Why not WSEX?
 

I've noticed that WSEX is not gaining any ground in Poker. Is there a reason why a place that pays out rake as a default plan is not getting more players?? The place seems dead. Every time I log in there is about 500 players online total. I didn't think the software is that bad but then I'm no power user either.

Can I get some opinions here??

(if in the wrong section feel free to move)

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

Well, I wouldn't call this the right forum.

I guess there just isn't a lot of advertising behind it. They have almost nothing except holdem going and there are not a lot of fish, so I don't play there.

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

I've been asking the same question for a long time. If you go back at look at the older WSEX threads, a lot of posters have thrown out many, many theories, none of which make sense. Its like the Bermuda triangle. I have just accepted that the answer is that people like to pay rake.

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

I would love it to become popular. I played there about a year ago and the no rake was fantastic. However, I stopped because of the lack of choice and there are very few poor players around so it is a constant battle. Also I thought the graphics were poor.

Without advertising the fish and casual players don't go there. Rake is not a huge factor for them. They see the adverts for PokerStars, Party anf Full Tilt and chuck their dead money on those. They have some fun and repeat. Once they improve and take the game seriously rake becomes important. They find out about WSEX but when they try it they find it too hard and leave.

Rake is a necessary evil. Advertising, upgrading software and customer support costs money. Rake plays for all that plus the sites are not a charity and need to make profits themselves. I think WSEX would have been better with say 70% rakeback and investing 30% for advertising. However, it is a bit of a chicken and egg scenario. With their current amount of players 30% wouldn't cover a good advertising campaign.

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

And they prolly cant advertise = no fish ever.
Thats prolly the reason party is so fishy, party has by far the HIGHEST rake :P And there are loads of players.

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think WSEX would have been better with say 70% rakeback and investing 30% for advertising. However, it is a bit of a chicken and egg scenario. With their current amount of players 30% wouldn't cover a good advertising campaign.

[/ QUOTE ]

They did move to 75% rakeback this summer, to cover expenses and to provide some money for advertising.

How they got to there current sad state has been fairly clear to me. I've been an observer, player, fan and booster since they went rakefree.

The long and short of it is that they were completely unprepared to handle volume when they went rakefree. The software was hideous, as was server performance. Scandals erupted like the blind bug that allowed some cheats to skip blinds, lag would fold your cards for you, and when it became accepted knowledge that a ring of game theory based bots was operating on the site, and WPEX kicked them off, that was the final blow that sent population crashing to the point you can't get a game up.

The software and server problems seem solved (though testing under heavy volume may prove different), but marketing has still been lacking. They ran a promo last week of 100% rakeback that was mildly successful in getting at least a 10/20 going, but I think it's basically a dead zone until they get some good marketing. And quick, while the football bettors are out, I hope.

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

Leaving aside the pros and cons of WPX for the moment, the basic question is, "Why aren't there other online card rooms competing based on price?".

As a player it turns my stomach to think that the rake I pay Stars somehow finds its way to the pockets of some of these dancing buffoons who do everything and anything to get their face time on ESPN. I really don't want to be the mule whose labor supports the cult of personality in which Stars invests.

There's no reason a $3 rake should be an industry standard and that bigger games should get popped for $5.

A tourney with a $1000 entry shouldn't cost 100x the entry into a $1 tournament.

It would not surprise me to find that there's some degree of soft collusion among poker sites with the aim to keep costs artificially inflated.

Yes, I too have no idea why WPX hasn't been a roaring success or why there haven't been downward cost pressures on other sites. WPX is/was the perfect, stripped down vehicle in which a competent poker player could do quite well without the supporting the massive carnival that now mushrooming at the bigger sites.

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

I wish I could figure it out. There should be a domino situation there, small rake, more players, more players, more games, great site but no, nobody comes. Play there for a week, pick a game when found, see your rakeback Monday am and you would think people would never leave.

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I wish I could figure it out. There should be a domino situation there, small rake, more players, more players, more games, great site but no, nobody comes. Play there for a week, pick a game when found, see your rakeback Monday am and you would think people would never leave.

[/ QUOTE ]

Harder to get funds there. That simple.

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

Moneygram from Walmart and they give you double the cost back into you account, $9 and you get a credit of $20, what could be easier than that?

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have just accepted that the answer is that people like to pay rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Ya. Thats why no one plays there.

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

The problem with no rake sites is that it predominantly attracts the sharks, for whom lower rake is pure positive. What would be the point for the fish to come to rock gardens to save on rake when they're going to be demolished on the table, and lose 10x what they saved on rake?

