Why are people playing on stars ? Tables all less than 18%

[vilemerchant]

The stars limit games have been crap for years. They might not be great players, but it doesn't change the fact that there is basically ZERO dead money in the pots preflop. I personally hate those type of games, really not interested in playing in a tight 20/40 style of game at only 2/4 stakes with a rake that is .75BBs.

[Jerry D]

I usually play pot limit omaha on Stars. And life is good at the moment. That's why.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
The stars limit games have been crap for years. They might not be great players, but it doesn't change the fact that there is basically ZERO dead money in the pots preflop. I personally hate those type of games, really not interested in playing in a tight 20/40 style of game at only 2/4 stakes with a rake that is .75BBs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Online low stakes limit holdem games have been crap for a while everywhere. It's a lot easier to get an advantage on multitabling ABC nits in PL/NL than limit. When I started playing 4 years ago, there were good limit holdem games, but no more.

[vilemerchant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The stars limit games have been crap for years. They might not be great players, but it doesn't change the fact that there is basically ZERO dead money in the pots preflop. I personally hate those type of games, really not interested in playing in a tight 20/40 style of game at only 2/4 stakes with a rake that is .75BBs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Online low stakes limit holdem games have been crap for a while everywhere. It's a lot easier to get an advantage on multitabling ABC nits in PL/NL than limit. When I started playing 4 years ago, there were good limit holdem games, but no more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure there are, they're just not on PT/HUD infested sites. Being from .au and having Neteller helps I guess..

[OnlinePro]

Seems as tho no one is gambling anymore at online poker. Everyone seems to be there to make money.

( My views are for Fixed limit holdem only )

Before there use to be people who limped into pots with hands like 910suited

Nowadays the worst hand you will see anyone play not in the blinds or button is Ace JAck and even that is rare.

And dont give me the argument about postflop play because the postflop play is the same as preflop, no one puts in a penny unless they have the best hand.


Basically the only reason people are on the tables are for reasons like rakeback and VIP points and such.

I can almost guarantee that if sites took away these bonuses and rakeback. The online poker scene would return to normal.

IT certainly doesnt help that most of these online poker companies have bafoons for staff members in the marketing departments and have no clue what they are doing.

With the amount of money being generated by these poker rooms they need to put more of it into marketing.

More commercials, more money to affiliate programs.


They need to stop worrying about fighting over the current player base and go after new players.

Obviously stars has the best program out right now, with the Supernova elite thing. But I rate it at the bottom of my list for sites to play. Its not because the rewards arent good because they are great, but you can barely win any money on the tables.

If I was stars right now I would be paying affiliates 200 dollar CPA deals to bring in new fish and 35% MGR programs.

They have nothing to lose. There is no way a new depositing player doesnt generate 200 dollars in the life of their account.


But this wont happen if all these people continue to 12 table against each other.

FOr stars all that counts is revenue and instead of getting new fish they just make you guys play more tables. And you continue to do so in essence making you the fish.

[TIEdup14]

I think (in addition to BluffThis!) I've found a new favorite poster in OnlinePro!

IIRC he's the one that made a post a while back railing on everyone playing online, talking about how the pot sizes now average 3 bbs, and saying "Only a matter of time before Microbob throws in his two cents"

Is this correct? <3

[DMoogle]

OnlinePro, every post I've ever seen you make in this forum disses online poker by saying it's rigged, unbeatable, etc. I'd go as far as to call you a troll.

That being said, you're not giving the complex game that is Poker enough credit. If everyone there is there to make money, then there will STILL be long-term losers, and there will STILL be long-term winners. Everyone has weaknesses, and a good poker player's job is to identify and exploit those weaknesses. If nobody is putting in a penny if they don't have the best hand, then you STEAL the dead money in the pot. People who 12-table almost always have a natural disadvantage against people who 4-table. It doesn't even matter. Ten 18/12 HUD "bots (i.e. people who play on "auto-pilot") are NOT going to play identically. Even if they did, they'd still be exploitable.

Why do you think there are big winners in high-stakes games? Do you think the high-stakes losers couldn't even beat a 3/6 game? Possibly, but what's more likely is that the loser is a "pro" who had moved up to take a shot at the biggest game and discovered he WASN'T good enough, and he COULDN'T beat it. Poker isn't a game that can be completely reduced to numbers. Just because the table is a bunch of 12-tabling nits doesn't make it unbeatable. People ARE beating the game, no doubt about it. If they weren't, then 2+2 wouldn't exist.

Also, there's no reason to separate each sentence you make by two lines.

[MyTurn2Raise]

from NLTAP, weak-tight games are the second most profitable game type for the expert player who makes the correct adjustments IIRC

[mbpoker]

OnlinePro. I wonder where do you find your numbers. Right now there are:

- six 5-10 full tables, and none of them is below 18%.
- seven 3-6 full tables, and only one below 18%

[jukofyork]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think there are big winners in high-stakes games?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because they pay such a tiny amount of rake compared to low limit players? The low win-rates quoted in Stox's recent book should make it blindingly obvious that if high stakes limit players had to pay 5% rake then there simply would be no winners at all.

Being able to eek out 1BB/100 more by superior post-flop play sounds great, but subtract off the 2-3BB/100 you just paid in rake for the privilege and you might as well go out collecting empty drinks cans. The real money in low limit games was, and always has been, made from "Mr J2o" who loses at -15BB/100 and if you take away all of them then any skill differential between 18%-VPIP players is quickly negated by the rake.

A lot of players have already moved to NL for this very reason, but how long until most SSNL players converge to a similar strategy which is neither profitable nor highly exploitable and the games end up as sad as the current low limit games?

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]