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.
|