For the losing player, lower casino rake may or may not be a good thing. Losing players pay two kinds of rake: one to the casino, and another to sharks (by losing to them). Those two kinds have an inverse relationship with each other. In a certain range, higher casino rake actually helps the fish, since it drives out the sharks, and the decrease in "shark rake" more than offsets the increase in the casino rake.

I predict that if at some point sites would openly compete on rake, and fish would rationally choose their sites based on that information, the softest games would be at the site with the highest rake.

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

I don't know why people are thinking it's some great mystery. The games are just harder. Yeah, I suck at poker, but so do most people. I win a little at my levels on other sites. On WSEX/WPEX, I lose. Not from bad beats or LOL OMG RIGGED, the other players are just beating me and are stronger than the players at similar levels on other sites.

So I play elsewhere. Getting my rake back is nice, actually winning at poker is better. You can say I suck at poker all you like (you would be 100% correct), but there are lots of people like me out there.

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

So we have a place that is 75% rakeshare compared to 27% Fulltilt and there are no games? lol
sounds about right

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know why people are thinking it's some great mystery. The games are just harder. Yeah, I suck at poker, but so do most people. I win a little at my levels on other sites. On WSEX/WPEX, I lose. Not from bad beats or LOL OMG RIGGED, the other players are just beating me and are stronger than the players at similar levels on other sites.

So I play elsewhere. Getting my rake back is nice, actually winning at poker is better. You can say I suck at poker all you like (you would be 100% correct), but there are lots of people like me out there.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was exactly my experience. I would be up after rake back at the end of the week but it wasn't any fun.

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Harder to get funds there. That simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

And lack of advertising. I actually thought the old WPEX ads were pretty decent....and they are how I found the site. They could just start re-using those.

Simple fact is the sites that use TV ads are the sites with the highest player counts. Ability to get funds there being a very close second...but it is still second.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know why people are thinking it's some great mystery. The games are just harder.

[/ QUOTE ]

The games are not that much harder (and there is some debate whether they are harder at all.) Any existing increased game difficulty is more than compensated for by the rakeback, aces never lose, freerolls, and tournament overlays. Trust me, it is because of these things, and not my skill, that I am up $$$ at WPEX. Point blank this site pays you to play.

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

Man it is so frustrating to see this threads come up month after month. It just doesn't make sense.

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

[ QUOTE ]
As a player it turns my stomach to think that the rake I pay Stars somehow finds its way to the pockets of some of these dancing buffoons who do everything and anything to get their face time on ESPN. I really don't want to be the mule whose labor supports the cult of personality in which Stars invests.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I too have no idea why WPX hasn't been a roaring success or why there haven't been downward cost pressures on other sites. WPX is/was the perfect, stripped down vehicle in which a competent poker player could do quite well without the supporting the massive carnival that now mushrooming at the bigger sites.

[/ QUOTE ]
Look, you may not like paying rake and you may think some of the sites paid players are buffoons but we need them. We need the sites to advertise to attract the casual players. We need that dead money to keep rolling in. We needed Moneymaker and his elk that followed. Just having minimal rake with no advertising is bad news. All you will end up with is a tank full of really good players and no little fish to feed off.

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

"We pay you to play poker!!"

For some unfathomable reason, they don't see this as an attractive marketing line.

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

There are sites with good rakeback deals and much much greater table selection.
I get 39% rb on Interpoker (but you have to play quite a bit to get that) + 1000$ monthly bonus + a lot of promos the do.
That's at least 50% rb dealt each month, a lot of times more.

I prefer to play with 50% rb, softer games and a lot of tables (relative to WSEX) going than 100% rb , tough games and no tables.

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

i never liked the software, but you're right I should give it another try.

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

i was there in 06 and it was really a 2p2 fest at the time so no mas.

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

i tuned in and it was 75 percent rake back last month. Did they go back to 100?

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

Yes, glam and celebrities=fish.

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

[ QUOTE ]
i tuned in and it was 75 percent rake back last month. Did they go back to 100?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just last week as a promotion. Back to 75% now.

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Leaving aside the pros and cons of WPX for the moment, the basic question is, "Why aren't there other online card rooms competing based on price?".

[/ QUOTE ]
There are. At least there are for non-US players. There are plenty of sites where I can get the equivalent of anywhere from 50-75% RB when including RB, bonus, etc...and the play is a lot softer than at WSEX. For non-US players, there is no incentive for us to play with the sharks at WSEX. The extra 20-40% in RB (or even less sometimes) is more than made up for by the soft players elsewhere.

US players have it a little tougher. There is not as much incentive for the sites to compete on price, because there is less competition. Also, one has to assume there is a little more overhead taking on US players with all of the headaches of finding banking options that work, concerns about legal troubles, etc.

