What is the most profitable site (fish/rakeback etc)?

MrBump · #1 07-23-2007, 03:49 PM

Sorry, not sure where to put this question...

I currently play microstakes cash NL games at Pokerstars while I am still learning. I am beating $10NL for a paltry but reasonable 1 ptBB/100 hands over a sample of 15,000 hands. Everyone tells me Pokerstars is a tough site and my winrate could be higher elsewhere and so am looking for recommendations please.

I am looking for easy (fishy) cash games so as to be able to build my BR quickly, but other factors are obviously important (quality of software, rakeback, bonuses etc)

I am English and live in France btw.

TIA [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

sup_bro · #2 07-23-2007, 03:51 PM

party poker then.....

GrindingIt · #3 07-23-2007, 06:09 PM

Why in gods name would I tell you if I knew? Seriously why would I want you rocking up my games if there's nothing but fish. You have to play sites and figure out on your own.

Bobo Fett · #4 07-23-2007, 07:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why in gods name would I tell you if I knew? Seriously why would I want you rocking up my games if there's nothing but fish. You have to play sites and figure out on your own.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now THAT was an important post to make.

OP, I don't play NL, but iPoker and OnGame might be networks to think about. bonuswhores is a good place to compare bonuses and player quality.

mephisto · #5 07-24-2007, 02:17 AM

Bobo, I've asked 2+2 about the realiability of those game quality grids in a post about 5 months ago and basically the general answer I've gotten is that those grids are useless. I don't necessarily agree with their view but what makes you a believer in them?

Bobo Fett · #6 07-24-2007, 02:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Bobo, I've asked 2+2 about the realiability of those game quality grids in a post about 5 months ago and basically the general answer I've gotten is that those grids are useless. I don't necessarily agree with their view but what makes you a believer in them?

[/ QUOTE ]
I find myself firing that answer off quite a bit lately, maybe I better slow down before I sound like some kind of BW spammer. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I've always found their bonus clearing numbers to be pretty good...they're typically a bit high, but they're that way for almost all sites, which makes them fine for comparing site against site. The only exception are the fast-playing sites, like UB, which tend to be a little low. All in all, though, I think that if you use their custom grid with your game & limits, the rankings of bonus clearing are pretty darn accurate.

As to their game quality...meh, I don't always agree, but I've found that with just about anyone's rankings. Game quality is a personal experience to a certain extent, and can depend on when you play, how good your table selection is, and your own style of play. Not only that, players have good or bad runs on sites which can skew one's perception of a site. I'm not going to say that BW's game quality rankings are perfect, but I find that they provide a pretty good broad overview...for the most part the consenus tough sites get poor grades, and the consensus fishy sites get good grades.

All in all, I think BW is a great place for someone to start, and then fine-tune from there by trying out a couple that look like the best. I've always used it that way, but admittedly have subsequently signed up for many of the sites I play at through PSO or Savvy, or a RB affiliate (I am a greedy bonus whore, after all [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]). When none of these are available for a site though, I try to sign up through BW in appreciation of their information.

Pokeraddict · #7 07-24-2007, 03:24 AM

BW gathers the game quality info from Pokersitescout.com and from their own research of the smaller rooms. If using the raw data colected by PSS and gathering the small rooms manually isn't accurate what is? I can't think of a way to do it better. Of course it is only an average. Times of day and table selection will make the games vary greatly.

bkkdude · #8 07-24-2007, 07:06 AM

no offense to bobo.

but i too find bw critique of games utterly useless, the only way to find out a sites playability is to go play....lol.

factual info bonus hookers very good.

Bobo Fett · #9 07-24-2007, 01:24 PM

Doesn't offend me in the least...like I said, I have no affiliation with BW, even though it may sound like I do sometimes. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Like PA said, they get all of their player quality info from actual data...there is no better way. That's not to say everyone's going to agree...as a matter of fact, if every player at 2+2 were to look at their game quality grid, I bet just about everyone would be able to disagree with some part of it. Likely that would be the case with anyone's ranking system.

bkkdude, my congratulations on a post that doesn't either promote Cake or trash UB! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]