Where does everyone play online?
I thought it might be interesting to know where everyone plays online, and what they think of the sites. Hopefully this hasn't already been done, I'm fairly new to pokerforum.ca.
I play mostly on Pacific and Absolute. I prefer Pacific for tournaments, and the number of loose players, but the only NL games are tournaments. The normal tables are all limit. They also have a $15 + $1.50, $10,000 guaranteed prize pool tourney every night at 10:00 EST.
I play low limit NL on Absolute (usually $.25), but the pots can still get very large if you get on a loose table. I don't like the software as much as Pacific, and I really don't like their tournaments.
I occasionally play at Paradise, but I find the players tougher, so it's harder to make money.
Has anyone played at Crazy Vegas? They've got a crazy signup bonus, and I've heard that Prima sites have a crazy tournament on the weekends with a $100,000 prize pool!! Any info would be great.
I play mostly on Pacific and Absolute. I prefer Pacific for tournaments, and the number of loose players, but the only NL games are tournaments. The normal tables are all limit. They also have a $15 + $1.50, $10,000 guaranteed prize pool tourney every night at 10:00 EST.
I play low limit NL on Absolute (usually $.25), but the pots can still get very large if you get on a loose table. I don't like the software as much as Pacific, and I really don't like their tournaments.
I occasionally play at Paradise, but I find the players tougher, so it's harder to make money.
Has anyone played at Crazy Vegas? They've got a crazy signup bonus, and I've heard that Prima sites have a crazy tournament on the weekends with a $100,000 prize pool!! Any info would be great.
Comments
I play pretty much exclusively at PokerStars and PartyPoker.
I find that each one of these sites has exactly what the other one doesn't:
-Excellent software and a large selection of extremely well-run tournaments
-Unbelievably soft low-limit cash games
ScottyZ
What's the big draw with Pokerstars?? It seems that everyone plays there, but they don't offer much in the way of signup bonuses, and I've heard the games are tougher. Is it really that much better?
Generally every couple of weeks. The entire forum "Member Tournament Talk & Info" contains all of the information about the tourneys that Sloth is referring to.
ScottyZ
No, they do not often offer sign-up bonuses. This is not necessarily a drawback to the well-informed online poker consumer. For example, the money PartyPoker has spent on sign-up bonuses may very well have been better spent on fixing their software. Also, sign-up bonuses are merely a drop in the bucket to a long term winning player. The only real advantage of a sign-up bonus to the sharks is if more fish are drawn into the tank by the bonuses. For me personally (based on the amount I play) PokerStars actually *does* offer enough reload bonuses for me to be able get through each bonus cashout requirement not too far before the next bonus arrives.
PokerStars has also gained a lot of publicity from the fact that the 2003 and 2004 WSOP champions qualified through their site.
Many players like the fact that PokerStars offers a wide variety of tournaments. While the cash games at Stars are a little tougher than usual, the tournaments have their fair share of dead money.
PokerStars also does a lot of the little (but important) things right. They offer freeroll tournaments (how I first got started playing there myself), and micro-limit games at stakes that can't be found elsewhere. Their software works well, and the site rarely crashes (unfortunately, the latest crash was extremely high profile, occurring during the WCOOP). They are the only site I know of where you can easily organize private tournaments. Their customer support is good. Their tournament blind/ante structures (aside from the "Turbo" tournaments) are fair and playable. Cashouts are fast and reliable.
But, for low-limit cash games, I'm going to suck it up and stick with PartyPoker even with their shoddy software (and pretty much, shoddy everything). The game selection just can't be beat.
ScottyZ
R3d.
I find that each one of these sites has exactly what the other one doesn't:
-Excellent software and a large selection of extremely well-run tournaments
-Unbelievably soft low-limit cash games
ScottyZ[/QUOTE]
I couldn't agree with you more ScottyZ. You are bang on about Pokerstars. I have only tried Pokerstars and Patrypoker, so I suppose I don't have a large spectrum to speak on.....but after a month on Partypoker and it's HORRIBLE software, I came back to Pokerstars. I too started in the Freerolls on Pstars, and now I play the higher NL tables....with greater success every day. True the talent pool is tougher on Pokerstars, but I view it as a positive way to better my own game. In fact I don't play the lower tables for that exact reason....too many fish, catching cards on the river. I can honestly say, that my game has improved exponentially by playing on Pokerstars. I play almost daily. Now when I sit down to play with my buddies in live games, who do not play daily or at all, 75% of the time I'm leaving with their money. A year ago....it was anyone's game on any given night. Of course reading a book or two helps, but I have honestly seen my game improve much more rapidly due to Pokerstars. You're also right about the 'reload bonuses'.....and I think the best part about Pokerstars is the size of their weekly tournaments. I haven't seen any other sites offering $300,000 weekly prize pools!!! Guys are regularly winning $50, $60, even $70,000 USD for the $215 buy-in sunday tourney's!!! Not to mention there 'Sit and Go' room; great satellite tourney's; and vast array of cash games. Bottom line, Pokerstars does everything right.