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

Losers don't care about rake. That's all there is to it.. I mean, what else do you expect? They aren't calculating that they are losing their money 15% slower on WSEX than they are on Stars or Party or whatever, they just play at the site that seems most appealing in terms of actual gameplay. But all the good players want the least rake obviously, so many go to WSEX making it quite the sharktank.

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

There's currently a 17 page thread with over 23K views on the rakeback/affiliate subforum filled with players willing to roll the dice with their funds in order to get 60% rakeback from the very sketchy world that is Prima.

These players are willing to open accounts through affiliates (another level of risk) in order to play at sites far less trustworthy and convenient that WPX and for a far less generous rakeback arrangement.

How can the 400+ people in that thread not see the clear advantage of playing at WPX versus the shady world of the affiliate/Prima arrangement.

It is easy to get money on and off at WPX. They take debit cards. I can get money to WPX in less time than it would take me to buy a sweater online. Checks are currently being delivered in 6-10 days via regular airmail.

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is easy to get money on and off at WPX. They take debit cards. I can get money to WPX in less time than it would take me to buy a sweater online. Checks are currently being delivered in 6-10 days via regular airmail.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has never worked for me.

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

I prefer Poker Stars:

1. I can get 1000 hands/hour at $200+
2. There are tons of fish at $200+
3. I get almost 30% rakeback anyhow
4. Customer service rocks
5. I feel more secure having money on a site with 100k players online than I do having it on a site with 1k players online. Even though WSEX is 100% straight line, there's always that worry in the back of my mind about smaller poker sites as well as sites linked to sports.

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

poor management decisions imo

I gurantee if I ran things, I could have over 5K players in 2 months.

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

Has anyone had trouble getting money out of here? I made a withdrawal request (bank draft) two weeks ago and still haven't received it. I talked to their CS and she says it hasn't even been processed yet due to the high volume of requests. And when it is finally processed, she said it would 4-6 weeks via regular mail. That means it could take potentially over two months just to get my money. I would think this would be reason enough not to choose this place.

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone had trouble getting money out of here? I made a withdrawal request (bank draft) two weeks ago and still haven't received it. I talked to their CS and she says it hasn't even been processed yet due to the high volume of requests. And when it is finally processed, she said it would 4-6 weeks via regular mail. That means it could take potentially over two months just to get my money. I would think this would be reason enough not to choose this place.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've had five checks delivered in the last five weeks. None took longer than two weeks. The money was out of my account by the next day.

Newly opened 2+2 accounts gratuitously slurring WPX is all too common.

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

The money was also taken out of my account the next day, which was 2 weeks ago. So I assumed the check was sent. When I talked to them via live chat today, they said it hasn't even been processed yet, due to high demand.

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

I will investigate this first thing in the morning. I haven't heard of any delays like that in some time.

Please PM me your user name.

Fred Balfour
General Manager
WSEX.com

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

I PM'd you my username. If possible can you tell me when around my check will be processed? The CS person couldn't even tell me that, just that it's on a waiting list because of the high demand. At least I'll know when about to expect it as opposed to not knowing anything.

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone had trouble getting money out of here? I made a withdrawal request (bank draft) two weeks ago and still haven't received it. I talked to their CS and she says it hasn't even been processed yet due to the high volume of requests. And when it is finally processed, she said it would 4-6 weeks via regular mail. That means it could take potentially over two months just to get my money. I would think this would be reason enough not to choose this place.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what you were told exactly, but I am pulling the chat logs later today. WSEX is not behind with withdrawals.

WSEX is currently processing all withdrawals within the time frame stated on its web site. You put in a regular mail withdrawal request on October 15th or very early October 16th. It was processed on October 16th. Our web site states that regular mail takes up to 20 business days. Today is the 11th business day since your withdrawal was processed.

I really don't understand what the problem is.

Please feel free to contact me if I have the facts wrong here.

Fred Balfour
General Manager
WSEX.com

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

[ QUOTE ]
There's no reason a $3 rake should be an industry standard and that bigger games should get popped for $5.

A tourney with a $1000 entry shouldn't cost 100x the entry into a $1 tournament.

It would not surprise me to find that there's some degree of soft collusion among poker sites with the aim to keep costs artificially inflated.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh how I wish there was one of these threads for every "online poker is rigged" thread.

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

i used to play there a lot. Then 2 things happened that killed the site.

1. It became difficult to deposit. The games got noticabley tougher.

2. They went to 75% RB. That was their only draw for me at that point. I and money others its seems, left at that point.

I think they are pretty much done now, as they have never show much advertising skill.

Re: Why not WSEX?
 

WSEX is nice for us fishes
Go bust, get RB, go Bust, get RB, deposit, RB, go bust, RB.. and so on. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]