[apefish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but if you play low volume, low stake ring games, and you are in no way every going to get to be a supernova, and you have full tilt rakeback , its not even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a huge part of the equation that those castigating Stars here assume to simply be true in order to windmill slam the debate in their minds.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it isn't. Full Tilt is not the only other site!
.

[/ QUOTE ]


KSOT- gotta admit I'm not sure what you were trying to say here. The debate in this thread was over whether or not people playing at stars were leaving value on the table by doing so.
The debate grew in that vein. When people came back to the conclusion "full tilt is clearly better than Stars now and it's obvious" that ignored a large portion of players who it simply can never be true for as it currently stands.
The poster I quoted was the first to use that qualification in their pro full tilt stance and I was bolding it and pointing out that the argument really only starts (with regards to full tilt and stars- which is where the real debate in the thread had gone) if one assumes Full Tilt rakeback is available to people who switch or are choosing between the two sites.

Once again I'll reiterate- it very clearly isn't true for some, which means we cannot just make blanket statements about one site being "clearly better" than another for a wide array of people.

And I am not making that blanket claim about Stars either.



REK- I tend to agree with most of your listed/numbered statements. At the minimum I find them to be a middle ground with little reason to argue over fine details. Well done. That's where i hoped this thread would get to.


Peace.