|
Elninho
|
07-19-2006, 04:50 PM
Post subject: Competition at Pokerstars NL100?
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 10
|
|
Hi,
My first post here, been around forever but never thought of posting since I believe others does it better  I really enjoy this site tho, many great contributors, tyvm and all the usual stuff. The reason I chose to actually post something is because I need advice regarding Pokerstars. Since I began playing 15 months ago I almost always been at Prima and Party Poker. I played all stakes from $1/$2 to $10/$20 FL and NL50 to NL1000. Sometimes severly under bankrolled and sometimes on major tilt. Well, thats not the issue anyway, I have since then learned to control my emotions and settled at stakes where I have an adequate bankroll.
Since my trasition to a "serious" player I have actually won a lot of money, but lately Prima/Party has started to bore me. I felt like I needed a change of scenery and decided I would have a go at Pokerstars. One reason is that I want to take a shot at tournaments. I think cashgame will always be my bread and butter tho, and sadly I know nothing of the competition on Stars. I play mostly NL but also some Limit (I play only Full Ring). I will be grinding out FL at Full Tilt, so NL at Stars is what really concerns me. I can't say I am a great player, but I do claim to win some decent money at lower stakes (NL100-NL200) at Party and Prima. But I have no clue whatsoever of the quality of play at Stars compared to these sites... So please fill me in with as many details as you can.
|
|
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
Irisheyes
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: over there
Posts: 3,708
|
|
Stars players are on average a decent bit better then party's. If I was you I wouldn't leave party.
Or else go have a look at Fortune poker. The software there is crap, but the players are just as crap.
|
|
|
|
Elninho
|
|
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 10
|
|
Hehe you scare me a little now 
I think I will "try out" Stars to have a look at the competition. Meanwhile I will keep a healthy roll at Party as suggested. No point in playing if the competition is fierce, but I guess Im still curious to find out. Fortune Poker is boss media, right? Played on Boss before and absolutely loved their 5-max games. To bad the site is shabby and doesn't support PT tho 
|
|
|
|
Miffed22001
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Marry Me Cheryl!!!
Posts: 8,181
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elninho
Hehe you scare me a little now
I think I will "try out" Stars to have a look at the competition. Meanwhile I will keep a healthy roll at Party as suggested. No point in playing if the competition is fierce, but I guess Im still curious to find out. Fortune Poker is boss media, right? Played on Boss before and absolutely loved their 5-max games. To bad the site is shabby and doesn't support PT tho |
if you want to win money, dont go and play stars cash games.
Playing stars cash games when you are a winning player is -ev IMO.
And no, im not joking either.
|
|
|
|
WhooFleuryScores
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 918
|
|
Quote:
Playing stars cash games when you are a winning player is -ev IMO.
And no, im not joking either.
|
I second that.
|
|
|
|
Cocco_Bill
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,254
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WhooFleuryScores
Quote:
Playing stars cash games when you are a winning player is -ev IMO.
And no, im not joking either.
|
I second that. |
I very much disagree with that.
Pokerstars software is great for heavy multitabling, it has a huge player base with plenty of room for table selection. The players are pretty weak on average and almost every table has at least one or two hopeless fish.
|
|
|
|
arkana
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,109
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cocco_Bill
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WhooFleuryScores
Quote:
Playing stars cash games when you are a winning player is -ev IMO.
And no, im not joking either.
|
I second that. |
I very much disagree with that.
Pokerstars software is great for heavy multitabling, it has a huge player base with plenty of room for table selection. The players are pretty weak on average and almost every table has at least one or two hopeless fish. |
Up to about 200NL prob yes, but 400NL+ ( i have heard) is a lot tougher...
|
|
|
|
Muxy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Canadian LOLUH'S AND AMERICAN LOLUHS
Posts: 1,529
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by arkana
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cocco_Bill
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WhooFleuryScores
Quote:
Playing stars cash games when you are a winning player is -ev IMO.
And no, im not joking either.
|
I second that. |
I very much disagree with that.
