granted it is only 1/3/6, but do get sucked out on like that 10 times and you're looking at 10/30/60.

 

[aliengenius]

One of the previous posters touched on this. There is something which if I remember correctly is called schooling. That may not be the correct term but the concept is that in any given hand a good player has the advantage over a bad player/fish but when a number of bad players/fish enter a hand they take the advantage away from the good player by increasing the number of possible suck outs that he faces.

The point is that there is a such thing as too many bad players. It can actually be better to play where there are fewer bad players as long as there are still some of them.

thats what i'm talkin about........

Unfortunately, you are wrong. Refutation of this concept here and here.
Higher variance does NOT equal less profit.

 

[greener_lax]

i hate when people say they can't win online because there's so many donkeys that suck them out. they argue it's easier to make money playing with better players. this is just stupid when you think about it. a guy might go all in agaisnt you and hit his gut shot straight draw but in the long run you're going to make money against this move. people who complain they can't win because there are to many donks at the table are just simply not very good players.

i love playing agianst donkeys, they're the ones that build my bankroll

 

[CrackaNACtion]

Well I Disagree With Alot Of U lol. I Mean I gotta Say FullTilt Has More Badbeats Then Any Site Ive Played On. Heres What Ive noticed About FullTilt. Normally Bad Beats Come At Critical Times In A TOurny. And In RIng Games They Happen When Uve Got A Monster Starting Hand ANd Hit THe FLop. But No Matter Where U Play There WIll Be Donkeys. I Mean Look At The Last wsop Champion. Lol. He Did IT At The Highest Stage And Won Cause HE Donked It Up. He Isnt That Good But Ohh Well.

 

[royalburrito24]

i hate when people say they can't win online because there's so many donkeys that suck them out.

hahahaha, sorry.


If you decided to switch over to stars because there are less fish there, then you switched over for the wrong reason. You want to be playing with as many fish as possible. You (shark) want to take on a school of weak players (fish) as many times as possible.

 

[zachvac]

hahahaha, sorry.


If you decided to switch over to stars because there are less fish there, then you switched over for the wrong reason. You want to be playing with as many fish as possible. You (shark) want to take on a school of weak players (fish) as many times as possible.

If someone thinks they want to play against better player, that term in bold is very suspect IMO.

 

[greener_lax]

players like crakcantion are guys who lose money in poker. they make up excuses, saying the site is rigged and stuff. you're not going to have more bad beats on fulltilt then you are on stars or anywhere else. even doyle brunson said he makes most of his money against the weaker players. when i'm at a table i try to locate the two weakest players and exploit there weaknesses. anyone who says they lose money to these players are just not any good themselves.

 

[CrackaNACtion]

Yawn Diffrence between me and u greener is i play for higher stakes not 5 10 cent like u. so if u get a bad beat u lose 4 dollars or w/e when someone who plays like i did u lose hundreds. sigh and if ud like i can post a thread of people saying fulltilt is prob the worst at badbeats K Thanks

 

[royalburrito24]

hahahaha, sorry.


If you decided to switch over to stars because there are less fish there, then you switched over for the wrong reason. You want to be playing with as many fish as possible. You (presumably, shark) want to take on a school of weak players (fish) as many times as possible.

Fixed my post.

 

[pantin007]

Yawn Diffrence between me and u greener is i play for higher stakes not 5 10 cent like u. so if u get a bad beat u lose 4 dollars or w/e when someone who plays like i did u lose hundreds. sigh and if ud like i can post a thread of people saying fulltilt is prob the worst at badbeats K Thanks

how to put this,how to put this ,hmmmm *sigh*
ur a losing because of YOU, not the site
it is in the human nature to blame other forces for their loses but u really need to examine urself

someone here has a sig that says,"ur only a loser if u blame someone else for ur loses" or something like that

if u lose on tilt ur going to lose on stars and any other site u play on

 

[CrackaNACtion]

Thats Not True At all. Thats Diff Not True. Ok How Is It My Fault My Trips Get Beat By Runner Runner Cards Eh? My Fault? When Im All In Flop With My trips... yes Thats Such my Fault Cause imma Bad poker player... sigh