FWIW, I was VERY pessimistic after Black Friday. So much so that I took a long break. Then, I came back and got frustrated again and nd took another break. The problems that frustrated me was: low traffic, TOUGH games, and just the fear that even if I got back to winning some semi-meaningful cash, what's to stop more bad news like those sites get shut down by the government or they try to steal our money or whatever?

But, I finally decided, screw it, I'm going to put the time in and just beat the levels until I can't beat them anymore starting on Carbon full ring at $4NL and then $10NL where I had a pretty marginal winrate and had to play around 80k hands before I was able to move up to $25NL. One GOOD surprise I learned is that the stakes are all not that much different. Before Black Friday, there was a HUGE difference between $100NL and $2NL - $100NL being obviously a lot tougher. I won't say that $4NL is exactly the same as $100NL, but it's not remarkably different. In fact, my winrate between $4NL, $25NL, $50NL, and $100NL are all very close to each other. There is a noticeable drop at $10NL because it's a rake trap and the fish don't seem to offset it enough.

I was also pleasantly surprised in that even though there aren't as many tables as I prefer, BECAUSE I am willing to start tables and play heads-up and shorthanded, I can usually get enough tables that I want between $50NL and $100NL full ring. And, with this recent desegregation at Merge, there seems to be about 50% more traffic at the game and stakes I play, which is a huge breath of fresh air.

I'm still in the process of looking at Bovada and BCP because Merge may restrict my number of tables one day or take away my VIP program or who knows what else? So, I want to make sure I don't have too many eggs in one basket if I can help it.

Bottom line, though, my winrate is getting closer and closer to what it was before Black Friday. If I was in the 35% VIP tier, I probably WOULD be making more than I was before. I never thought that would be possible. The reason is that there are enough fish playing and there aren't enough regs and rakeback pros dipping into my profit ... so far.

The most noticeable downside to this climate for US players is that, in my opinion, it is much more difficult than it used to be to start playing poker from scratch. There are no easy entry points like $2NL on Stars. That's not to say with a $100 to $200 investment and a lot of patience, hands, and studying, one couldn't overcome it, but I can imagine how frustrating it would be.

So, I'll see how long I can ride the train this go around

good luck on ur ride bro

I usually play on Americas card room, but 6 handed sit n go's and multi table sit n go's usually don't get off

Are there any sites to play on where sit n gos get off frequently?

I am living in New York btw, I am not in Vegas or Jersey where I have a wide selection of sites to choose from.

thanks in advance

imo merge will be ur best bet. Bovada and Merge sngs are pry similar in volume. quick note tho, pretty sure NY restricts some sites, or i should say sites restrict ny residents

merge has way better software/promotions/rakeback(VIP points exchange for cash) but bovada pry as softer games and a 4 table limit, no automatic time bank, ****ty software, it tilts me to no avail in a way. anonymous, meh, i think i have an edge on ppl when it comes to note taking and cant even do that on lolvoda

It depends on where in NY he lives as to whether he is allowed on Merge or not. But behind Bovada, Merge definitely has the largest tournament and SNG selection available to US players. Bovada definitely has the edge on softer games, but just a week ago Merge's player pool doubled by adding in all the sportsbook and casino players to the poker pool again. P2P dog would know best, but I can only imagine the softness of Merge's games has improved a good bit!


--
Kahn

indeed it has my friend. been seeing some hysterical SNG play

Thanks Kahn. You just stopped me cause I thought Lock is still good. It was my #1 room a year ago. I didn't play online since then. It is unbelievable and why people just don't want to find the owners of Lock and punish them?

Want to find an optimal room for 6max micros (NL5-NL10). Seems like Bovada is good but there is no rakeback so I think their rake will kill my bankroll.

What about alternatives for me? I'm in Dallas (TX).

The Lock Cashout Thread here on 2+2 has players who haven't been paid in over a year on it!

I'm glad to hear my words swayed you, otherwise, we'd see your name on this list no doubt.


Texas is wide open, choose any site you like from the list in the original post of this thread. The only sites with flat rakeback are WPN and Revolution (Lock is no longer a part of Revolution). However, a site like Merge or EPN would provide you with a VIP program to recoup some of your rake paid, as well as softer games than the first two rakeback offering rooms. Of course Bovada, with no rakeback, has the softest games of all.

--
Kahn

Most of the people I know play bovada and it just seems like there a way more fish, although they are anonymous. Im a breakeven player over 30k hand in the micros on blackchip. Competition just seems tough. Also it feels like a haslle for me to switch. Any opinions?

I'd guess it has the toughest games for the US market, based primarily on what the site incentivises. Sites that cater to regs (which is a good thing for the most part) become tougher sites because regs flock to them. Winning poker models itself after pokerstars, and runs a rake race on top of that which further incentivises playing a massive amount of tables for a low winrate in order to get the highest level of rewards. I've also done some lobby scanning, and it seems like most people who play 1 stake, play like 4 stakes, so I'm not sure how it is at the micros but if you look at the tables, then scan a few higher stake tables, you'll probably find that you're playing with a lot of people who aren't micro players.

Bovada obviously caters primarily to fish, and in my experience has the softest games. Merge was the in betweener, but now I think it's gained some confidence and is going to try and put some funk on the Bovada approach.

