[x]

See Where You Rank in Virginia

  1. I am a senior in college who tries to play 2 sessions of 16-20 tabling 11 non-turbo sngs on pokerstars each day for beer money and such. I have never opened an account on Full tilt and therefore I believe I would be eligible for rakeback. However, I am very comfortable w/ the blind structure, software and customer service on stars. Is there any reason I should not be playing on Full Tilt?

    Also:
    Is there a noticable skill difference at this low level of sngs on the two sites?
    Is multi-tabling easier on one site or the other?
  2. I've always found pokerstars softer then fulltilt...Fulltilt had a sng leaderboard earlier then stars and they have rakeback so they attract better players. This wouldn't come into play as much at the $11s but that isn't to say there isn't serious $11 grinders out there. If possible I'd probably play on both sites otherwise stay with stars imo.
    Raise
  3. Also, stars is way better for Multi tabling, unless you get permission I think you can't multi table as many tables on fulltilt and with special permission it's like 12 or 16 max
  4. i dunno, i've been getting worked on stars as of late.
  5. i guess if the rake back is 27% that is $.27 per $11 sng which would roughly increase my roi by 2.54%. so the question is if the competition is tough enough to decrease my roi by 2.54%.

    Is that really the limit of tables on Full Tilt?
    Raise
    Thread Starter
  6. Yes I think it's 12 tables max....I don't think the competition is tougher to drop your ROI by 2.54% but I know about 10 people who run like crap on fulltilt and always have and run amazing on stars...

    EDIT: I'm just being a skeptic, your best bet is to play both sites; play like 4 fulltilt tables at a time and after a decent amount of sngs you should be able to gauge the skill difference and/or if you run bad on that site
    Raise
  7. I normally played SNG's on Stars then moved to Tilt and because the structures are different I def prefer Stars. I just hate that Tilt doesnt have antes in their SNG's and that just throws me off. Why not just sign up to Tilt and play a few and see how they go and see if you like it?
    Raise
  8. 12 is max on tilt, but you can email them and upgrade to 16
  9. Play on full tilt and get the rackback. Players at 11 non-turbo get their stack in so bad its funny.
  10. i like the matrix on ft. but id say that ps has more games going and worse players
  11. Played with you some reb. I'd just make an account on full tilt with rakeback and play some. I don't like the structure or software on full tilt. I almost always have problems with lag when multitabling there.

    But yeah I'd just try it out and see.
    Raise
  12. I have downloaded full tilt before to rail some of the high stakes cash games and it seemed to really slow down my computer. Is it common for full tilt to be harder for a computer to run?
    Thread Starter
  13. From my experience, the SNGs on Stars fill up much faster, if that's any concern to you. I also agree that they are softer on Stars then Tilt. But, rakeback is niiiiice.
    Raise
  14.  
    Originally Posted by reb3186 View Post

    I have downloaded full tilt before to rail some of the high stakes cash games and it seemed to really slow down my computer. Is it common for full tilt to be harder for a computer to run?

    If you have already downloaded FTP to rail high stakes cash games, I think you probably have already created an account, even if you didnt deposit any money and just played for fake money, thus you wouldnt be able to get rakeback going through P5's site.
    Raise
  15. luckly I think I have always clicked "observe" and never established an account. However if I have and dont remember you would be correct. no rakeback
    Raise
    Thread Starter
  16. Non turbos, ouch.
  17.  
    Originally Posted by reb3186 View Post

    I have downloaded full tilt before to rail some of the high stakes cash games and it seemed to really slow down my computer. Is it common for full tilt to be harder for a computer to run?

    Fulltilt kills either one of my computers. I cannot play more than 3 or 4 tables without having problems on the same machines I regularly use to play twenty tables at a time on stars.
    Raise
  18. i should start 10-tabling
  19.  
    Originally Posted by reb3186 View Post

    i guess if the rake back is 27% that is $.27 per $11 sng which would roughly increase my roi by 2.54%. so the question is if the competition is tough enough to decrease my roi by 2.54%.

    Is that really the limit of tables on Full Tilt?

    My 2 cents...

    The approx 2.5% "rakeback" roi benefit described does not take into account the fpps you get on stars as a form of rakeback. Depending on what VIP level you are on your rakeback is approximately the follows (paid in fpps). Once you reach supernova, the fpp benefits although different, are similar to FTP rakeback schemes.

