Any Full Tilt regulars on here? NL 200 and NL 100

[Push_Fold]

Play on there and you'll see.

[raistlinx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think there are too many 2+2 regulars. By the time most make it to 100-200nl they realize how rigged FTP is.

[/ QUOTE ]
QFT, QFT, QFT!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Any particular reason why you think Full Tilt may be rigged?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't say it is rigged of course with any certainly, but some rather improbable events occur a little too often for my taste. Others have said the same thing.

[Theo_Brixton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think there are too many 2+2 regulars. By the time most make it to 100-200nl they realize how rigged FTP is.

[/ QUOTE ]
QFT, QFT, QFT!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Any particular reason why you think Full Tilt may be rigged?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't say it is rigged of course with any certainly, but some rather improbable events occur a little too often for my taste. Others have said the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because they are donkeys who don't understand variance, or play bad.

[osh]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't say it is rigged of course with any certainly, but some rather improbable events occur a little too often for my taste. Others have said the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have played on three sites thus far and everywhere in chatboxes I hear the same thing "THIS site is rigged"/"that happends only on THIS site"/and so on. It really doesn't matter, as far we talk about software. People playing may be different, though.

Yesterday lost BIG pots [in tourneys] to runner/runner/runner flushes four [FOUR!] times, but still doesn't consider, that site is rigget. Just variance and [un]luck.

[GeterPriffin]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think there are too many 2+2 regulars. By the time most make it to 100-200nl they realize how rigged FTP is.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm a regular @ the $200 level. Lol thank god it's "rigged" in my favor (50K hands). I've been beating it at about 5.5PTBB/100.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think there are too many 2+2 regulars. By the time most make it to 100-200nl they realize how rigged FTP is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen this comment a lot. I have to admit I've found FTP very frustrating.

I've played at 3 sites now (stars, party (no more, of course) and FTP)... I ran ~8bb/100 at 25$ tables and ~5 bb/100 at $50 tables... but I'm about break even at FTP. Granted I haven't played there as long but still.

I have been joking that at FTP, I always lose if someone calls my all in with an inside straight draw.

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

[raistlinx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think there are too many 2+2 regulars. By the time most make it to 100-200nl they realize how rigged FTP is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen this comment a lot. I have to admit I've found FTP very frustrating.

I've played at 3 sites now (stars, party (no more, of course) and FTP)... I ran ~8bb/100 at 25$ tables and ~5 bb/100 at $50 tables... but I'm about break even at FTP. Granted I haven't played there as long but still.

I have been joking that at FTP, I always lose if someone calls my all in with an inside straight draw.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Your stats just abour mirror mine at the other sites (Pokerroom and stars) but like you I am also only break even at FTP.

And it is no joke about how often a 2-5 outer pulls ahead when you get all in before the river there. I am going to analyze the stats I have from the 30K hands there where I was ai and ahead later this week (about 250 of them). I'm curious if it just seems like they suck out more.

[mack848]

[ QUOTE ]
I am going to analyze the stats I have from the 30K hands there where I was ai and ahead later this week (about 250 of them). I'm curious if it just seems like they suck out more.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't waste your time, as your sample is WAY too small. I would be astonished if something fishy was going on, but only an analysis of hundreds of thousands of hands will allow you to 'confirm' anything.

As I say, I don't believe it, but even a sceptic like me has to admit that there do seem to be more suckouts at FT.

[raistlinx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am going to analyze the stats I have from the 30K hands there where I was ai and ahead later this week (about 250 of them). I'm curious if it just seems like they suck out more.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't waste your time, as your sample is WAY too small. I would be astonished if something fishy was going on, but only an analysis of hundreds of thousands of hands will allow you to 'confirm' anything.

As I say, I don't believe it, but even a sceptic like me has to admit that there do seem to be more suckouts at FT.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but it's all I have in the 30K hands I've played. It's more a curiosity for me anyway, I'll probably find I won my fair share. But I think what has happened to me over the past 20K hands is that the suckouts have come mostly from the big stacks while my hands have held up against the short stacks [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[e_phemeral]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am going to analyze the stats I have from the 30K hands there where I was ai and ahead later this week (about 250 of them). I'm curious if it just seems like they suck out more.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't waste your time, as your sample is WAY too small. I would be astonished if something fishy was going on, but only an analysis of hundreds of thousands of hands will allow you to 'confirm' anything.

As I say, I don't believe it, but even a sceptic like me has to admit that there do seem to be more suckouts at FT.

[/ QUOTE ]

You guys all seem to be unaware of the obvious reason why you "think" there are more suckouts on Full Tilt. First of all, there may not be more suckouts, it may just be your perception. However, perhaps it is true that there are more suckouts than on other sites. That is absolutely normal if you assume that there are worse players playing at Full Tilt than the other sites.

For example, I played exclusively on Absolute (with rakeback) from around October, 2006 to April, 2007. I just took all my money off recently and will not go back because the games at Absolute, at least for me, are just too tough to beat. There are very few really bad players. You just don't see people stacking off like morons with weak hands (TPGK, etc.).

Recently, I put money on Full Tilt and have been playing there for a week or so and OMG OMG OMG - it's like I just rediscovered poker. People stacking off left and right with crappy hands. I almost can't believe it when I see it. It has completely renewed my faith in online poker and in my own game. In just one week at Full Tilt, I realize that I have been depressingly grinding out break-even stats at Absolute playing against a lot of good tough players (even at low stakes), when I could have been living it up at Full Tilt playing against donkeys.

Now I'm not saying that everyone at Full Tilt sucks. Its just that I can say (based on my small sample size) that there are a lot more donkeys playing there than at Absolute. Which makes sense given the high profile of Full Tilt - commercials all over TV - it's probably one of the more well known sites.

Anyway, more donkeys = more people putting their money in bad = more people sucking out. It's just simple math.

Trust me, getting sucked out on for stacks is a good thing. Go to absolute. You'll have to wait a couple of weeks before you are lucky enough to stack some moron with a weak holding.