|
|
#62
08-17-2006, 08:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: table display
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe this is why WSEX is full of tighta$$es, you suppose? I may have to rethink this, but I believe this formula encourages tightness at the table. Tony [/ QUOTE ] All I can say about this part of the quote is that my guess is that you really don't play there much, or maybe you are playing mostly NL (I only play limit there). From what I have seen, the play is every bit as loose as your average Party table. I seriously don't see why anyone playing lower than 20/40 would play anywhere else. 
|
|
#63
08-17-2006, 08:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: table display
[ QUOTE ]
From what I have seen, the play is every bit as loose as your average Party table. I seriously don't see why anyone playing lower than 20/40 would play anywhere else. [/ QUOTE ] Maybe things have changed recently but in my experience this is just not true. The limit games were very tight with very small pots. I'll check it out again though and hope that things have changed.
|
|
#65
08-17-2006, 09:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: why isn\'t wsex more popular??
an equil portion or a prorated portion based on how many bets they put in the pot? your faq does not answer this question either. i agree with senorbeef, but am not totally sure. mr gm you can clear this up. thank you.
|
|
#67
08-17-2006, 09:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: why isn\'t wsex more popular??
I am done with WSEX for now. I love the idea but the software and apperance are lacking. I question the integerty of the game, espically at the omaha hi/lo. I aways see the same hacks at the tables, and have no way to varify my suspitions that they are coluding. With no money going to WSEX from the rake I can hardly see how they could monitor games to catch coluders. I do not dout the deal just the players. I have lost my $100 inital deposit plus about $60 in rakeback. Maybe the players at WSEX are just that much better but I am up 5bb/100 hands over a 1568 hands (PTO ROCKS though no suport for WSEX yet) at Party Poker. So for me the choice is clear. Even with the rake I am more profitable at Party. If I go back to playing hold'em I will redeposit at WSEX, but with suspition.
I agree that there are not enough fish at WSEX and I dont see how this is going to change. If the fish come over and lose thier money in 1/2 the time it takes at Party, because of all the sharks at WSEX, they well clearly see Party as a better entertainment choice. I love to entertain fish and show them a good time, thats what keeps em coming back. Losing your money in 1/2 the time is not fun. That is my explaination of why there are so few fish at WSEX and it will be so difficult to grow this site.
|
|
#68
08-17-2006, 09:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: why isn\'t wsex more popular??
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Rakeback, I'm fairly sure, is calculated on a rake taken/number of players in the hand basis. So $3 rake in a 10 handed pot gives all players $.30, even if they folded preflop. It's not ideal, but it's not bad. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think this is it. [/ QUOTE ] I'm pretty sure this is how it's done
|
|
#70
08-17-2006, 10:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: why isn\'t wsex more popular??
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Rakeback, I'm fairly sure, is calculated on a rake taken/number of players in the hand basis. So $3 rake in a 10 handed pot gives all players $.30, even if they folded preflop. It's not ideal, but it's not bad. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think this is it. [/ QUOTE ] I'm pretty sure this is how it's done [/ QUOTE ] was this changed in a recent upgrade? When i was playing there it was contributed, even though the website and CS was claiming otherwise
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
