|
|
#11
12-13-2006, 08:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Where to play FTP vs PStars
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] FTP is way better for lower limit player (as opposed to NL200 and above) [/ QUOTE ] I'd really appreciate you expanding on this. How? What are the tables like there typical? Typical avg pot sizes/VPIP's would be cool. TAG's per table would be awesome too. Stars it seems like there's usually at least 2, sometimes 3. [/ QUOTE ] You all seem to worry about TAGs too much. Exploit them too. 
|
|
#12
12-13-2006, 08:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Where to play FTP vs PStars
I say that purely in terms of the benefits - not the standard of players.
The rakeback on FTP beats everything (in terms of percentages) except for supernova status. For us uNL players, it takes around 5-6 months (very rough estimate - prolly longer).
|
|
#13
12-13-2006, 09:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Where to play FTP vs PStars
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] FTP is way better for lower limit player (as opposed to NL200 and above) [/ QUOTE ] I'd really appreciate you expanding on this. How? What are the tables like there typical? Typical avg pot sizes/VPIP's would be cool. TAG's per table would be awesome too. Stars it seems like there's usually at least 2, sometimes 3. [/ QUOTE ] You all seem to worry about TAGs too much. Exploit them too. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#14
12-13-2006, 10:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Where to play FTP vs PStars
Rakeback works out to about 72$ per 6000 hands (at 27%/50NL).
|
|
#15
12-13-2006, 11:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Where to play FTP vs PStars
[ QUOTE ]
Rakeback works out to about 72$ per 6000 hands (at 27%/50NL). [/ QUOTE ] That's my rate as well.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
