What I think of Pacific Poker

[PhilHellmouth]

Pacific Poker is da BombSo its 4am my time but I don’t mind…I’ve just qualified for the $75k tourney on Pacific Poker on a freeroll…for the third week in a row.Besides excellent value tourneys and weak opposition there’s lots of things I like about Pacific. In my opinion the software is one of the better ones out there…I’m yet to find a site where the game-play is faster and more efficient. And then there are some features which are a must-have for me when I play, like ghost cards, shortcut keys, and a good hand history. Unlike some other sites that have a ridiculous number of bad beats, I believe here the RNG actually does its job properly. Playing here is always fun, I never get stressed, so it’s healthy for me and my bankroll.I’d read somewhere that Pacific was voted as having the weakest players on the net, but I didn’t believe this until I went there myself. After a fast and easy deposit I’d found my bankroll already had a generous welcome bonus and referred-friend bonus added. I mostly play ring games and MTTs, but the occasional massive value freeroll is something I really enjoy playing, and that’s something I have to thank Pacific for in conjunction with PokerNetwork.Unlike some other big name sites, Pacific enables live chat support, or email support which is one of the promptest and most helpful. All in all, Pacific Poker may not be the biggest, but it’s one of the best when it comes to enjoying online poker, and churning out a profit.

[Fair Enough]

Phil,Perhaps there should be a 'disclaimer' added to this post?A little more credibility would be given to such a post if it was 100% clear that you were in no way associated with the site, nor received any benefit personally from encouraging people to join/play there.... And I know I'm likely going to be accused of taking a possible troll-bait, but....>Unlike some other sites that have a ridiculous >number of bad beats, I believe here the RNG >actually does its job properly. Again, it is hard to take seriously your post when you make an assertion like this.Saying something this just undermines your credibility as a poster, and probably makes it *less* likely that people will be interested in, or pay credence to what you have written.

[PhilHellmouth]

Because I'm not a boring old nark my post can't be taken seriously? I say what I truly believe and try to show a bit of character and humour at the same time.You seem to think this post has to be like a journal article in its formality in order to be understood and believed.

[wizdumb]

I thought it was a bit thin on traffic but otherwise I agree. Believe the "3" is missing from their RNG though..

[Haystacks Calho on]

I agree with the compertition but the hand history is non existant. The best software going around imo. Its quick and got none of those stupid avatars.

[modus]

what hand history? And poor alert for action pending, so so often getting timed out when playing multi table.

[Fair Enough]

Phil,>Because I'm not a boring old nark my post can't >be taken seriously? >You seem to think this post has to be like a >journal article in its formality in order to be >understood and believed. You missed my point 100%.It is interesting you choose to attack my lack of humour rather than the content of my post. (Playing the man, not the ball, eh?)Your post read pretty much like a PR handout from Pacific Poker. Uncritical. Glowing in its praise.Imagine a brief article written by, say, a hypothetical Australian manager of 888.com trying to drum up (troll) a little extra business for his poker site on the various forums. One could quite easily conceive such an article reading just like you posted:"Pacific Poker is da Bomb""excellent value tourneys""software is one of the better""features which are a must-have""RNG actually does its job properly""Playing here is always fun""voted as having the weakest players""fast and easy deposit""generous welcome bonus""massive value freeroll""I have to thank Pacific for""but it’s one of the best"Very few of the online site rating sites have much good to say about the Pacific software, although there is quite some agreement about the weakness of players there.Also, your comment about the RNG was made in jest? You were not implying that some other online poker sites are rigged? This must be just about the most tiresome and done-to-death theme in poker forums over the last few years. Put up proof, or don't make ridiculous assertions.Finally, let me be blunt, not in any way amusing or showing character or humour: Are you in any way affiliated with, have any interest in Pacific Poker, or stand to gain in any manner from increased business at that site? If you are, you should have stated so. That way we can evaluate our opinion of your post based on that information.If you are not, then why the uncritical puff piece, using standard PR-type terminology? Because you've done well there in a few freerolls? Surely, if it's such a fishpool you wouldn't want all these good PNW players coming in and sharking away some of your krill? Phil, you may be entirely genuine in wanting to share your new-found discovery of nice easy games, good software and conditions at Pacific with the wider Australian poker community. But by expressing that in the manner you did in your original post I feel the value of your analysis (or basically the re-hashing of advertising handouts) is greatly undermined.

[PhilHellmouth]

Your post speaks for itself. You went overboard writing a whole freakin essay. Haven't you got anything better to spend your time on than being overly critical of everything in breach of your watchdog standards?I was critical of the fact that Pacific has low numbers.I did not claim that the RNGs are rigged, although that is a possible inference to make, if you believe, like me, that some aren't very good (ie predictable cards.) Having said that I've played on a few sites and notice differences, and I think that some could be rigged. No I won't go and do a nerd-arse statistical analysis like you would, it's just what I think.You can use all the pseudointellectual jargon you want I'm going to stick with my colloquial approach because I think people get my drift and I don't have to justify like we're in a court of law.For the record Pacific is running a competition on at the moment, where players can win prizes by writing reviews. I'm not sure they would have been too happy if I included in my post a whole heap of disclaimers and the fact that I was writing this for a competition. *There was included at the end of the post a link/image saying "pacific poker in review" which took you to the site. This was later edited out by Admin, and I have now again put in a link. Nevertheless I stick by what I wrote 100%. It may not all be true, but it's what I believe and think, it's my opinion, and that's the point of a review. People can make of it what they want, I don't need you schooling me in review etiquitte and linguistic validity.

[AJBlocker]

Phil, I just got out my crystal ball and spoke your name as i looked deeply into its centre....although cloudy i could just make out the images in it.....God and St.Peter were pissing themselves laugh as your upswing came to a violent end and you hurled your keyboard at the wall shouting "fkking Pacific Poker".....couldnt quiet make out the date but the end is Nigh brother...the end is Nigh!!!Blocker.P.S do you have a deposit bonus code i can use?

[PhilHellmouth]

AJ Blocker that was hilarious. That Bad Beat story I posted happened on Pacfic, yes. I don't seem to recall saying Pacific Poker was Bad Beat free. That was one Bad Beat and is to be expected occasionally. I'm not sure why exactly you think I experienced an upswing but this one tourney has not affected this hypothetical upswing.