Room Reviews! - Page 2

On November 22 2008 20:35 Catul wrote: Nice job. Giving a 9 to FTP support, a 9 to Party Poker and only an 8 to PokerStars is really weird though. It would be more like 7, 4, 10 in my opinion. edit : I know it's because PS doesn't have phone support, but I included that factor in my ratings.

2 years ago I would have given stars a 10 for phone support, now however i think an 8 is justified. Their support is still good, but worsened a lot.

I agree that a 9 for party support is too high, my personal experiences with them are pretty outdated though.

On November 22 2008 23:52 Ket wrote: 100% agreed with catuls point about support ratings re: ftp vs ps. and while we're on that note let me rant it up: bonuses/rakeback 8 for ftp vs a ridic measly 5 for ps is pretty harsh too just because ftp has a higher first time dep bonus. for a high volume professional the rewards benefits pokerstars offer (vipclub + fpps + milestone bonuses + whatever else) work out to an incomparably way way higher effective rakeback % than ftp's 27% (which is actually definitely even lower than 27% when you look at the big bites ftp take out of your mgr totals for everytime you deposit money or order anything from the ftp store with your crappy points). i think this more than balances the fact ftp might be more favourable for new smallstakes players. im pretty sure the amount of extra 'rakeback' ive made from putting in volume on pokerstars than the amt i would have generated if i put in the same amount of volume on full tilt as i did on stars is by now easily in the FIVE figures. also pokerstars is the clear unrivalled industry leader in terms of traffic so it rightly deserves its 10/10 for cashgame traffic but how does ftp score a 10 here as well when it isnt close to comparable? ftp should have a 7 to 8 score if this 'scale' is to have any meaning at all and partypoker should be significantly lower still. catul style edit: i know after you get to a certain level of traffic you dont 'need' any more and there are diminishing returns on having more traffic, my proposed rating accounts for that. just use pokerscout.com for cashgame traffic indicators to see ps always has like double the cashgame traffic ftp has so ftp would need like a 5/10 rating in that area if it were done linearly.

I agree that if rakeback / fpp bonus system is taken into consideration then a 5 is way too low for stars. When given this rating the reviewer seems to have only taken the first deposit bonus into account. However the rating is for all kind of bonuses: first deposit bonus, reload and fpp stuff. We will also add an extra paragraph to this because the fpp store isn't mentioned at all.

If the scale for traffic meant the number of players, so the highest being the standard and the percentage of traffic the room get is their rating then i would agree with you on the low ratings for party and ipoker. That however isn't the case, the rating means "Is the traffic good" and not "Is the traffic the same as stars". Those rooms always have plenty of tables available so their traffic is good. Otherwise we would have to give the 3rd biggest available network (iPoker) a negative rating on traffic and that doesn't make sense to me.

On November 23 2008 04:47 Liquid`Meat wrote: Show nested quote + On November 22 2008 20:35 Catul wrote: Nice job. Giving a 9 to FTP support, a 9 to Party Poker and only an 8 to PokerStars is really weird though. It would be more like 7, 4, 10 in my opinion. edit : I know it's because PS doesn't have phone support, but I included that factor in my ratings. 2 years ago I would have given stars a 10 for phone support, now however i think an 8 is justified. Their support is still good, but worsened a lot. I agree that a 9 for party support is too high, my personal experiences with them are pretty outdated though.

True, like it sometimes takes them over a week to create a private freeroll (if they don't screw it up). I wouldnt give that a 10 either, even though they are really fast and helpful most of the time.

The more I read about Cake the more tempted I am to switch to there from PS.

party based on old software?

On November 25 2008 05:03 Critterer wrote: party based on old software?

yes, we have been working on the reviews for such a long time that the party one is still based on the old software. We just realized this yesterday and are currently updating it.

I think the first step should be for you guys to get room reviews for all the rooms you are offering rakeback for.