FTP or PS for Micros?

It seems like bronze and silver star are pretty much worthless, since you're still getting so few fpps that there's basically nothing you can get with them.

I've been pondering if I should move to FTP as well (I'm a nl5 player) as I prefer the FTP software and rakeback sounds tempting, but if Stars really rakes that much less I guess I'll have to stay at PS for a bit longer.

Too bad I can't even reach silverstar 6 tabling for a few hours a day. .__.

start playing FTP at nl 25 instead w/ the 600 dollar signup bonus

On July 16 2009 09:52 SpasticInk wrote: start playing FTP at nl 25 instead w/ the 600 dollar signup bonus

I think you can "dodge" having to get that bonus too early by having a friend transfer you and then deposit yourself when you can afford the $600.

wasnt the rake at FTP far worse than stars @ micro? iirc

Bronzestar is more like 6-7% rakeback. But Edzwoo could be right about the total rake paid, and rakeback is not really that important for 2NL anyway (I think you rake like $20 per 10k hands?). I've played both, and am playing FTP now because of the rakeback. But for software alone I'd go for PokerStars, especially because of the table filter (or the lack of at FTP). Frequent player points at PokerStars are also okay, you might get a deck of playing cards after a while for example, whereas that's deducted from your rakeback on FTP (actually the rake earned, but that changes your rakeback).

If she'd like to move up and stay at the same website for longer, FTP is the way to go, because as you're playing higher than 25NL (except perhaps with Supernova and such), you'll notice the difference.

I think the deal is that pokerstars rackes .05 for every 1.00 in the pot whereas FTP rakes .01 for ever .20 in the pot. So if the pot doesn't reach $1 on Stars you're not paying rake whereas a bunch more pots get raked on FTP. The difference is probably a lot less significant as you move up in limit.

Total rake paid is a lot worse for FTP micros than Stars micros. And Stars is less nitties overall in my experience. I'd recommend starting her out on Stars.

Sweet, thanks everyone.

I think I'll let her grind till $600 on stars and then do FTP with rakeback till NL100 and then have her move back and get supernova going on. Cause I still <3 stars much more than FTP even though FTP has definitely improved a lot. Their lack of a table filter is mind boggling though, how could they not have one? So stupid.

I can just see it now you and her sitting next to each other with your laptops out grinding...........how cute.

On July 16 2009 10:18 blackjacki2 wrote: I think the deal is that pokerstars rackes .05 for every 1.00 in the pot whereas FTP rakes .01 for ever .20 in the pot. So if the pot doesn't reach $1 on Stars you're not paying rake whereas a bunch more pots get raked on FTP. The difference is probably a lot less significant as you move up in limit.

FTP charges 0.01 per 0.15 in the pot. So it's not just that they drop more often, but their rake% is a bit higher (6,67% vs 5%). This is to some extend offset by rakeback (which makes it 4,87%, so slightly less). Because you pay more often, it'll probably be a bit worse at FTP (+ the fact that you won't be using your player points).

I have a quick question. Let's say you want to switch to pokerstars mid-year. Can you build up your supernova status from July 2009 to July 2010? I'm guessing you can't and you have to do it from January to December of the same calendar year. This makes me want to wait until January to switch so I can be motivated to make platinum every month.

On July 16 2009 12:43 Jonoman92 wrote: I'm guessing you can't and you have to do it from January to December of the same calendar year. This makes me want to wait until January to switch so I can be motivated to make platinum every month.

this