Am I the Only Player Left that Prefers Full Tilt?

[Creepy Jackalope]

I have a few thoughts here.

First, Full Tilt is nothing like it's glory days, we all know that. It doesn't have full ring rush games are extinct, Mixed, draw, and stud games are difficult to find going, the Daily Dollar and many of it's other once signature tournaments are history, and the player pool is a fraction of what it once was....

But it seems to be picking up a little steam compared to a year ago..

Also, I like the software much more than any competitor. Yes pokerstars has more features, but I find the PS software boring. The Full Tilt software seems to move the games along.. hard to explain but I enjoy the experience more.

I play on a Mac, and the Full Tilt software was laggy for many months. This forced me to play Pokerstars almost exclusively for much of the past year or so. But recently they seem to have fixed that, and I find myself once again wanting to just play Full Tilt exclusively.

Am I the only one that still prefers Full Tilt over Pokerstars?

 

[warturtle7]

It think all the flashy colors and avatars distract me a bit and so i prefer the good old black background of PS

 

[valkopt]

I think that the lack of more table themes is a huge downside on FT. I really hate the table colors and scheme and is very hard to play with that. Maybe I'm more used to the PS table themes and FT are not that bad, but I really don't like.

Regarding other software related issues, can't find any big diferences...

 

[daredeviljo]

I find it's lack of convenient tournaments and staff support to be most annoying. But hey! If you find the graphics boring then go play PKR or any other UK derived poker site and you'll find the graphics unbeaten by other pokersites. For me I find that poker should be plain because it adds the thinking component to the game, whereas one may be too engulfed with flashing lights and bells, and lose focus on the goal (to win money).

It's a good debate, but I'd have to say polerstars takes the cake. They haven't been as good as the past, after buying out full tilt, http they still have constant events for all bankrolls. For a micro-mid size bankroll such as mine I find polerstars more appealing IMO.

 

[kidkvno1]

PokerStars owns FullTtiltPoker!

 

[PokerPillage]

Hated FT. Seemed to be an incredible number of suck outs, more so than other sites IMO. It was noticeable.

 

[woody19]

fulltilt is just not as good as the good old days i much prefer pokerstars know, in the past fulltilt was my favorite

 

[trolaAa]

It think all the flashy colors and avatars distract me a bit and so i prefer the good old black background of PS

+ 1
i hate so much these colors...

 

[Bowman]

Yes.

 

[DrazaFFT]

IMO FTP have the easiest lobby to navigate and i think that the software is the fastest...
It is not even close as before with removed tourneys and lower traffic but i still prefer it over any other room...

 

[Debi]

Probably. All of the players who preferred FT in the past have either gotten used to PS which is far superior - or still can't play at either

 

[Ranny]

Still prefer fulltilt over stars, it just feels more comfortable to me.

Also not being that busy, tournaments have manageable fields.

 

[Figaroo2]

FT is softer than PS

I used to play FT prior to its crash of course it was busier as all the US players were on it. I only returned there with any confidence after PS bought it out. Still not sure why they did that. Anyway Im now on full tilt as much as stars. my bankroll is growing faster on FT both the cash games and tourneys are miles softer = bigger bankroll.
I turn all that avatars off on all sites they are just a distracting gimmick totally unneccessary

 

[AlfieAA]

Yep stars Is far superior to tilt imo.

 

[steveiam]

Star's all day long, any other site is now where near it.

 

[AZPLAYS07]

Full Tilt was good when US players were aloud to play. Now that we can only play for fun on there it just isn't the same.

 

[florin3lu1]

Full Tilt is old, Pokerstars rocks! :rock:

full tilt is full of fishes that give all in round and round, anoyng

 

[the lab man]

I would have been the one that would have said Stars but I have more success thereat Tilt They are both the best in the business.

 

[Creepy Jackalope]

I would have been the one that would have said Stars but I have more success thereat Tilt They are both the best in the business.

This has been mentioned by a couple others in this thread as well, and I concur. The field on FT seems softer. PS is reg-laden. Which I don't hate.. but I'm sure having more fun on FT.

 

[Macaroon]

I haven't played on FT since it re-opened - there are no simple cash tournaments. It's all Rush on Demand, re-buys and satellites.

 

[the lab man]

I haven't played on FT since it re-opened - there are no simple cash tournaments. It's all Rush on Demand, re-buys and satellites.

Not true at all maybe check your filters

 

[Poker Orifice]

Still prefer fulltilt over stars, it just feels more comfortable to me.

Also not being that busy, tournaments have manageable fields.

I still prefer FTP's software over Pokerstars.

Full Tilt was good when US players were aloud to play..... it just isn't the same.

Previously I preferred FTP over Stars by far but alot of the reasons why I preferred it no longer apply.
The games (& often the structure) are what I liked about FTP.
ie. satellite structures were great & they had many that paid out ~1 in 4 players. (ie.. $6 satty to $22 DoubleDeuce.. < those ran all day long!
$14 satty to the $55 Fifty-Fifty
also the $8 18man satty to the $26 T$'s (or token)
the step sng satties... where you could start off in that initial $1 90-man & then was very easy to work up through the $3's, $8's, $26 to $75, being able to opt-out of the steps & play in tourneys once you hit $26
Just in those step satties alone I found it very easy to build a bankroll or to acquire a bunch of $26 tokens to play in many good tourneys (those $26 buyin tourneys on FTP were the bomb!)

The 45man 'reg.-speed' sng's were awesome too!

All of those games were very popular back in the day (pre-BF) on FTP but it is a completely different site nowadays.

Personally I wish Stars had attempted to keep the site closer to how it was in the past. They just weren't getting the numbers though when the site started back up again.

I rarely play on FTP anymore but might start playing there a bit more once I get rolling here in 2014 (< I'm still waiting to get started playing for this year, lol... sigh ).... I've acquired/won a few tourney tickets on there so it might be soon! As mentioned by others, the field-size of the tourneys are much more manageable than over on Stars. Obviously playing on both is the best.

 

[Creepy Jackalope]

Personally I wish Stars had attempted to keep the site closer to how it was in the past. They just weren't getting the numbers though when the site started back up again.

THIS!.

I'm sure you're right about their reasoning.. with not getting the player pool they hoped for. But yes they should have left well-enough alone.

That said, I think the Adrenaline-Rush is a great idea. May help to restore some of the player base.

 

[Creepy Jackalope]

I haven't played on FT since it re-opened - there are no simple cash tournaments. It's all Rush on Demand, re-buys and satellites.

The On-Demand tourneys, at least at Microstakes level, are incredibly soft. If you play low buy-in events then you would be a fool not to try them out.

 

[Keith_MM]

That said, I think the Adrenaline-Rush is a great idea. May help to restore some of the player base.

i think its a lousy idea. its only any good for gamblers and removes the skill element of the game.