Station_Master said:
What do people think of GG for cash games, I have been tempted to sign up but not done so yet. Not a fan of the childish graphics, high rake, preflop rake, some of the shenanigans of the ambassadors (e.g. Bryn Kenny and his stable), admin fees, over the top ID requirements etc.... but if the games are soft enough I may be persuaded!
I haven't played on there for long, but I prefer it over Stars - games I play are more aggressive along with lots of 'gamblers' (many Asian players on the site). Bigger player pools (by far).
Settings can be adjusted to clean up the table. When I first tried playing on there I hated some of the features that would pop up that I didn't know how to control or eliminate. A bit of research has the tables looking as good as or better than everywhere else (I like to keep things fairly plain-looking so that I can easily see the relevant info. when it's my turn to act. I hated when Stars forced the Aurora graphics upon us but they've cleaned it up some since the initial switch (tables looked better before Aurora, one small detail still is unfolded cards were slightly larger, so were our own cards we were playing (I've saved screenshots for comparison)).
Rake:
Tournament rake I believe is lower for micro/low stakes on GG vs. Stars.
I play 'Z00M-style' cash games. I believe GGPoker currently has the lowest rake for that format of all sites. (ie. 25nl pots are capped at $0.75, it's $2.00 at Stars; @ 10nl rake is capped at $0.30 on GG, $1.50 on Stars; @5nl GG capped at $0.15, Stars $1.00)
Net Rake is fairly close though but GG is slightly lower than Stars. @50nl it's about the same. @100nl & above, GG sucks
ID/ verification process was easy enough.
Games are definitely better.
