I play about 30k hands a month at 200 6max on ft and run about 4ptbb/100.

I currently play at ftp but im thinking about the new year and if it may be better to play stars. Im going to try to throw out what i think are the basic advantages and hope others will tell me where i am right and where i am off.. thanks

FT i enjoy the rakeback but now that im not really needing it as much for the bank roll building im starting to think about things like tvs and monitors etc..

FT I datamine 24/7 and always know something about all the players when i sit at a table

FT i am used to the software and the players at my level

FT software seems quicker to me.. more hands/hr but not positive on that

I almost never sit at a table without seeing 2 regulars on tilt

PS i cannot datamine, but only the tables i am sitting so i will often sit at a table and have to adjust more as it goes than on ft

PS has more players which usually means more fish

PS rewards program once you hit platinum seems to be superior than ft and looking at things like monitors and tvs next year this may be the better choice..


ANything im missing? Anything Im wrong on?

+ for PS: better support by far
- for PS: more players = more fish = more regulars
- for PS: although Supernova is CLOSE, it still doesn't equal 27% RB. just buy monitors/tvs with your rakeback money
+ for PS: better software? debatable

Really?? I thought platinum was close to FT and that supernova was well above ft rake.. it jsut seems the points add up a lot quicker on stars and the points required are less.. I am wrong here? 27% rake is better?

depends on stakes, but i'm pretty sure nova is like 25%, less if you do the cash bonuses (because points != cash)