[WiSeIVIaN]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
why anyone plays any where else but stars is beyond me. i know RB blah blah blah. stars VIP is the same.

stars checks take 5 bus. days. FTP 30.
stars customer service responds in 5 minutes, FTP ??.

stars ftw.

[/ QUOTE ]

I play micros so take this for what you will.

butttt...

Not to knock on FTP because I quite like their software but I played about 15K hands there recently and made a significant amount of RB for micros. (probably ~$500)

I also played about 15K hands at Pokerstars recently and made 2000 FPP points which can buy me a Greg Raymer poster.

You do the math.

[/ QUOTE ]

Realistically, it's hard to compare Stars vs. FTP with the information given by the OP, because FTP gives flat rakeback that works out to a little less than 27% of your rake, while Stars varies from less than 10% to more than 35%, depending on volume and stakes, and we don't have any info on monthly volume here.

In any case, a $50 NL player would do considerably better in your example. How well depends on whether it's 15k hands per month, 15k per year, or 15k in his lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]
Even if its 15k hands a month at 50NL your not gonna come close to supernova, and even you got supernova it would be at least a bit under 20%. And even it it was 30% and he was a supernova elite (both of these are completely unrealistic, the FTP Bonus+rakeback is 60% rakeback total, which means realisticly via bonus+rakeback he is getting about 5x more back at FTP then he would at stars(while clearing the $600 bonus which releases in $20 increments). Even in the best case (completely impossible) scenario OP would still get twice the total rake back via fulltilt over stars.

Take that for what you will i guess...