Soft competition: Stars vs. FTP vs. Absolute?

[dostofan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Having said that..if I was chosing between FT and AP for rakeback...it would be a no brainerr...FT all the way.

[/ QUOTE ]




Thanks... I am definitely leaning towards FT if I can deposit with a credit card (which, according to another post, you can).

Maybe I should give UB another shot -- but seriously, how can people stand the graphics? I guess I haven't looked for a while, but do you still have to mouse over the chips to see the bet amounts displayed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, because when I first started playing UB I hated the graphics too. But I stuck with it and now I find the graphics/interface at other sites boring and slow. Like anything in life, it's a mattter of getting used to it.

But really, what's more important, that you like the graphics or having a good rewards system and a good player pool. If you're a US player the combination of bonus and the weekly cash for points program (plus rakeback if you can get it) is just about unbeatable. As for the players, it's a very mixed pool. At the levels I play the average player is aggresive, but that doesn't mean their good. Actually, you often see laggy players donking their chips away. I don't play FT, but using BW's game quality grid UB comes out way ahead.

And, it's been said over and over, but let me say it once more, UB's interface is the fastest around. I can get more hands in per hour here than anywhere else. Also, the donks like the fast/non-thinking game.

Just my 2c.

[Dilznoofus]

Look at average VP$IP percentages and average pot sizes. I'm pretty sure you'll find much looser games and presumably bigger pots at UB and Absolute than at FTP/Pokerstars. I personally have no doubt that microstakes at AP are softer than at Pokerstars based on my experience at those two sites.

[5thStreetHog]

Well stated Dost,you make a good point about the software.To complain about software thats faster than most any room out there because of the graphics or whatever is not a very good line.I agree the interface can take some getting used to if your new to the site,but its all about the deal speed bottom line in software and UB is fast.Of course,i played AP in Nov,Dec so any software was like jumping in a race car after busting out some hands there.

[Vyse]

Full Tilt is by FAAAAAR the toughest for lower limits. UB is a joke, wtf?

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
Look at average VP$IP percentages and average pot sizes. I'm pretty sure you'll find much looser games and presumably bigger pots at UB and Absolute than at FTP/Pokerstars. I personally have no doubt that microstakes at AP are softer than at Pokerstars based on my experience at those two sites.

[/ QUOTE ]I disagree with every statement you just made completely without exception.

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
Full Tilt is by FAAAAAR the toughest for lower limits. UB is a joke, wtf?

[/ QUOTE ]Your high.

[Vyse]

[ 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.

[5thStreetHog]

BTW,why do some very good players play FT over UB or AP then??? Cmon think about it lol Its called table selection my man,twice the player base gives you that.Not to mention Full Tult has done the best job of marketing to the casual player after party left the market specifically.You find this incorrect?

[Vyse]

I play FT cuz I already have my money in it.

[5thStreetHog]

[ 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 hear ya bro,eithor way whats the difference you know lol We can agree to disagree,i respect your opinion though.