Not sure about the rest, but I tried to play on my tv, and it was impossible to see anyone's stats even 8 tabling.

yea when buying a new com i was gonna get pretty good specs including a decent graphics card.

i've just never had a 30 and also plan to dual screen 30 and 24 inch so i wanted to be sure there weren't no special requirements to this monitor setup other than a decent typical graphics card.

I've had 4 different brands of 30" monitors... HP ZR30w is my favorite, Samsung 2nd, and I haven't had a Dell. I think Dell/Apple are supposed to make the best ones. Take a look at the 27" high res monitors from Dell/Apple too, that's where the newest/best ones are.

If you're looking to run 3 monitors on 1 graphics card, make sure it has 3+ outputs (I think all new ATI cards have this, but only expensive Nvidia ones do). Also, most ATI cards will require one of the monitors to be running DisplayPort instead of DVI/HDMI. I think Nvidia has some 3x DVI cards, but they're on the pricier side.

thanks for info.

anyone know why samsung website doesnt list their 30 inch (if you google search u'll find it on resellers like amazon for used, but their website has max 27inch size).

also looked at apple but they seem to only have 27 inches.

from the info i've recalled from various people talkin bout monitors on this forum, its that the crucial thing to look for is the resolution. all the 27 inches seem to be 2560x1400 whereas dell (the only store so far having the true 30 inch) is 2560x1600. i currently have a samsung 27 or something and it fits less than my old samsung 24inch i gave to my sister.

theres no problem with a dual monitor setup of dell 30 inch and samsung 24 iinch i assume? gonna trade my sis and then spend countless hours figuring out how to setup both monitors so that the 24 is vertical on the side with the 30 as main cuz i is stupid with coms. very excite.

1920x1080 on my 40" Sony...and not impossible for a 57+ year old geezer to see the stats. Screen is 38-40" from eyes.

I overlap 6 tables though, with a table behind the first group when up to 12 tabling.... I don't enjoy playing any more than 6-8 as it seems too robotic for a hobby. So the Sony works fine for me.....but I suspect that if I ever went to a 30" beast, I would never look back....

30" at 2560x1600 is a minor difference to the 27" at 2560x1440... the step down from there is like 1920x1080, which is a major resolution hit.

30" - 4.1 megapixels
27" - 3.7 megapixels
24" - 2.1 megapixels (1920x1080 / 1080p)

Haven't looked into it, but wouldn't be surprised if everyone that made 30" monitors has switched to the new 27" format. If I had to get a new one, I'd go with a 27" myself because it takes up a bit less space.

If you're only going to run 2 monitors, pretty much any video card is going to work unless you go super cheap on it.

I have very recently upgraded from 2 28" 1920x1200 monitors up to 2 27" 2600x1440 monitors and can say that, the extra space is awesome. Like Klairic said the resolution is a pretty big hit and you get a fair bit more desktop space with the extra resolution, can fit a ton more tables per screen etc.

I got my monitors pretty damn cheap and the company i bought them from use Apple cinema displays so the picture quality is unbelievable pm me if you want info mate.

yea i have a 1920x1080 rite now and it blows... i really should punch my self in the face for being so lazy and not switching monitors with my sister a loooong time ago.

yeah those reasons about the tv are correct. used to play on my tv and could only tile 4 tables :|+1 about the DVI port, my pc didn't have one and i had to upgrade video card.

how are the 100 200 mid stakes fr/sh games

also how is 100 200 zoom


in relation to pre bf to now

ty ty

Can't really comment on zoom. But if you had asked your question 6 months ago i would say that the games were slightly softer.... however, since then, the games have gotten steadily worse and fewer tables.... I often log in to stars and see less than 10 tables of 200fr running (one day i saw 6 full tables)... even on a friday etc. same thing with 200 6 max.

Would you say that any of that has to do with with WSOP and the main event? Perhaps a lot of regular online players are in the US? I'm really just hoping to hear that more players will come resulting in more 200FR tables tbh

I think losing Spain was a pretty big deal?

yeah it's not as if loads and loads of 100 and 200nl grinders are all at wsop at the same time... i mean, if there were enough fish then more tables would be running now also.

Don't worry I'm moving back up soon. Action for everyone!

Is right now the worst state of poker in small/midstakes NL that Stars has seen?

games where a lot worst when their was 50bb tables

Yep we need more Bommel222's in the poker world right now. Specifically playing 100NL and against me.

games are the worst they've ever been ainec

everything from black friday to spain leaving to the rakeback changes has contributed to its awfulness

Sky is falling

but...but...they were supposed to make the rec players feel all fuzzy and warm inside

meh rakeback changes weren't really a reason the games got worse... if there were more fish then more tables would run, you just see less tables full of regs now (which has as much to do with table selectiong as it does with the rb changes)

i'd think rush had a lot to do with it

Bingo

I never played any 100 or 200 before black friday but there is still sooo much money to be made there, I can see what you all mean a bit at 200. But if this is the "worst period of 100nl on stars" Holy bejesus! how did regs not have like 20bb winrates a few years ago?