My site selection is often after the fact. I’ll click on one of the links here to try a site to report a bit about it from time to time.When I started playing online there were very few sites available. I started on PokerRoom. In retrospect that was a mistake. It remains the big dog skin for that network but there are better choices unless you want their MTT’s. Tournaments are the separating feature between various skins. PokerRoom had great Freerolls with substantial free money available but with a 4:1 player point need. I had enough points to win those and could regularly place in them. The good feature was they didn’t take the points when you won. That was a source of a lot of free money for me in those days. But, if you’ll look over in the forums you’ll get my and other opinions of the rest of the features that weren’t to the players benefit.
When the UIGEA hit and George’s Attorney General decided to take over ruling my life I probably had a dozen sites stored on the hard drive. Some I’d funded others I just tried at play money and decided the interface or the games available weren’t my cuppa; but, I left them on the hard disk which had plenty of space. As many of the sites lock me out, I finally got around to cleaning out the dead wood. Thanks George for taking over from my dead Mom and making me feel like I am again a 12-year old in need of guidance.
My play for my early career was single table tournaments. Ultimate Bet‘s SnG action was perfect for my game and SnG play in general. It had easy blind levels that let you do the fairly rock-like early play that allows you to cash. I still think it had as good a blind structure as any tournament site. But, along came turbos and deep stack options and others that let you play in tournaments on just about any site that suit your personality. Many give better structures for the big or more costly buy-in events. It has gotten harder to differentiate.
It takes some play to get a feel for what you need to do to prosper on a site. FullTilt was not that ‘Ken Friendly’ and until the UIGEA limited choices, I didn’t play there a lot. There were juicier site. Often, those with a sports book attract real gamblers with poor poker skills. Smaller sites, like my playing a lot at TonyG, were profitable because of the limited group of players. You could build a book of notes and see those players at tables. On the big sites you may not see a lot of tournament players ever again. It was a lot like PokerChamp where Tony had played as a pro with Gus Hanson. Both had rebuys but the ones at TonyGPoker came with a much better blind structure. Both also gave rakeback and that’s always a help.
Recently, I funded PokerStars with a much larger amount than had been on the site do to Negreanu’s site merging with it. So, I started playing a bit of ring there. Yesterday, I ran into their all-in protection difference and it really affected the game. One player had a bad connection and over the course of an hour or so got marked all-in on over 20 hands. That slowed the game but it also forced players to show cards that wouldn’t normally be exposed. That really changes the complexion of the game. I wrote their support and was told there was no limit to all-in protection. Most sites limit it to two over a period. For me it is a deal breaker. I wasn’t really big on the site over the years anyway. So, even with the UIGEA, I can find a site that accommodates my play better.
So, how do you choose a site…
There is a lot of gut feel. You need to give the site a chance as you adjust your game to their general run of players. You need to look at structures in tournaments by looking at the blinds in effect at the end of hours and figuring what a 20x or comfortable stack is to know how to attack success in the tournaments. In the other ring games, you need to look at what the bring-ins are for the blind limits you are playing. Some are greater and that to changes the play.
What it all boils down to is whether or not the site is profitable for your style of play. Or, better put, does it maximize that potential. Then, consider that while the site may not be the best fit, it may help you develop a more complete game by allowing you to work on the weaker side of your game that the site might be exploiting.
An example I can give of that is Bodog. It hasn’t been kind to me. It is one of those that relates to a sports book and the players are weak. But, the suck-outs are really magnified. This is at Stud and that is an area I am still learning to play. I need to adjust. Just how is the question mark. I don’t have that answer at the moment. So, I am going to back off my play there for a while. I hate to do it because when I do hit a run I make a nice haul off the chasers. But that and more has been trickling back. So, I need to put that site on hold until I can figure it out better.
ADDENDUM:
I have long used Wikipeda which does have a liberal bent to many articles. I don’t find that objectionable