I have played many a site.....FT, PS, ap, Bodog, UB...and others....I find FT to be the best by far...What are your thoughts?
if you can make supernova on pokerstars then it is the best as far as "rakeback" goes.
stars is the best as far as software imo, bigger guarantees, great support.
if you can't make nova then you will be best off at Fulltilt if you can get rakeback.
also, if you are a high stakes cash game player at the highest limits then you should play FT, that doesn't pertain to many though.
Pokerstars is the best as far as looks, layout and traffic.
I think FT is the most "true" site as far as randomness of board cards wereas UB is the worst.
Knowing this, UB is where i stay mostly. I know more high cards than low cards are going to hit the board, so i use that to my advantage.
^LOL. I truly hope that's a level. Wow.
something tells me its not. but lets hope it is.
No, I'm dead serious.
In fact, i point it out often when im on a table. "You should see just as many 2,3,4's as A,K,Q's" on the flops/boards in theory". etc. etc. You always see boards like QQTA9, but rarely see boards 22473.
I've gotten quite a few people to start observing and have come to the same conclusion. So the question is "why"? Easy. More action = more money for the site. the stronger hands, especially the drawing ones and ones that have hit, will stay in the pot on high flops/boards. I play a lot of live games and the difference between that and UB is ridiculous. FT is the closest. PokerStars is "ok"
If i had the time to figure out how to extract this data from my PokerTracker db, i would. (hint: if someone has some sql written up already 
)
Stars = #1, best graphics, best customer support, most volume
FT = rigged, support sucks
& the rest = wouldn't trust with a 0.01 deposit
Good Luck at the tables!
In fact, i point it out often when im on a table. "You should see just as many 2,3,4's as A,K,Q's" on the flops/boards in theory". etc. etc. You always see boards like QQTA9, but rarely see boards 22473.
I've gotten quite a few people to start observing and have come to the same conclusion. So the question is "why"? Easy. More action = more money for the site. the stronger hands, especially the drawing ones and ones that have hit, will stay in the pot on high flops/boards. I play a lot of live games and the difference between that and UB is ridiculous. FT is the closest. PokerStars is "ok"
If i had the time to figure out how to extract this data from my PokerTracker db, i would. (hint: if someone has some sql written up already )
please keep following after my following statement. YOU ARE WRONG.
no site is rigging board cards or the cards you receive.
more action does not equal more money for the site in sngs and tourneys, and barely would for cash games considering at a point the rake is capped.
the difference between live and online is that you see way more flops/hr than live and you think you see more big boards online than live.
maybe you should just tell us you were trying to level us twice and let it be?
In fact, i point it out often when im on a table. "You should see just as many 2,3,4's as A,K,Q's" on the flops/boards in theory". etc. etc. You always see boards like QQTA9, but rarely see boards 22473.
I've gotten quite a few people to start observing and have come to the same conclusion. So the question is "why"? Easy. More action = more money for the site. the stronger hands, especially the drawing ones and ones that have hit, will stay in the pot on high flops/boards. I play a lot of live games and the difference between that and UB is ridiculous. FT is the closest. PokerStars is "ok"
If i had the time to figure out how to extract this data from my PokerTracker db, i would. (hint: if someone has some sql written up already )
This is just amazing. It's not quite as golden as an argument i saw before but it's pretty close. Pharreal is right when he says you see way more hands/hour online than you do live. You're also a human being (albeit a somewhat naive one), and as such you are subjective. You cannot seriously claim to have statistically processed every hand you have seen in your head and come to this conclusion. Instead, you've probably dabbled in some online poker with ideas already in your mind about it being rigged . The more big boards you see, the more you become convinced you're right, and the more you ignore anything that does not fit your "theory".
I would refute your claim on a pure logical bases from many angles as well. Firstly, its debatable whether a higher flop even does mean more action. Do high flops hit small-mid PPs say 88 downwards? Does it hit connectors? The answer to these questions is no. You're already cutting out a huge range of hands here. Action flops are more likely to be connecting/draw heavy boards, say Kh Ts 9s or like 8c 7c 6d. Neither of these fit your theory but could just as easily produce big action depending on player's hole cards. A flop like AK2r, whilst high, only hits hands hard like AK, AQ, perhaps AJ, or of course AA/KK/22. On a board of 8c 7c 6d, you have the potential for nut flush draws, overpairs, sets, straight draws and combinations of such - WAY more hands.
Refute what I just said if you want, though, because there are many more angles from which your viewpoint is flawed. As Pharreal already said, rake is generally capped to a degree. Its doubtful that these "action flops" would earn the site much extra money at all really. Taking a standard sort of cash game flop, say a raise/call pre, OR fires a cbet, gets called. Pot by the turn is already sizable enough for there to be rake. Sure there'll be more rake if the players then stack off but it'll be capped so this difference will be minimal.
On a risk-reward basis, also, it's just a preposterous thing to suggest. Do you really think it'd be a good idea from a business perspective? These sites make millions as it is from normal rake. Is the chance of swindling some more money really worth it for the risk of being found out? Surely if what you say is true it would not be hard to prove if you datamined for long enough, and if this happened a site would be ruined. It'd lose all of its traffic and trustworthiness, if not get shut down. What the hell reason would a site like pokerstars that makes millions as it is have for doing that? None whatsoever.
There are players that play on all these sites for millions of hands a year at pretty big stakes. A month's results for them can be a year's salary for the average 9-5 job. Do you really think that of all these players that none of them would have noticed if this were true? That none of them would have investigated? You think they blindly stick millions of dollars on the line just hoping the site is legit? Of course not. You really think that you, a probable micro stake player with a tiny sample size, have outsmarted the sites and figured out this great system that nobody else has? You really are in a world of your own.