So for future reference look at the sites and see who it caters to, then you can figure out what it's going to be composed of. Also, scan the lobby and pay attention to your tables. If 5 of the 6 players you're playing with are on other tables, odds are you're on a ****ty table.

It is pretty tough. I've been playing $2-$10 nl for the last month and it reminds me of $50-100 nl from pokerstars pre black friday except at peak times. I'd prolly say $50-100 nl was easier then the micros here. Im a loser over the 30k hands or so I've played on Winning and that was pretty hard to do at these levels back in the day.


Its funny tho, Im in Delaware and have a State sanctioned online poker room and I still play here. Thats how bad it is in the US lol.....

yeah, WPN has a lot of positives but unfortunately Bovada has the one thing that really matters.

Although not exhaustive, I've put in over 20k hands on Merge full ring on every stake from $4NL to $100NL. It's funny because here's a breakdown of my win-rate from best to worst:

$50NL
$100NL
$25NL
$4NL
$10NL

That's right. I have my worst winrate in what should be the easiest games. I don't have the actual numbers of the winrates in front of me right now but, from what I recall, there isn't much of a difference in them from $4NL to $50NL. Only $10NL is a few noticeable points lower than all of them because $10NL is a rake trap and there aren't enough fish to offset it.

So, while I agree with you that the micros are a LOT tougher in a sense than they used to be, I wouldn't necessarily say the small stakes games are much tougher by comparison. The main thing that changed since Black Friday it appears is that there is not much separation in the stakes as there used to be. I remember coming up at $2NL on Stars in 2008, I had like a 24bb/100 winrate, but those days seem to be gone.

How much of that is due to the rake?

Extrapolating winrates based on 20 and 30k hand sample sizes just doesn't work mathematically. I'm sorry but you guys numbers are easily in a 2 digit +/- range of actual winrate with that sample size.

Although I think we can all agree that Bovada's games are softest, Merge's are in the middle, and WPNs are the toughest of the 3 compared simply because their business models are the way they are.

The real trick is figuring out where one will receive the highest hourly rate given the mix of game difficulty and rewards. Often I think the answer is to play "all of the above," although unfortunately, that's not viable for everyone.


--
Kahn

ya, what Khan said. 20k hands lolz, i can play that in a day, and when u add in the fact its not across the same stake, it makes it that much smaller of a sample. im not a cash player though and have nothing to say on this matter

this. obviously the games are tougher than they used to be, and also you have the lowest stakes as the most heavily raked for the big bet games. you're also looking at lower rakeback levels these days than there used to be, on some networks at least.

I think rake is a big contributor for sure. It's not the only one, but definitely a big factor. It's MORE pronounced NOW I believe BECAUSE the skill differences from stake to stake are smaller. Back on PokerStars before Black Friday, rake wasn't (still isn't) ideal for the micros, but when you have whales everywhere you look, it's easier to overcome rake. I'm of the belief that poker is just too dynamic to ever have an "actual" winrate. Everything is just a snapshot guess in that particular moment in time. I do think 10k is a reasonable sample to start having some good ideas about your play and 100k is good to start having some ideas about the future. Well, I DO play cash and after I make 30 buy-ins at a stake, I move up, so I don't get a chance to improve my sample any. Although it's mathematically possible, I generally don't think anyone luckboxes their way to winning 30 buy-ins at a particular stake. I'd say within 95% certainty, anyone who wins 30 buy-ins at a stake, regardless of sample size, is a "winner" at that stake, provided the player pool stays generally the same.


At any rate, I do still stand by my original point: the difference between play, in terms of difficulty, skillset needed to win, fish/reg ratio, and the like is NOT as widespread and different from stake to stake as it once was IMO and that is definitely something to take into consideration when you assess your play. I wouldn't use that as an excuse to jump up if you're not beating $4NL rather just keep it in mind as a "light at the end of the tunnel" for your hard work and perseverance. In hindsight, it was for me and I could have easily just given up out of frustration and actually did take some long breaks of not playing because of it.

I'm afraid that your description of PokerStars is a few years out of date as well. They have some of the toughest cash games in the world according the the myriad people I converse with.


I'd agree with this in general for the overwhelming majority of players.

Only about your VPIP and PFR (and even then, not sorted by position)

You can begin to extrapolate a bit here, but the results will still vary a huge amount. Very rarely if ever will one even be able to determine with 95% confidence that they are a winner with only a 100k sample size.


I think the skill gap between levels has decreased as well.



--
Kahn

Just coming back after black friday wondering where do US players play now? Dont know if Bavado is good. Thanks.

Bovada is ok.

Which would you say is the best place to play right now? Im in NC.

Does any of them take mastercard?

Sure, bovada is good. There is a steady stream of sitngo's, mtt's, and cash games 24/7. Competition is a bit soft.

As far as your mastercard, it depends if international and or online transactions are allowed on it.

If you have the time and inclination, I would suggest downloading a skin from the merge network, and one from the winning poker network also.

You may have a preference after trying them out, and they are all as good as bovada in a variety of ways.

Btw im in SC.

Insofar as what "the best" place is, it's hard to say. We don't know much about you as a player and we don't know much about what you like to play. The more information you provide, the easier it will be to make a recommendation


Also, I don't know of anyone that accepts Mastercard other than PokerHost.


--
Kahn