|
|
 Originally Posted by CyberNerd
As far as the pokerrooms that don't allow US players being softer, from reading the posts by foreign players on various forums, they all complain that the sites have become harder now that the US players are gone
On the motherfucking money.
Dear America,
WHAT ON EARTH MAKES YOU THINK YOU ARE BETTER AT THIS GAME THAN ANYONE ELSE? When Yanks used to be able to play at Crypto I was delighted to sit down with several of them because they tended to be poor, loose players who'd tilt easily.
What has, without doubt, happened since the bill is that most of these players have quit; but most would have gone bust anyway. So the standard of the average longstanding American player on Stars and FT may be slightly higher than elsewhere. However, this is balanced out by the fact that when American noobs DO want to play, and make the effort to find a way to deposit, Stars and FT (and the other US-friendly sites) get to keep all of them.
Ever since I started playing this game, the hunt for fish has preoccupied almost every player I've spoken to or read. Human nature means we're desperate to find the easiest option; as a result, differences in standards between the various poker rooms have been, and almost certainly will continue to be, massively overstated. The reason for this is very simple; nature abhors a vacuum, so when one site is considered fishy, sharks will swim over there to get a piece of the action. The result: fishy site not so fishy, sharky site not so sharky.
The US bill has changed this, but not as much as some might think. FT and Stars are now the biggest and best-marketed sites in the world; this attracts a lot of fish from both the US and overseas. It's not like the foreign fish are educated enough, for the most part, to either deduce or believe the hype that the US-only sites are "harder". They just flock to the most popular, as a rule.
There are genuine reasons why some sites might be softer, the US situation notwithstanding. Firstly, the most heavily marketed sites will gain the largest number of noobs, as stated above. Secondly, sites with big sportsbook or casino operations may well provide more players who are used to gambling, rather than playing with skill (this is why Bodog has its fishy reputation). Thirdly, a lot of sharks won't play at sites where tools like Poker Tracker and Poker Office don't work (though the converse of this is that other sharks, who realise this fact and also the fact that they can be sure that their opponents don't have huge number of stats to use against them, should be able to make a killing in these waters if they really are that fishy).
But, regardless of the above, any genuine softness will swiftly become apparent and equilibrium will be approached, if not achieved.
In conclusion, I believe that the perceived fishiness of a site - which isn't a stat that's easy to quantify, it's almost entirely based on hearsay and anecdotes from a tiny sample of potentially biased users - is a very minor reason for choosing a site. More important are things like bonuses, traffic, games and limits offered, customer support, ease of financial transactions, rakeback, reliability and even the look and feel of the site.
|
Should I be leaving the country???
Reply With Quote
)