Why is it that pokerstars is such a popular site for online players?

[excession]

I keep $$$ there for the MTT's.

As a Euro player, I agree that I have much better options for Ring - generally I don't play sites without much softer tables and at least 50% RB or equivalent...

At higher stakes though, the rake become much less of an issue than at $100NL or $200NL tables and Stars do have a lot of players and therefore the better game selection may well make up for the fact that the average player is a bit tougher.

Also at higher stakes the saftey of your $$ and great customer service becomes of paramount importance, and their VIP system sucks less.

To be honest Stars is the best site for MTT's, easiest for push-botting lots of SnG's at once, fine for the micro or higher stake cash player. It's just for the $50NL to $200NL non-US player that its cash games suck compared to some other sites...

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
The fish aren't there.
The sharks are there because it is one of the few games in town suitable for multitabling .

[/ QUOTE ]

Tuff

[soah]

lol

[Komodo]

[ QUOTE ]
in small stakes fix limit there were some posts about how much rake each site take. search for it.

brief overview:
rake at 2-4
stars: 2.4 BB/100
Party: 3.2 BB/100 (i am not exactly sure, but it's 3.xx)

[/ QUOTE ]

This isnt exactly the way my figures look like
At NL25 it is

Party 2,7BB/100hands
Stars 7BB/100 hands