so if nanonoko can anyone can?? u must be on drugs!

so tiger woods is amazing at golf so everyone should be?

u r clueless

pagepuga: what do you mean by sick rakeback structuce? could you tell me a bit more. I saw on their site but it was kind of confusing when i tried to calculate.

But yeah if i play on stars i will be able to play more hands for sure then other sites since their is constantly action there. However i have to look at overall picture in terms of BB/100 and rakeback wich will have alot to say since i play decent amount

Some say you get 25% rake some say 35% if your supernova and on pokerstars site it says up to 51% when your supernova

http://www.pokerstars.com/vip/

Read about vip levels and how to get them

i have checked but it shows different results.

fpppro.com

once you're supernova stars will be better than the 50-60% on those networks i think. you won't reach 50-60% rakeback, but you pay less rake to begin with because those networks have a higher cap on the rake and stars has a lower cap on the rake. but you have to factor in the time it will take to hit supernova so it might be better to play on the other networks.

another thing to think about is whether you'll need the rakeback weekly or if you can wait months for it. the rakeback on stars is only good if you can hold out and get the bigger cash back bonuses instead of cashing in your FPPs as soon as you have enough. if you're a very winning player and you don't need the rakeback weekly to keep your br healthy, then go with stars. otherwise, the other networks might be better. as someone else has said, the other networks might be softer as well.

BoC34: yupp thats the thing.

I Wonder how long it will take to Reach supernova and how much rake i will get till i get there. i Guess its only like 20% or something. The only site that has the action to be able to play 9-12 tables is ongame it seems. Stars has 12+ tables all the time so that is really Nice tho since i can play whenever then. But Yeah its really a tough Choice, ofc softness is also something to factor in.

Really hard Choice. I want my rakeback Money each month so not every week but each month i need them to pay expenses, how will that be on stars? will i loose %% of my rakeback if i choose to do it that way?

Well, this post makes you look about as stupid s possible, grats on that.

lock poker will get you 70%+ at least playing that much

I have found that only table ninhja for FT and Pokerstars was working without errors, which makes Pokerstars and starting tomorrow FTP the only sites for multitabling

I tried POtBet soft fro Ipoker, but it was not working well - was folding hands on other tables than selected, etc.

I don't wee how can You play 12+ tables without good shortcuts (table ninja).

I'm wondering which networks offer the best value these days in terms of moderately low rake with good rakeback? I'm particularly interested in which sites/networks would offer the best value for a casual player.

What about 1st deposit bonus whoring, is this still a good approach or are bonuses too hard to clear these days?

Is is true that Merge increased their rake recently?

I used to play there like 3 years ago. In the end cash outs took forever. I got scared and withdrew all my money, to bad I trusted fulltilt =) Is this still a problem?

Since the rake on fulltilt, can only assume it's the same on pokerstars, is prohibitive. Rebuilding from only 3k so playing kinda low limits. I am looking to play else where. Would you recommend cake? Are the games(NLH/OPL cash) any good?

Also do they still have a ban on tracking software?

Please PM me if you have the energy, I tend to post and forget ;-)

so where do people play when they get bored of stars / tilt ?

So, title is pretty self explanatory, have heard that 888 has generally softer, fishier, cash games than PS. Was wondering what peoples own opinions are, what pros and cons each of the sites have in their favour etc? For example, on PS you have the VIP system as well as FPPs. Any opinions?

pros: 888 has generally softer, fishier, cash games than PS
cons: slower cashouts

Why don`t you try FT?

It's a possibility, would make it easier to transfer some of my existing bankroll across I suppose. Are there many fish on FT?

Any sites to recommend?

Hu cash? Hu sng?

Generally, smaller sites are fishier, but have less volume.

Start your research by eliminating all the sites with drastically high rake. Whatever you're left with, you could probably pokerscout the traffic and you wouldn't be off by much from lowest traffic = softest to highest traffic = toughest on average, but just remember you're sacrificing volume for softness in most cases (and at some levels you just cannot sacrifice volume or you won't get any hands in).

No idea, I can not play in FT. I think there are more fish, as they left they bankroll there and if they did not cash out they are trying to get rid of it.

That would be HU cash, I want to start at the micros first

I need a soft site to play on, started poker last month.

Is PokerStars the highest competition? I first started there, I was lucky a few times and won a couple hundred $ from MTT's but I'm losing a bunch of my roll playing microstakes cash.

Should I stop being a pussy keep playing on Stars and move up or go on a softer site?
I was looking at ftp, 888, party and lock.

ive been playing on lock, one of the best rb programs and great micro stakes games only draw back is the withdrawl timefor us players, t takes about a month

you really should not play at lock (since you are from canada), cashouts take >1 month

maybe choose a different revolution skin

stars is fine tho if you like it

Try PKR. They now have a 2D version of their software called pkr lite. They games are insanely soft up to 100nl. Literally almost every table has a fish or two playing at peak times at small stakes.

Been saying this over and over in this thread and no one believes me.

I like Juicy but am a lil skeptical about the cashouts