World Poker Forums

usual pokerstars freerolls are satellites and for 12000 people and only 99 win a ticketfull tilt freerolls not as often as pokerstars and only for 2700 but top 27 win $$ without any satellites...which one do u think is better.. which one do u prefer

Free rolls suck well atleast those ones do. Both ways suck.Full Tilt runs only a few but you have a better shot at winning something.PokerStars runs a crap load of the astronomer things that take 4-5 hrs just to get a ticket. Then you play another 2 hrs to make 60 cents. If you win it is kinda a bit bet like 250 bucks but thats like 10 hrs of work. and like i said if you just squeeze into the money then you wasted like 7 hrs fo 60 cents.Look For the special freerolls like the world cup of poker and the hockey freerolls. They pay much better.Good Luck at the tables

My answer is neither. You're far better off playing micro entry tournaments where there is a real prize pool. Freerolls are for entertainment purposes only and the expected value even for very good players is a few pennies for an hour or two of work. Not a good return for your time invested. So like I said it's for entertainment. Poker pro Chris Ferguson played these for many months before he was able to win a couple bucks and I do mean a couple bucks. He was out to show how you can build a poker roll from nothing but the lesson was that you really need to avoid trying to do this no matter how good you are. You could get a paper route and use the pay for one week to get at a level of money you would take years to get to by playing these turkeys.King Cobra Pokerhttp://kingcobrapoker.com