The myth of PS rakeback

[MicroBob]

At some stakes on Stars 40%-ish or higher is doable.

If you make all the milestone bonuses all the way up to elite and you take advantage of all the VIP freerolls then I believe you can be pushing 100% on certain games.
Not very easy or realistic. But still possible.

[Cry Me A River]

MicroBob makes a good point, I get >30% rakeback and that doesn't include milestone bonuses. Nor does it include the almost $5K in VIP freeroll tournament cashes I've made this year. Meanwhile, FT has Iron "Yawn" Man.

If you are a casual player and if you can get rakeback and if you never have to contact support then FTP is probably a better deal for you.

If not, Stars is the pretty clear winner.

[kidpokeher]

Nice job CMAR with the math calcs although it's obvious OP wasn't really looking for actual figures and just wanted to whine.

I did the math myself and found I'm better off at Tilt with rakeback than Stars but I'm one of the lucky ones who was able to get it. I just don't play enough for it to be worthwhile. Like others have said, Stars is class act and beats FT in pretty much every other way you would consider choosing a site. If it wasn't for rakeback at Tilt, I'd be on Stars too.

[grouchie]

[ QUOTE ]


I play more poker than just about everyone i know and i could never reach supernova. So playing on FT is a no brainer for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

you must not know many people who actually get any amount of hands in then, because supernova isn't that hard to achieve.

In fact, I'm pretty confident that I could reach it playing nothing but NL50, and this is while working a job that takes about 50 hours out of my week.


Also, I have rakeback on Full-Tilt, and I still put in almost all of my time at Stars.
I like their software better, I like their games better, I like their support better.

I also like the fact that you don't see a whole lot of threads from people saying how their account was closed randomly, or hacked, or whatever.

FPPs might not be greater than or equal to Rakeback, but that doesn't matter to me because I'm willing to play where I feel more comfortable.

[Scottyy]

-----"There are many advantages doing it the way our current program operates. Scotty" - For PokerStars yes - you pay less rakeback.

100% wrong. We already return more rake per person than any other major site. FT only has rakeback for small amount of their players. The balance of their players, like me, are left earning points which are worth 3.5% RB in Sit and Goes. Our BronzeStars earn FPPs worth 8% RB in Sit & Goes and have a lot more options.

Scotty

[KSOT]

What it boils down to is, if you have a brain and don't play 8749836598347 hands a month, then you shouldn't ever play on Pokerstars. That is unless you have a strange fetish for stress balls and other useless crap.

[keikiwai]

idk, i don't play that much (usually less than 30K hands a month) usually at 200 or 100nl, and i got supernova

and i do have to say that my fpps are building up fast

and i also have to say that the $1,000 one call gift cert seems to have pretty good value if you need electronics

since i do photography and need lenses and crap and onecall sells them, i'm quite happy w/ the point system thing

and of course the concierge service... haven't done the calc yet to see which is better

[CharlieDontSurf]

I hardly play much..weekends only. Pretty much only play MTTs/SitnGos and some cash.

Would never play fulltime on Tilt despite getting rakeback.

Prefer Stars for customer service, software, game selection, yada yada yada. Plus I have no worries keeping large amounts of cash on Stars for extended periods of times doing countless player to player transfers etc. Tilt do not have that same confidence.

[99killed]

this supernova says STARS FTW!!!

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
why is everyone with this shaking hands avatar so silly? seriously. what's the deal with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

i made a post in the atf chatroom about this very topic.