Are Stars and Full Tilt Really This Much Tougher Than Other Sites

[dmorris68]

Depends on what you play, I guess. When I moved from Stars to FT it was *much* tougher for the full-ring stakes I played. Tournaments may be different -- I *have* made a lot more money on FT than Stars playing tourneys -- but lately I seem to do better in Stars tourneys than FT.

 

[LombardiStix]

There are a lot of comments/questions as to why there would be a higher percentage of sharks to fish on FT or Stars as compared to other sites and here are a few suggestions.

One is that those two sites have such high traffic, which is required if you are attempting to play in high volumes (multi-tabling). Another is the incentives for long term play like rake-back systems are good on these sites as well. Someone else mentioned trust which is big for the sharks who are often dependent upon their profit from online play as their main income. If there is a chance that the company could cut and run with their money, then it would be an obviously bad investment. These are the reasons you'll find more sharks on these two sites than others.


Stix

 

[CAMurray]

I feel that Full Tilt sports players with a tad higher skill level at the limits I play over Stars. Thought the difference in slight I much prefer to play at Stars for 2 totally different reasons.

First, I love the ability to hide from search on Stars.

Secondly and most importantly, I find the LOGSOO factor at Full Tilt to be approximately 5 fold greater than all the other sites. The reason, I attribute to the fact that their software utilizes a constant shuffle pseudo random algorithm. Simply put, during the course of a hand, the cards are continuously shuffled so if your on the button and deciding to call a raise or not post flop, if you wait 5 seconds to play, or 10 seconds, the card will be a different card.

They have proven mathematically to the media, years back, the system is just as random as the static deck but allows them added security against cheats.

In my opinion, it changes the game somehow.

LOGSOO = Likelihood Of Getting Sucked Out On

:lollypop:

 

[dmorris68]

They have proven mathematically to the media, years back, the system is just as random as the static deck but allows them added security against cheats.

In my opinion, it changes the game somehow.

I'd say the only way it changes the game is it takes away your ability to mentally "rabbit hunt" when you fold early, which for live play is sorta part of the game. This does bug me sometimes, because it's my nature (and probably human nature) to play "what if?" even though it goes against sound poker theory about being results oriented. But whether a card was randomly shuffled to the top of the deck 10ms ago or 3 minutes ago, it's still a random unknown card and thus doesn't really change the outcome of the game at all. Random is random, and unknown is unknown, so you never knew what the next card would be anyway.

I get a kick out of the players who don't know about the constant shuffle and go on and on in chat about how they "would've won" or "folded the nuts" or whatever. Sometimes I let them in on the truth, depends on my chatty mood. Some are quite surprised to hear it.

Stars is the only room (that I know of) to run a set deck shuffle, most everyone else (Merge I know, not positive about Ultimatebet/Absolute Poker) runs a constant shuffle like FT.

 

[Cdub512]

My opinion is the smaller sites are more fishy than bigger sites. Look what happened to pitbull poker...

 

[The Highflyer]

I find that the action on Titan is far fishier then that on Full Tilt. Obviously if you are playing small stakes then the site will not really dictate the type of player but at regular stakes Titan is a great place to make money.. and take a bad beat

 

[Slow Roll Poker]

I wouldn't think it's THAT big of a difference in rating. But maybe it is.