WSEx: Official Thread: January & February. (#5 of 6.)

[Walrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that the games are hard, and I am not always mentally up for beating them.

[/ QUOTE ]

The games are a little more aggressive than most other places, but I don't think they're any 'harder', just different. Misplaced aggression is just as easy to beat as loose passive, it's just a different set of skills.

It has forced me to improve my blind play, which was one of my most glaring weaknesses. Yes, game selection is a little lacking right now, but I am always able to find games at the limits I play.

My win rate is right about where it was at all the other sites, but throw in rakeback and it's not close. $200 in rakeback, for one nights play, can sure take the sting out of a $500 losing session.

I don't know anything about Pokerscout, but subjectively, traffic seems to have picked up some in the last couple weeks, and I am doing my part to help that continue...

[AaronL]

I played for a while at WSEX this summer... but I play 200NL and 400NL full tables and everytime I check WSEX (a couple times a week) there are never any tables going...

Anyhow I see everyone (who still plays there) complaining about the lack of fish... One simi-solution would be to give rakeback in amounts exactly equal to what you contribute... First it gives those who play hands (ie fish) more money to play with and it doesn't reward those who sit back and wait for the nuts because they are getting paid to watch others play... Obviously this isn't why I don't play there (lack of game selection) but I personally think that a bigger chunk of the rakeback going to the fish (which is actually their's to began with) would go a long ways to increasing traffic...

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
give rakeback in amounts exactly equal to what you contribute... First it gives those who play hands (ie fish) more money to play with and it doesn't reward those who sit back and wait for the nuts because they are getting paid to watch others play... I personally think that a bigger chunk of the rakeback going to the fish (which is actually their's to began with) would go a long ways to increasing traffic...

[/ QUOTE ]

This is reasonable. I would be happy to continue playing there if they changed to a contributed rakeback structure. Put more money in the hands of the loose players and the games will certainly loosen up.

I could see the egalitarian nature of this proposal appealing to WSEX. I wonder how much programming would be involved. Seems like it should be doable without too much stress.

This probably penalizes the TAGs much more than the house keeping 10% under the current structure.

[bcblack]

fish aren't going to come because of a change in rake structure. Most fish don't have a clue what they pay in rake. Just pass out flyers showing that you can make $10/hr for only 1 table of 3/6, at colleges, bars and anywhere else males 18-30 hang out. The problem is no one except serious poker players know about wpx. Rake is not the issue at all. I'm pretty neutral on how rake is figured myself, as I mainly play HU and very shorthanded.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
I played for a while at WSEX this summer... but I play 200NL and 400NL full tables and everytime I check WSEX (a couple times a week) there are never any tables going...

Anyhow I see everyone (who still plays there) complaining about the lack of fish... One simi-solution would be to give rakeback in amounts exactly equal to what you contribute... First it gives those who play hands (ie fish) more money to play with and it doesn't reward those who sit back and wait for the nuts because they are getting paid to watch others play... Obviously this isn't why I don't play there (lack of game selection) but I personally think that a bigger chunk of the rakeback going to the fish (which is actually their's to began with) would go a long ways to increasing traffic...

[/ QUOTE ]

This is ONE of the reasons I don't play there... yet. The current structure rewards and attracts the very player I DON'T want to play with. The tight nut peddler.

Software problems and the rumor thereof is another.

And, of course, they allow up to four tables at a time, which, again, attracts the players I don't feel like spending time with.

Tuff "the fish"

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
fish aren't going to come because of a change in rake structure. Most fish don't have a clue what they pay in rake.........

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong

Tuff

[DING-DONG YO]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
fish aren't going to come because of a change in rake structure. Most fish don't have a clue what they pay in rake.........

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

Tuff, technically, you're a donkey. Not a fish. I agree that most true "fish" have idea of the impact of rake long term.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Face it, you are not building up the numbers without multi tablers.


[/ QUOTE ]
This past week has actually been noticeably busier than the previous two weeks.

I fully expect that as the software and network stability of WPEX continue to improve, more people will enjoy playing there and numbers will grow.

I think the numbers bump this week is probably associated with word spreading that the worst issues have been dealt with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Typical holiday cycle, experienced by most sites... but, WPEX still running lower than pre-holiday numbers [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[DING-DONG YO]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
fish aren't going to come because of a change in rake structure. Most fish don't have a clue what they pay in rake.........

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

Tuff, technically, you're a donkey. Not a fish. I agree that most true "fish" have NO idea of the impact of rake long term.

[/ QUOTE ]

FMP

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
fish aren't going to come because of a change in rake structure. Most fish don't have a clue what they pay in rake.........

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

Tuff, technically, you're a donkey. Not a fish. I agree that most true "fish" have NO idea of the impact of rake long term.

[/ QUOTE ]

FMP

[/ QUOTE ]

The number of "true fish" online is negligible. Almost anyone knowledgeable enough to get online in the first place is going to know about rake. And, most are going to assume, as I did initially, that rakeback means you get back the rake taken from YOUR winning pot.

When they find that this is not the case, reactions may vary. In my case, I decided the rakeback scheme chosen favored tight nits, so.... ufck em.

Tuff Donk