should i leave stars for rakeback ?

[the_casino_kid]

what does everyone here think about playing at stars being that it is rakeback free. I have liked it there, there is always new players, but i feel that im missing out on free money that would otherwise go to waste.

[pena]

I like the look and feel of Stars' software so much that I mainly play there even though I have rake-back accounts elsewhere. And I can't live without resizeable windows so for example UB, Absolute and PR are not options for me. Whereas FT has ok software with resizeable windows, but the competition is far more tougher than Stars' and I profit more on Stars without rakeback than on FT with rakeback.

[bozzer]

[ QUOTE ]
but the competition is far more tougher than Stars' and I profit more on Stars without rakeback than on FT with rakeback.

[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY?

It depends what level you play. IIRC casino kid plays 10nl? In that case I think stars is good value because the rake is 5% of the pot. At FT it's 10%, so the rakeback can't cover the difference.

I doubt FTP's games are ~27% harder than Stars'.

I'm now at 25nl and am going to move from stars to somewhere with rb.

[Skleice]

I've been thinking about this lately too. I've been playing on another site lately that offers rakeback and I love getting that extra $$$ in my account each month.
Also, my last few sessions at Stars have been boring rock games. I end up with a bunch of multitablers sitting around folding their small blinds. Yes I can steal blinds all night, but it's not as fun and I get more profits from played out hands. I've been thinking about moving to UB, but I don't know much about the play there. Any good fishy loose passive sites with rakeback?

[payday]

I've been trying out the iPoker network for a few days now and the games are pretty good (50NL). Rakeback is possible but the deposit bonus seems to be very slow..

[joe023948]

I think FTP NL10 is softer than on stars. Might be just a good run though.

[C4LL4W4Y]

FTP has a lot of regs but it's still pretty damn soft. Bonus + Rakeback + datamining = +ev

[munkey]

I would play FT with RB+bonii for signing up only when @ NL50+ in order to clear all of it -any lower and I would wait till your rolled for it.

Even then it took me about 30k of NL50 to clear if I remember rightly.

[Ikaika]

I've been thinking about switching over to FT from Stars too but I think I'm gonna have to wait till I'm rolled for 50nl to do it.

[jonyy6788]

RB is usually around 1 to 1.5PTBB/100 depending on site and if you are clearing bonus.

So, what I'm tryin to get at is that it is not the % that matters, but the actual rate of earn.

For example, you're a 4PTBB/100 winner at Stars, if you can earn 3PTBB/100 at FT, then you should join (provided you're not at NL10 b/c of 10% rake)


rakeback is a good boost to the bankroll and is especially critical if you're just learning the game and may be breaking even. Also, as mentioned the datamining at FT is superb in table selection.

[Ikaika]

so would you say that the bonus would take too long to clear at 25nl?

[We Major]

I recently switched to FT for the rakeback and the bonus. I've cleared about 60 bucks of it after 6k hands of 25NL.

The rakeback is nice:)

In general, I had lots of problems at 10NL on FT because of people playing almost anything and being unable to put them on a hand. When I waited until I had a hand to play the maniacs it would always get cracked. The games are definitely more aggro at full tilt and I find it easier to get paid off. I also never have problems finding games with 60 percent of people to the flop and committing a lot of money.

The thing I find annoying about fulltilt is the software is slow and not quite as refined as stars. It just feels laggy to me.