Pokerstars software is great for heavy multitabling, it has a huge player base with plenty of room for table selection. The players are pretty weak on average and almost every table has at least one or two hopeless fish. |
Up to about 200NL prob yes, but 400NL+ ( i have heard) is a lot tougher... |
didn't this guy ask for 100nl...
not 400........
|
|
|
|
Miffed22001
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Marry Me Cheryl!!!
Posts: 8,181
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Muxy
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by arkana
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cocco_Bill
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WhooFleuryScores
Quote:
Playing stars cash games when you are a winning player is -ev IMO.
And no, im not joking either.
|
I second that. |
I very much disagree with that.
Pokerstars software is great for heavy multitabling, it has a huge player base with plenty of room for table selection. The players are pretty weak on average and almost every table has at least one or two hopeless fish. |
Up to about 200NL prob yes, but 400NL+ ( i have heard) is a lot tougher... |
didn't this guy ask for 100nl...
not 400........ |
party has 5 fish at ever 6max table and 9 at every fr table.
gg stars?
|
|
|
|
Elninho
|
|
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 10
|
|
Seeing you guys disagreeing with eachother so much I decided to just make a small deposit and try it out. Only played a couple of NL50 tables (Full ring) due to my small deposit. They were not as bad ("good") as I expected. A couple of weak tights blended in with the occassional fish. Won $300 right way, but of course the deck was hitting me like crazy. With new fresh money I tried out the NL100 also. Of course my experience is FAR to limited, but I believe the leap in skill level was bigger than usual from NL50 to NL100. Went break even over about 800 hands or so on NL100 (wich of course doesn't say anything) and noted there was a couple of solid players at most tables.
Maybe my table selection was bad though, and I certainly also noticed the usual fish paying of his whole stack with TPTK. Too early to say anything really, but I dont think Stars seem worse than Prima. Prima is really tight as opposed to Party, and from my limited experience I would rank Pokerstars somewhere in between. Tight doesn't always mean right though in No Limit, as I think we all are aware... At Prima, after some practice, I was able to absolutely crush the game playing a somewhat looser style and utilizing position to the maximum. Maybe the same goes with stars, I dunno? Miffed22001 mentioned the 6-max tables (and the FR too for all sake) and he is right on point there. Im certain that the 6-max tables at Party is among the juiciest you can find. However I am just a boring full-ring grinder so that doesn't really apply to me 
|
|
|
|
Miffed22001
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Marry Me Cheryl!!!
Posts: 8,181
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elninho
Seeing you guys disagreeing with eachother so much I decided to just make a small deposit and try it out. Only played a couple of NL50 tables (Full ring) due to my small deposit. They were not as bad ("good") as I expected. A couple of weak tights blended in with the occassional fish. Won $300 right way, but of course the deck was hitting me like crazy. With new fresh money I tried out the NL100 also. Of course my experience is FAR to limited, but I believe the leap in skill level was bigger than usual from NL50 to NL100. Went break even over about 800 hands or so on NL100 (wich of course doesn't say anything) and noted there was a couple of solid players at most tables.
Maybe my table selection was bad though, and I certainly also noticed the usual fish paying of his whole stack with TPTK. Too early to say anything really, but I dont think Stars seem worse than Prima. Prima is really tight as opposed to Party, and from my limited experience I would rank Pokerstars somewhere in between. Tight doesn't always mean right though in No Limit, as I think we all are aware... At Prima, after some practice, I was able to absolutely crush the game playing a somewhat looser style and utilizing position to the maximum. Maybe the same goes with stars, I dunno? Miffed22001 mentioned the 6-max tables (and the FR too for all sake) and he is right on point there. Im certain that the 6-max tables at Party is among the juiciest you can find. However I am just a boring full-ring grinder so that doesn't really apply to me |
only perhaps and its a big perhaps do the tables on the tribeca network come close to party fishiness.
Obv tehre are also other small sites that are very fishy, like fortune poker which ive tried on IRisheyes suggestion and laughed my tits off at :P
|
|
|
|
natdang
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 380
|
|
Stars players are sorta nittish, I like being the table bully. Yeah the sw is second to none
|
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
06-02-2012, 08:10 PM Merge Network 6.0 Looks to Retain Current Player Base
Linear Mode
