Looking for another Poker Place?

[Djanvk]

Currently playing at Pokerstars and also have a account at Bodog which i havent played in awhile, but have been thinking of joining PartyPoker? Any ideas on this, or is it basically like the other places I play at?

Thanks

[salsa4ever]

joining partypoker is a good idea.

taking advantage of the almost unlimited information that can be accessed from the search button is yet another good idea.

[Djanvk]

I have used the search and it was a good idea....Just looking for OTHER opinions.

[Eric]

Check out our room reviews here: http://www.flopturnriver.com/reviews...oker-Rooms.php
Right now Paradise Poker is ranked the highest in our reviews. Check out our Rakeback section too, our rakeback programs are nice because they are direct with the Poker Rooms (you don't have to rely on us as a 3rd party once you sign up).

[Pingviini]

I would go search "online poker rooms" forum downstairs. Poker room reviews are good too!

Perhaps next time you will also include which games and limits you play?

EDIT: stupid grammatical error (perhaps) corrected..

[Miffed22001]

party is good i just joined there
ap apparently! has crappy software but the mtts and ring games are a walkover.
didnt like paradise but stll have an account nor bet365.

[AHiltz]

If you have the funds available on a credit card or in Neteller, Pacific is a good way to start a bankroll. Deposit $400 and get $100. Cash out the $400 and wait til you have the money in your hand. Then giver hell with the $100.

[biondino]

I would love to find an up-to-date, coherent, convincing argument about why, for example, Bodog should be fishier than Ulitmatebet, or Paradise than Prima, or whatever.

I understand the Party/(former) skins issue, and I also understand that Party is the biggest in terms of membership and advertising and should, therefore, also have the most fish.

But I'm not sure, for example, why Pokerroom is never quoted as a haven for amateurs but Pacific (for example) is. My own experience of both sites is that the standard is much of a muchness, and my hardwired logic tells me this should be the case overall, where specific examples (such as the Party situation) can be put in their correct context.

Basically I want someone to convince me that the majority of poker sites don't just tend to the average in terms of player skill. Then, I want someone to tell me where I should play $50NL with rakeback and a flapping pool of trapped fishies

[UG]

Sites with sports betting tend to have decent sized fishies. People make their bets and win/lose money, then go to the poker tables to win/lose more money. You'll have a better chance to find casual poker players at sites like these.

[EasyT]

PartyPoker is fishy, because every joe who decides to give online poker a try has heard of Party because of heavy advertising. So they get a substantial percentage of new players (fish).

What George said about rooms attached to sportsbooks is true. Sportsbetters are often casual poker players with big BRs and plenty of gambool.

Lots of other sites tend toward the middle, like you said.

PokerStars is probably the site with the best players (least fish). Why? I dunno. They advertise plenty, so they must be getting new players. But somehow lots of talented people have decided to call this place 'home' and so tables and tournaments are tougher than other sites.

Everyone has their favorite site, but if you're looking for a nice place to play ring-games and have a reasonable number of fishies, Party is a good choice.

EasyT

[TheProdigy87]

Absolute poker is a great site. Good software too.

[eeeee]

EasyT's summary is good - I agree.
I would add that any room's lowest limits have the most fish, so rooms without $10NL will have good action at $25NL. PStars goes down to $2NL, so their $25NL tends to be relatively tight. Some of those sports/poker rooms have plenty of fish at $50NL, because they can't swim away to the $10NL tables.