    Bronze 7.96%
    Gold 11.94%
    Platinum 19.91%
    Supernova 27.87%
    Supernova Elite 39.81%

    The above calculations are assuming every time you hit 13,500 fpps, you would use this to buy into the Sunday million (or another $200+$15 tourney). This does not include a few benefits, however. For example, there are the weekly freerolls for Silver and above, and the Supernova freeroll (I'm up about $5k in those) which should be factored in too. On the flip side, I am not factoring in the generation of FTP points which net of rakeback reduction probably adds another 2% to the FTP calculation. The conclusion, however, is that there is little difference for those putting in the volume. I estimate, on OP's (Reb) volume on your buy-ins, you are at gold level, in which case there will be over a 1% ROI factor in favor of playing on FTP assuming talent is equal.

    Another thing to consider, as you move up in buy-ins is the rake percentage to buy-ins. For example on FTP, the $110 turbo has a $9 rake, versus the $105 having the same $9 rake on stars. On the flipside, the $200 regular has a $16 rake versus on $15 on stars. Yes, we are talking small percentages, but when factoring in alot of volume it adds up.

    I play most of my volume on Stars, but its less about the money than the security of knowing their support constantly tries to properly listen to issues & respond to them both promptly and correctly. I had an issue with FTP back in February where all UK customers were disconnected, I emailed them a few times when this happened to unregister me from all sngs i was registered in. This did not happen, eventually I got back on, unreg'ed from all of them except 1 (luckily I was registered in ones that fill maybe a few times a day), but out of principle felt FTP should have refunded me for the one they didn't unreg me from. They kept giving me misinformation, until finally someone with enough common sense gave in (after 2 weeks and many emails). To me, that headache was worth it to move 95% of my business I had with them to other sites. I think this outweighs all the math.
    Raise
  20. Thanks for that good analysis wackyJ, i guess the fpps really do close the % gap and it becomes much more site/software/service decision
    Thread Starter
  21. Reb, yes, but this depends on your volume. If your "rake" is typically low, you are getting a much better deal from FTP percentage wise although it won't mean much in $'s. As you put in more volume, it starts to even out to eventually become in the favor of Stars. If FTP ever becomes committed to improving their support quality and turnaround, I will go back to playing there more and go back to recommending them to others. Part of what I pay for in rake is expected service. No-one lives up to stars, so rather pay a little more to get what I feel I pay for. Fortunately, at my VIP level, it turns out I pay less and get more on Stars.
    Raise
  22. I have played low-level SNGs on Ft for a few years and it seems they are getting harder to beat. But I started playing on UB and the play there is horribad! Plus they do rake back as well.
    Raise
  23.  
    Originally Posted by reb3186 View Post

    I am a senior in college who tries to play 2 sessions of 16-20 tabling 11 non-turbo sngs on pokerstars each day for beer money and such. I have never opened an account on Full tilt and therefore I believe I would be eligible for rakeback. However, I am very comfortable w/ the blind structure, software and customer service on stars. Is there any reason I should not be playing on Full Tilt?

    Also:
    Is there a noticable skill difference at this low level of sngs on the two sites?
    Is multi-tabling easier on one site or the other?

    There is a noticeable difference in blind structure on Full Tilt. Blinds increase at different increments between the sites. Multitabling on either site is pretty manageable, now that both have tiling table options/etc.
    Raise
  24.  
    Originally Posted by mesaplayeraz View Post

     
    Originally Posted by reb3186 View Post

    I have downloaded full tilt before to rail some of the high stakes cash games and it seemed to really slow down my computer. Is it common for full tilt to be harder for a computer to run?

    If you have already downloaded FTP to rail high stakes cash games, I think you probably have already created an account, even if you didnt deposit any money and just played for fake money, thus you wouldnt be able to get rakeback going through P5's site.

    Whether you've created an account or not you should still be able to receive rakeback thru their RakeBackPros site. I was able to..

    I for one have more success on Full Tilt in the lower buy in SnGs than I do on Stars, but it's not a major difference. But the rakeback makes it a no brainer imo.
    Raise

Similar Threads