And NO I am not affiliated in any way with Pstars!
I find that the level of play is higher at Pokerstars. In general, more knowledgable players at lower limits... but the games are good, the software quick and a lot of people I know play there, so I keep coming back.
I have always liked the Ultimatebet interface, speed, selection.. So I think that is my first choice.
I've been playing at Interpoker a lot lately. They have a 100% match as a monthly reload bonus ($90 max)... released after 450 hands. The lowest game they have is 1/2 limit, so that's where all the fish play. The great thing is, they have games available at multiple currencies: USD, GBP, Euros... and if you go on a 1/2 waiting list, you will go to the first available 1/2 game.
I've often sat down at a 1/2 Pound game and the level of the players is very comparable to the 1/2 $ game. So basically after conversion, it's like 2.5/5 with 1/2 competition. Very juicy.
hork.
Anyway I am trying to say I am exclusively playing at PokerStars and am loving it.
Jamie.
You win those crappy match-ups most of the time but you need to be able to buy back in when you get sucked out on. Fish get lucky sometimes but when a winning player plays within there bankroll they stay a winning player.
I say this very easily but consitstanly find myself wondering up into higher limits before my bankroll allows it then one bad run and I'm back to a crappy roll.
Bankroll Management...Bankroll Management!!!!!!!!!!!
Jamie.
As an example, two days ago, I called all in (about $9.00 on a $.25 table) preflop with K,K. A guy called me with 3,5 suited!! He hit a 3 on the flop, and another on the river to win. Very frustrating!! If you play very tight, you can make decent money though...
At other sites...ie. PokerStars (for ring games .01/.02 and up) and Pacific for everything (I think I saw $1 sit'n'goes are offered there) are reasonable places to start if you have a limited amount you can invest.
I recommend always starting with at least $100 to play in the smallest games at Party/Empire and the smallest sit'n'goes at most sites.
When playing with more than your bankroll can handle is usually playing with scared money which will often lead poor decision making.
Jamie.
Believe me, this is how it is in practice too. :cool:
There is no more fundamental truth in poker than the following: Your opponents playing poorly while you are playing well will make you money in the long run.
This is my personal "Bad Beat Survival Guide".
The points which have been made about comfortable buy-ins/bankrolls are excellent. You will not win every hand. You will not win every session. You will not win every hand when you have AA, (AA) A, (23) A suited, AAKK ds, or AA23 ds. You will not win every hand where the money goes in and you are a 90-10 favorite. That's part of poker, and, the way I see it, the part that makes poker great.
ScottyZ
I was in SB...with AA. Everyone folded to me. Instead of chopping...I raised, figuring I'll just steal the BB, and worst case he calls and I have AA. Not only does he call, but he raises.......I'm thinking beautiful!! I re-raise....he re-raises.....I re-raise...he calls. Flop comes AK7. I bet....he raises.....I re-raise....etc. Turn comes K!!! Aces over kings!! I bet......he re-raises....I re-raise......e.t.c. River comes.....rag. We do the betting and re-raising till I'm All In for over $300. Flip the cards......he has quad K's!!!! OUCH!!!
Very tough break, but I think at this point I would only go 4 bets on the turn, and check-call river. When he 4 bets the turn, I'm pretty convinced he's not just on AK. At the very least, I think you've got to slow down a bit, and consider him having KK before the whole $300+ goes in. KK seems like a *very* reasonable hand to have played the way he did prior to the turn.
I can't tell how many bets went in on the flop, but it's sure no bad beat story if you got most of the money in when you were behind.
ScottyZ
Good Luck
aka;Timesmog
You're right again ScotyZ. That's not a "bad beat", it's just a great hand made by the BB. My choice of wording was incorrect......and I agree with your analysis. I should have slowed down and thought the hand through. Falling in love with my Aces was a mistake. It was not a hand I could lay down, but I certainly shouldn't have continued re-raising after the second K. Lesson learned...
Well, it's a challenging hand to play, and at least very interesting from a strategy point of view. It's a fine line between extracting full value in case your opponent does have the AK versus slowing down versus the KK. I'd probably be tempted to go less or fewer bets after the turn based on my opponent's skill level; particularly, assessing if the opponent would actually consider the possibility of me having Aces, or whether he's one of those "Well, I've got a full house, so it must be good" types.
Re-reading my original post, it's probably not nearly as cut and dry how to play the turn as I was making it out to be. At the very least, it's got do depend to some degree on the assessment you have on your opponent.
ScottyZ
That is the key point in this hand.....and I overlooked it when playing the hand. He was a solid player, and I knew he was, prior to playing this hand. I'd only ever seen him play strong hands....and he never chased cards. For that reason, I should have played it safe, and not re-raised after the turn.
That is the key point in this hand.....and I overlooked it when playing the hand. He was a solid player, and I knew he was. I'd only ever seen him play strong hands....and he never chased cards. For that reason, I should have played it safe, and not re-raised after the turn.