Does anybody agree with BW rating of Party Poker?

[daedalus]

I really enjoy Bonuswhores.com but there has always been one thing that bugs me to no end. They rank Party Limit games as a "C"!!! They also say the following sites are softer...

- Ultimate
- Paradise
- Prima Network
- Bodog
- to name a few

I've yet to find a site softer than Party. Can someone tell me if I'm crazy or does BW have an issue with Party.
/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[grac]

Possibly in thier interest to direct people towards certain sites over others.

[ihaveAdream]

daedalus,

Couldn't agree with you more, grade C for party is a joke. Prima and Ultimate bet both has tougher games, in my opinion not even close to party. Haven't played paradise, but Bodog actually is VERY loose and soft, at least when I last played there.

[Barrin6]

Read up what a bell curve means before overreacting that "C" is bad.

[NSchandler]

I don't think he's saying a "C" is a "bad" grade. He's saying that he has yet to find a site that is softer than party, and therefore they should be rated higher than "average."

[KEW]

Because of the size of Party I do not think they can have any other rating but a "C"...Party at ALL times will have the softest games and the toughest games on the net as well as everything in between...Being a full ring player I feel the games at Party have gotten noticably tougher since the explosion of popularity in the 6 max games..

[Niediam]

UB used to be softer but has tighted up some since their server problems - probably about the same now.

Paradise is way way softer.

I havn't played on Prima.

BoDog was much softer before they screwed over there software and I havn't played much since.

[daedalus]

[ QUOTE ]
Read up what a bell curve means before overreacting that "C" is bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I'll respectfully resist pushing back on the 'old hand' here but let's just say that I'm quite knowledgable regarding statistical distributions. I take a "C" to mean 50% in a normal distribution. I'd put Party way to the right, at least in the top 15-20%. But that's at the levels I play. How can Pacific be an A and Party be considered Average?

[Barrin6]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Read up what a bell curve means before overreacting that "C" is bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I'll respectfully resist pushing back on the 'old hand' here but let's just say that I'm quite knowledgable regarding statistical distributions. I take a "C" to mean 50% in a normal distribution. I'd put Party way to the right, at least in the top 15-20%. But that's at the levels I play. How can Pacific be an A and Party be considered Average?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't worry about disrepecting me. I think post counts are overrated, I can actually be an obnoxious brat who just posts everyday.

Ok back on topic...

In another thread somewhere, bonuswhore gave a clear explanation of how they did it. I can't find it at the moment.

Remember there's more "C"s then A's, and it just so happens to be that Pacific is the leading soft site.
Yes I do believe the bell curve really screws up everything since it doesn't give a clear idea or difference of softness. But I don't believe that party nowadays are the softest site. Site's with less bonus or rakeback tend to be the fishiest.

[jah7_fsu1]

I don't care what BW rates it, it's a soft site I love playing at. I tend to agree with you, but it's just a rating and I doubt you quit playing at Party just because BW rates it average when you find it as fishy as I do /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[boondoggle]

What tables are everyone making their comparisons? Limit tables, NL tables, omaha, tournaments..what? Because their NL tables above 200 NL have become much tougher compared to other sites.

cheers
Boon

[darkcore]

imo their nl $25-$100 tables have become tougher, too.

they are still pretty good, but not what they have been in pre-x-skins times.

[ckmj23]

[ QUOTE ]
Possibly in thier interest to direct people towards certain sites over others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely untrue.