In fact, i point it out often when im on a table. "You should see just as many 2,3,4's as A,K,Q's" on the flops/boards in theory". etc. etc. You always see boards like QQTA9, but rarely see boards 22473.
I've gotten quite a few people to start observing and have come to the same conclusion. So the question is "why"? Easy. More action = more money for the site. the stronger hands, especially the drawing ones and ones that have hit, will stay in the pot on high flops/boards. I play a lot of live games and the difference between that and UB is ridiculous. FT is the closest. PokerStars is "ok"
If i had the time to figure out how to extract this data from my PokerTracker db, i would. (hint: if someone has some sql written up already )
This is just amazing. It's not quite as golden as an argument i saw before but it's pretty close. Pharreal is right when he says you see way more hands/hour online than you do live. You're also a human being (albeit a somewhat naive one), and as such you are subjective. You cannot seriously claim to have statistically processed every hand you have seen in your head and come to this conclusion. Instead, you've probably dabbled in some online poker with ideas already in your mind about it being rigged . The more big boards you see, the more you become convinced you're right, and the more you ignore anything that does not fit your "theory".
I would refute your claim on a pure logical bases from many angles as well. Firstly, its debatable whether a higher flop even does mean more action. Do high flops hit small-mid PPs say 88 downwards? Does it hit connectors? The answer to these questions is no. You're already cutting out a huge range of hands here. Action flops are more likely to be connecting/draw heavy boards, say Kh Ts 9s or like 8c 7c 6d. Neither of these fit your theory but could just as easily produce big action depending on player's hole cards. A flop like AK2r, whilst high, only hits hands hard like AK, AQ, perhaps AJ, or of course AA/KK/22. On a board of 8c 7c 6d, you have the potential for nut flush draws, overpairs, sets, straight draws and combinations of such - WAY more hands.
Refute what I just said if you want, though, because there are many more angles from which your viewpoint is flawed. As Pharreal already said, rake is generally capped to a degree. Its doubtful that these "action flops" would earn the site much extra money at all really. Taking a standard sort of cash game flop, say a raise/call pre, OR fires a cbet, gets called. Pot by the turn is already sizable enough for there to be rake. Sure there'll be more rake if the players then stack off but it'll be capped so this difference will be minimal.
On a risk-reward basis, also, it's just a preposterous thing to suggest. Do you really think it'd be a good idea from a business perspective? These sites make millions as it is from normal rake. Is the chance of swindling some more money really worth it for the risk of being found out?
Surely if what you say is true it would not be hard to prove if you datamined for long enough, and if this happened a site would be ruined. It'd lose all of its traffic and trustworthiness, if not get shut down. What the hell reason would a site like pokerstars that makes millions as it is have for doing that? None whatsoever.
There are players that play on all these sites for millions of hands a year at pretty big stakes. A month's results for them can be a year's salary for the average 9-5 job. Do you really think that of all these players that none of them would have noticed if this were true? That none of them would have investigated? You think they blindly stick millions of dollars on the line just hoping the site is legit? Of course not. You really think that you, a probable micro stake player with a tiny sample size, have outsmarted the sites and figured out this great system that nobody else has? You really are in a world of your own.
this is always my biggest point. can't believe i forgot to leave this out.
just look at Ub, it was just one person that used to work at the site that quit or sold business or something that cheated. just one person and their site and reputation went downhill, its been like 5 years and everybody still says their site is shady because of this one incident. do you really think the site would try and cheat everybody knowingly?
if you are going to say yes to my last question please don't reply.
I argue constantly with my friends about this....I play small stakes sngs mostly, and i never put a cent of my own money on a site....But i cash 32% of the time...my friends aren't nearly as succesful and swear sites are rigged everytime they get a bad beat...LOL I totally refuse to believe that a site as profitable as PS OR FTP would risk anything illegal when they make millions upon millions a year...
2my friends aren't nearly as succesful
3I totally refuse to believe that a site as profitable as PS OR FTP would risk anything illegal when they make millions upon millions a year...
1. are you playing double or nothings? lol/JK
2. obvious brag about being better than your friends (very obvious)
3. hit the nail on the head.
I wish i could play higher...but i really just do it to relax...I am disabled, so on a very fixed income....GL in your college and after.....
oh, and very impressive stats...Keep it going
I think full tilt is pretty good. So long as you have rakeback and software that you can live with then you'll do fine.
Stars has the greatest software imo and I loved the structures of their tournaments but the lack of rakeback is a total deal breaker now that i'm playing cash. Full tilt is also up there with stars in terms of having good software; i personally prefer stars but each to their own. I downloaded cake poker and found the entire layout to be pretty horrible; I'm on UB now and it's a nice compromise. The software works and its a layout im used to now so im happy.
In terms of traffic also, stars and full tilt are probably the best sites to go for. Both ensure regularly running tournaments with consistent entrants, and pleenty of cash games running 24/7 to boot. This is only really important if you intend to mass-table though. I personally play just 2 tables of cash at a time and so the traffic on UB is more than adequate for me. Some sites will get a lot of cash traffic but barely any for tournaments (e.g. UB), others will be the opposite and some of the big sites like stars/tilt have lots for both.
Then there's rakeback. Get it. Full tilt you can get like 27% I think which is pretty good, I have 30% over on UB and it's pretty sweet to have. Some sites like pokerstars don't have any rakeback - they instead replace it with their VIP system. Don't be fooled by this - it's nowhere near worth it, especially if you are playing cash games and/or are at micro stakes (around $0.05/$0.10 -> $0.25/$0.50).
One final thing worth pointing out is the level of play at some sites. Ive heard the players at bodog are notoriously bad and so you could increase your ROI over there as opposed to a popular site like stars that might get more regs. Ive personally found the cash games on UB to be pretty soft.