micros at stars are the SUX

So, I played 1k hands of .25/.50 6max at stars just for fun today.

rake was an astronomic $21.25
i got some 20+ fpp points for the effort

i did manage to break even for this long 4tabling session, but... WTF?

who can play with that rake and no benefits whatsoever?

RB rules, and playing at stars below 1/2 without supernova is the sux

I did enjoy the terrible beats and terrible plays, tho... man, they suck big time down there... I mean, ppl completing the SB with AA in a 4 way pot? calling 4bets pf with 84o? LOL

It is frustrating when u run bad, juicy when u run good, but plenty of LOLs, WTFs and o_O all the way...

Yeah dude I feel ya. You have to run pretty damn good to make a profit at those stakes. I try not to play anything less than $1/2 FL nowadays for this very reason, and even there the rake is insane. It's bad enough trying to make up for bets lost without factoring in the rake too.

Regularly playing .25/50 and .5/1 at stars is a mistake.

You can theoretically play enough 1/2 with good enough game selection to make stars vpp structure OK, (at 1/2 you can make an ok # of FPP[i.e. platinum is perfectly plausible]) but yes the micro limits are harsh, although they do offer a nice game selection for a somewhat dieing game. I am stating to think u really have to go back to NLHE, to get anywhere these days. but NLHE tends to bore me , so I don't know what to do.

Why LHE 1/2 is better than .5/1
Can you show me the rake differences between .5/1 and 1/2 ?
(dont take into account better VIP program)


$0.50/$1.00 2-10players $0.05 for each $1.00 in Pot ($0.50max)
$1.00/$2.00 2-10players $0.25 for each $5.00 in Pot ($1.00max)

i dont know about that lance
my post refers to the difference between playing micros at stars (vpp) or somewhere else (with rakeback)

rakeback gives u X% of the rake whatever stakes you play, whatever nr of hands you play
vpps only gives u $X IF you play high enough stakes AND IF you play enough hands

heres the issue......US players have limited choices.

-you can play stars which offers better game volume at any given point in the day for a low traffic game.
-you can play cake which has terrible players, rakeback, but terrible volume.
-you can play cereus which still has the reputation of being crooked AND to hit the juicy stuff, you need to play the BBJ tables. and, those have a rake that is worse than stars....i think.
-FTP has stiffer competition, but rakeback.

i know the rake rapes us blind, but until i can get my game up and over the 50/1 hump, i stick with the shitty stars and cake games. that said, maybe someone can answer how i can beat stars 25c/50c games for a 3.5/100, but cant breakeven on the 50/1 games???

hmm... i believe there are some more options, but i see what you mean, still, maaaaaaany stars players are not from the US.

Also, it has to be a +1BB/100 winrate difference in softness for you to play there and not FTP (for example) with RB. I dont believe the diference at the micros to be so huge. Then again, maybe i'm not used to them anymore.

FTP takes 1 cent off for every 15 cents. That means at 90 cents, they take off 5 cents. PokerStars does not take off a rake until the pot reaches 1 dollar (and it will continue to only take rake when it reaches the dollar) and this rake is 5 cents. This means that you may be paying 5 cents off per pot when PS would not take any. Also, for example, a pot of $2.70 would be taking $.15 at FTP while taking only $.10 at PokerStars (since it did not yet reach the $3 mark). At the micro level, this is big.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asdpikas

hmm... i believe there are some more options, but i see what you mean, still, maaaaaaany stars players are not from the US.

Also, it has to be a +1BB/100 winrate difference in softness for you to play there and not FTP (for example) with RB. I dont believe the diference at the micros to be so huge. Then again, maybe i'm not used to them anymore.

---

i didnt do any math. those were just my dissenting opinions off the top of my head. you may be on to something with the 1bb/100 softness thing.

but, i cant get RB at FT anymore because i was a bonus whore back in the day, and cant get them to honor my requests.

and, i totally agree with the Euros and Asians and Canadians/Aussies, for that matter. that part doesnt make too much sense.

i am actually considering playing more live since 3/6 is softer yet than 25/50c at stars. and, i cant/wont multitable enough to make $12/hr at stars at these levels.

oh, and all can say what they want, the bottom line is about profit. if you are profitable at your current level, you make money. if you can leverage it, great. if not, great. dont move up or add tables because you are measuring your E-dick (not an attack at Asd...just a disclaimer of sorts) with everyone else's. if you add tables and your hourly drops, STOP. if you move up and cant beat the game, MOVE BACK DOWN. play where you are profitable and dont worry so much about the rake. we all pay it. try to minimize the rake as best you can, but if you have to pay a bigger amount than me, or anyone else, then so be it......at least you are a profitable player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BooG690

FTP takes 1 cent off for every 15 cents. That means at 90 cents, they take off 5 cents. PokerStars does not take off a rake until the pot reaches 1 dollar (and it will continue to only take rake when it reaches the dollar) and this rake is 5 cents. This means that you may be paying 5 cents off per pot when PS would not take any. Also, for example, a pot of $2.70 would be taking $.15 at FTP while taking only $.10 at PokerStars (since it did not yet reach the $3 mark). At the micro level, this is big.

---

FTP looks good to me:

http://www.marketrake.com/0,5-1%20FLHE%20SH%202.html

but its not a question of one vs the other, its a question of VIP programs being BS below a certain level, compared to rakeback

http://www.kingscascade.com/PokerRakeCompare.html

Quote:

---

but its not a question of one vs the other, its a question of VIP programs being BS below a certain level, compared to Rakeback

---

i wont ever argue this one. for smaller stakes players, rakeback is quite effective. however, stars has it completely figured out. no coincidence that they are the leader. they throw a little dog a little bone, but take better care of their bread and butter players.....the whales.

thats how its done. if you want incentive, become a whale. simply genius, imo.

the sites dont owe micro-players squat. (i know that is not what you are saying, either) it is completely up to the micro-player to find his own sweet spot in the industry. again, it just sucks a little harder in the US where your options are so limited these days.

if the US would just open its doors again, the industry may get a nice short term pop in fish, but the bonuses would flow like mad for awhile again, too. then, you would have a decision: bonus/reloads vs rakeback.