[99%evil]

I've been playing with money on-line for a little over a year, played some at Partypoker and most at Pokerstars. I think the best odds for your buck are the single table sit-n go. I'd steer clear of the $5 tables and start at he $10's. I like poker stars better for a few reasons, one being they have 9-player tables versus Partypoker's 10 handed tables. Cutting that one person out gives you a 10% better chance of winning some cash. I also like the single table tourneys over the multi because of the fact that only the top 3 get paid. In the 2 table tournays your risking $10 to win $72(top prize) against 17 people, in a single table your risking $10 to get $45 against 8 others. You've got double the people to make it through, but do not get double the reward, 4th place getting paid takes that edge out. Playing at least the $10 tables eliminates the fish that call everything and catch once in a while to bust you out. Playing the $20 tables you start getting some decent games.

The only thing that worries me about on-line poker are the cheaters, read this months Maxxim magazine about a guy who has multiple accounts and sits at multiple hands at tables and maximizes his odds by playing multiple spots, if he gets AQ in one and AK in another he can fold the AQ and play his better hand.

I also personally know som people that play together in one room against a table of strangers, they fold to each others better hand pre-flop and split the winnings, I don't like this one bit .

Playing the money tables .05/.10 are worthless unless you've only got $5 left. I was playing the $1/$2 & $2/$4 limit 6-handed games, fewer people to play more hands. Not sure this is the best way to play, you end up playing more hands because the blinds hit you more often, but it can be dangerous to chase.

I currently am not playing for cash (last 2 months) on-line because I'm wary of cheaters, I can usually come in the money against average players at live games, but you never know on the computer.

I like to play the large tourneys, but don't always have the time. I've come in top 20 in some bigger tourneys (700-1000 people), but have yet to make a final table.

I don't think I'll be playing for money on-line anymore, I'm too concerned about the cheaters and don't want to risk my cash against bad odds. I'll play live games and just deal with mechanics, those are fewer and further between.

[SpeakEasy]

Originally Posted by Clonexx

Not sure why ya think Full Tilt is the fishiest....

Results!!

I'm talking 1-2 and 2-4 NL, 3-6 and 5-10 limit, SNGs $20 up to $100. And the occasional tourney (which are smaller on FullTilt and therefore don't take as much time.

This would be the subject of a good article that sticks to the objective issues (software, ease of use, speed, game spread). I might just start such an article...

[CaptLego]

Originally Posted by SpeakEasy

Results!!
...

Don't most folks use PokerTracker? Can we do some collective data mining to compare stats for the different sites and games?

[Clonexx]

Originally Posted by 99%evil

I've been playing with money on-line for a little over a year, played some at Partypoker and most at Pokerstars. I think the best odds for your buck are the single table sit-n go. I'd steer clear of the $5 tables and start at he $10's. I like poker stars better for a few reasons, one being they have 9-player tables versus Partypoker's 10 handed tables. Cutting that one person out gives you a 10% better chance of winning some cash. I also like the single table tourneys over the multi because of the fact that only the top 3 get paid. In the 2 table tournays your risking $10 to win $72(top prize) against 17 people, in a single table your risking $10 to get $45 against 8 others. You've got double the people to make it through, but do not get double the reward, 4th place getting paid takes that edge out. Playing at least the $10 tables eliminates the fish that call everything and catch once in a while to bust you out. Playing the $20 tables you start getting some decent games.

The only thing that worries me about on-line poker are the cheaters, read this months Maxxim magazine about a guy who has multiple accounts and sits at multiple hands at tables and maximizes his odds by playing multiple spots, if he gets AQ in one and AK in another he can fold the AQ and play his better hand.

I also personally know som people that play together in one room against a table of strangers, they fold to each others better hand pre-flop and split the winnings, I don't like this one bit .

Playing the money tables .05/.10 are worthless unless you've only got $5 left. I was playing the $1/$2 & $2/$4 limit 6-handed games, fewer people to play more hands. Not sure this is the best way to play, you end up playing more hands because the blinds hit you more often, but it can be dangerous to chase.

