|
|
#21
02-28-2007, 10:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Soft competition: Stars vs. FTP vs. Absolute?
[ QUOTE ]
I play FT cuz I already have my money in it. [/ QUOTE ]Thats as good a reason as any,i dont blame ya [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] 
|
|
#22
02-28-2007, 10:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Soft competition: Stars vs. FTP vs. Absolute?
Its such a variable thing as well,just as you stated VYSE about your experience at the games you were playing with different game types,different money levels,ect.,its always going to be debatable subject as everyone will have different experiences and or image of the overall situation
|
|
#24
02-28-2007, 10:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Soft competition: Stars vs. FTP vs. Absolute?
When I was rebuilding my bankroll several months ago, I found FTP $25NL to full of nits who wouldn't pay you off, but $50NL was buttery soft for an aggressive player. This was before the Neteller debacle, but I can't imagine it's changed that much.
|
|
#26
03-01-2007, 01:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Soft competition: Stars vs. FTP vs. Absolute?
FT's $10 game will be much harder to beat than other sites because it has 10% rake at that level.
Ridiculous, I know.
|
|
#27
03-02-2007, 02:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Soft competition: Stars vs. FTP vs. Absolute?
I came from Party and played mostly SNG and limit. Since the beginning of the year I started playing 25NL & 50NL on Stars. Played mostly 2/4 3/6 limit & 25NL at AP. About a week ago signed up at FTP for bonus/rakeback. Here's what I've noticed.
Stars has so many more players that it is easier to find a loose passive game. FTP games seemed tougher at first and a great deal of the players seemed to be hyper aggressive. There is definitely more preflop 3 betting going on at FTP. AP has the fewest players and you see the same names over and over on the few tables they have running. So at Stars it may be easier to find a good table, but with some adjustments the FTP tables are very beatable. I will continue to play at FTP for the rakeback. I would stay away from AP, just not as many tables running.
|
|
#28
03-02-2007, 03:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Soft competition: Stars vs. FTP vs. Absolute?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Full Tilt is by FAAAAAR the toughest for lower limits. UB is a joke, wtf? [/ QUOTE ]Your high. [/ QUOTE ] I have huge databases on over a dozen multi-tabling regular TAGs or rocks at 10 and 25 NL on FT. [censored] is annoyyyyyyyyyyying. [/ QUOTE ] oh a dozen out of the hundreds/thousands of players playing these stakes? WOW WE ALL SHOULD AVOID THIS PLACE. tz and btw if ur scared of a few microlimit nits you should spend more time improving your game. i dont play much at ft just randomly playing nl25-100 since im a allout stars lover but imo the games are pretty weak there.
|
|
#29
03-02-2007, 03:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Soft competition: Stars vs. FTP vs. Absolute?
[ QUOTE ]
UB has horrible games, full of tough multitabling rocks. No action to be seen here. Nope, none at all. 2+2ers may move on now. [/ QUOTE ] Nothing to see here....move along.
|
|
#30
03-02-2007, 03:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Soft competition: Stars vs. FTP vs. Absolute?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Full Tilt is by FAAAAAR the toughest for lower limits. UB is a joke, wtf? [/ QUOTE ]Your high. [/ QUOTE ] I have huge databases on over a dozen multi-tabling regular TAGs or rocks at 10 and 25 NL on FT. [censored] is annoyyyyyyyyyyying. [/ QUOTE ] I have to agree with this guy. I was kicked off Doyle's Room to FT and its nothing but a bunch of TAGs 4 tabling the ring games. I saw lines at .5/1 that you won't see till 3/6 elsewhere. Maybe I just picked a bad time of day... FT is damn tough.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
