Just starting to play Cash games, and im curious if i should be playing on Full Tilt for the Rakeback or on Pokerstars for there VIP program? if anyone has a recomendation i would like to here it, and why they chose the site they did. ty.

I play on FTP with rakeback because I play 5nl/10nl and after researching it a long time ago it appeared that the general concensus was that FTP rakeback was better than stars VIP for these micro stakes, but the reverse was true (Stars is better) when you play a little higher and can get super nova easier.

I don't know if this is still accurate.

think the way it works is tilt's 27% is better up until supernova on stars.

Your choice simply depends on level and volume that you play. If you are playing 10nl and under the FT is the way to go. If you put in decent volume at 25nl and above then PS is hands down way better. What levels are you playing at Prodigy?

Not that you are wrong, but I think you might also want to point out that at 10NL and below, rake is also higher on FT than PS.

If you are playing a lot (ie paying 20k+ in rake annually) you should be playing on PS (at least from a rakeback perspective). As you move up to more and more rake paid the PS rewards blow FTP rakeback away. Not even close

if you pay 20k in rake then Stars (assuming you're not a moron and know how to spend fpps)

if not then FTP

this needs to be in a stickied FAQ or something

The way I understand it, if you're starting at the micro limits then the reduced rake at Stars usually outweighs the fact that FTP rakeback is 27%.

On FTP micros you have to pay much more rake in the first place, so your BB/100 will be lower because more of any pot you win disappears from the table. Getting 27% of it back from FTP doesn't compensate you enough afaik.

All the info you need to calculate which is better for you specifically is out there though, so if you want to get the decision right then your best bet is to take that info and run through the options using your own expected winrates for each level to compare the two.

For some players Stars will be best, for others FTP will be best.

Agreed.

FTP is better if you're a low volume player; Stars is better if you're high volume player.

I think you should play on Stars as your first site of choice. Rakeback may be "better" @ lower stakes on Tilt but Stars has LESS RAKE, which people seem to always forget. Stars also has better software, better support, and more players which means presumably more fish. As you move up to SuperNova, you'll get more Rakeback equivalent cash on Stars.

cliffs:

anything above supernova for HU and 6max is better % wise than ftp

anything above Platinum stars for fr and tournaments is better % wise than ftp

Thank You OP. It is about time someone made a thread about this...

do 5nl players seriously care about rakeback? I really hope the average age of anyone that plays 5nl and takes the game seriously (to the point where you care about rakeback) is about 14 years old.

Am I getting leveled here or are you being serious?

No you are wrong, FTP gives rakeback, but they rake 1 cent per 15 cents. At Pokerstars, the pot has to reach $1 minimum before it will rake anything. Basically, FTP's rake will own you on the pots that don't get past the flop. With rakeback, I think you need to be playing at least 25NL to surpass Pokerstars in low volumes.

Transa, Are those numbers from the actual site? because the rakeback % are actually higher then what is stated. I dont get why stars would undershoot their rakeback %. For example, at 200K VPP for Full Ring it should be 49.2% instead of 42%. For $16,666.67 of rake, you are earning $8200 in rewards($3400 milestone + 4800 FPP Value at .016).

There was a day when we called this "sarcasm".

No, those numbers are not from PokerStars, and yes, they are inaccurate. The chart here is taken from the original post of a thread. The original poster fixed the chart (or at least one of the two) later in the thread.

As an example, the total value for supernova is given as $5800, but this is equal to FPP value at $0.016per plus the $200 value of the milestone... nothing is included for stellar rewards ($1000) or VIP Freeroll value (the first of four Quarterly $1,000,000 VIP freerolls offered over $200 par-value alone).

192$ rake paid over 21098 hands at pstars 0.05/0.1 nlhsh. Average is 0.91c/hand.

288$ rake paid over 17130 hands at ftp same limits, avg 1.6c/hand.

It's kind of strange people calculate the rakeback down to a hundredth of a percent at Stars with all these pretty tables yet just give 27% for Full Tilt. Nobody gets only 27% at Full Tilt. If you're modestly active you should get nowhere even close to 27% in fact.

Not that it really matters too much. The point still stands that huge volume: stars, not huge volume: FTP. Just the definition of 'huge' starts well above 20k/supernova for most people. Although maybe FTP also shoots themselves in the foot. Calculating your effective rakeback there is even more mysterious than Stars as it reaches a point once you put in above 'x' volume at FTP, your effective rakeback at FTP actually starts dropping!

lol vnh


on a side note: why do people keep saying "then" when they mean "than"?


also, is it really fair to say u only get 27% at ftp? 27% rb in addition to ironman freerolls, ironman bonuses w/ironman medals, midyear and end of year bonuses, ftp points to buy electronics n stuff.. seems to come out to more than 27%

Thanks for helping out PS Steve, but another thing to consider the people asking this question. If you are asking this type of question there is almost no way you are starting the year of as a supernova. If starting from 0 VPP, by reaching SN your are getting $5110 (1000 milestone, 1000 steller rewards, 3110 for the 194356 FPPs left at .016 value). A 30.66% rakeback.

True Full Tilt rakeback is much more than 27%, but does decrease as you go over the min pts per day for whatever level you're at in the Iron Man program. In fact, there are some levels that, when you've been in the program long enough, can yield true rakeback percentages of over 100%.

Full Tilt has taken action to remove 20bb short stackers. I would recomend playing there for that reason alone. The games on PokerStars are quickly becoming a joke.

jxi, your right on ftp you are earning more then 27% but then your not accounting for the rakeback hits you take throughout this whole process. Cashing out, rakeback hit. Using points, rackback hit. All in all I figured when I played ft last year I was getting around 32% rakeback but that included having to get something that is only available in the FT store that I really wouldnt have bought.