I currently am not playing for cash (last 2 months) on-line because I'm wary of cheaters, I can usually come in the money against average players at live games, but you never know on the computer.

I like to play the large tourneys, but don't always have the time. I've come in top 20 in some bigger tourneys (700-1000 people), but have yet to make a final table.

I don't think I'll be playing for money on-line anymore, I'm too concerned about the cheaters and don't want to risk my cash against bad odds. I'll play live games and just deal with mechanics, those are fewer and further between.

How does the cheating methods you are describing affect ring game play? If you play solid poker, and make the correct table selections, they will never affect you.

Playing .05/.10 is never useless unless you are confident enough in your game to play .25/.50. Played well, you can go from $120 to $150 in a few days. If you can't beat .05/.10 then you should not be playing .25/.50.

[99%evil]

Originally Posted by Clonexx

How does the cheating methods you are describing affect ring game play? If you play solid poker, and make the correct table selections, they will never affect you.

Playing .05/.10 is never useless unless you are confident enough in your game to play .25/.50. Played well, you can go from $120 to $150 in a few days. If you can't beat .05/.10 then you should not be playing .25/.50.

If you could be dealt two hands at a table every hand and had the oppurtunity to chose between the 2 you'd have an advantage over the rest of the table. This small advantage is enough that even if you played solid poker you'd be playing against one player that has a slight advantage, over time this will adverselt affect your solid play.

[SpeakEasy]

Originally Posted by CaptLego

Don't most folks use PokerTracker? Can we do some collective data mining to compare stats for the different sites and games?

I don't use poker tracker. I keep track of my bankroll with a spreadsheet (on-line and cash), and that tells me all I need to know as far as record-keeping goes. I will review hand-history from tournaments and SNGs, but that's it for data about hands. I know when I'm playing good or bad, and I have no delusions about when I am encountering better competition and when I have the advantage.

[CaptLego]

Originally Posted by SpeakEasy

I don't use poker tracker. I keep track of my bankroll with a spreadsheet (on-line and cash), and that tells me all I need to know as far as record-keeping goes. I will review hand-history from tournaments and SNGs, but that's it for data about hands. I know when I'm playing good or bad, and I have no delusions about when I am encountering better competition and when I have the advantage.

I have no doubt that works for you. Further, I'm happy to trust your judgment on the comparative nature of different games where you've played.

What I was looking for was a way that we could assemble our group's varied experience in some coherent way. For example, what looks like a fish to you may look like a shark to me. How could we compare the games you've played in to the games you haven't played? PokerTracker stats, on the otherhand, are objective. So, for example, it might be possible to characterize which sites have more loose players, or which games tend to be more passive.

[imthatguy]

Originally Posted by boondocker96

Im going to start playing for cash online, and am wondering what sites, limits and such to start out with. I am looking to start small and build a bankroll. Hopefully Ill be playing in next weeks Chiptalk tourney as well.
Any thoughts/advice would be appreciated.

Quit while you're ahead. Like before you start playing online...

[coyote]

Originally Posted by 99%evil

If you could be dealt two hands at a table every hand and had the oppurtunity to chose between the 2 you'd have an advantage over the rest of the table. This small advantage is enough that even if you played solid poker you'd be playing against one player that has a slight advantage, over time this will adverselt affect your solid play.

So you think this happens enough that it will make you a losing player??

perhaps you should examine your game and not blame cheaters on the internet. If you play well, you can easily find games that will have +EV.

[Clonexx]

Originally Posted by 99%evil

If you could be dealt two hands at a table every hand and had the oppurtunity to chose between the 2 you'd have an advantage over the rest of the table. This small advantage is enough that even if you played solid poker you'd be playing against one player that has a slight advantage, over time this will adverselt affect your solid play.

I don't think it will affect my play at all honestly. They can't see my hand, and I can still pick up betting patterns from both of them even if they are in the same room. I still play my game and I still come out ahead.

You are seeing monsters under the bed man. This sort of collusion has a minimal impact in online play to begin with, and to even make it worth it they would need to be working 3/6 and higher. You will not find this kind of collusion at a .5/1 table often if at all. You are worrying far too much about something very inconsequential.