Hi, WSEX GM here, looking forward to being part of this board.

[JojoDiego]

[ QUOTE ]
When I am importing into pokertracker and playing WPX. WPX freezes until the import is finished. Could you make wpx compatible with PT in this regard?

[/ QUOTE ]

Doug, I don't know if the problem is on the WPX or PT end, but here's a workaround: Open your Windows Task Manager, click on the Processes tab, right-click on wpex.exe and change its priority to Above Normal.

[WSEX GM]

[ QUOTE ]
I think putting the hand histories on the hard drive is a big mistake by WSEX. Although yes, it is good for us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Players are getting their hand histories anyway right now through customer support. You can't deny players their hand histories. This will just make it more convenient and free up support.

I will compile and address some of the fresh ideas since my last compilation later.

[kiemo]

[ QUOTE ]
Does WSEX plan on getting rid of the poker bots when they get more players?

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it very ironic that this was the first reply to what needs improving then the next 100 replies all involve 'improving WSEX to make it easier to players to semi-bot the tables.

HH to hard drive helps the fish how?

[lastcoyote]

[ QUOTE ]
imo, increasing # of tables is much worse than having hh

[/ QUOTE ]

[Gregatron]

About multiple tables.

I might surprise some of my fellow zoo-ites by throwing out the idea others have expressed that allowing ppl to play more than four tables at one time would be detrimental to the overall health of yr games. The recreational player is usually much looser than the more serious player, and as a result can't play more than two tables, often only one. I mean, when you are involved in a lot of hands it's harder to split attention between tables. Many more serious players fold most hands preflop, and thus are able to play 6+ tables. This means that tables have an artificially inflated number of serious TAG types. Table to player ratio for looser casual players might be 1.2 to 1, whereas for a serious TAGish player it might be 3.5:1 or higher.

Why should you care Mr WSEX guy? Those TAGs will tend to take more money from your loose players when there are more of them per table. This means they lose money faster >>> less money and also rakeback >>> fewer sports bets (or casino bets).

I'm sure you know that -- just stating the obvious I guess. Too much time on my hands, I'm bored and a little burned out on poker. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] Really, many of us want 8+ tables, but that doesn't mean it is really even in our best interests. (A six year old wants chocolate cake for breakfast -- doesn't mean it's good for him!)

EDIT: I want to add, yes some of us will blow money on sprts and casino bets. Ppl post here about busting a BJ on Party all the time. 2p2 is full of gamblers. Bob has discussed bettingon sports with his rakeback money, and I will certainly be blowing some cash on UFC events and probably LSU games. (Yes this invloves max # of tables -- bear with me.) But with many of us there is a fixed limit to what we will bet. Say a serious TAG who will gamble plays $200 on NFL games 8 tabling, he would still likely bet $150 four tabling. My point: the relationship btwn rakeback recieved and sports/casino bets placed is likely not linear. Long story short: you are likely to see diminishing returns from from more rakeback from TAGish players, where limiting the number of tables and letting less serious gamblers keep more money will help your interests (as well as the health of the tables and the poker ecology).

Hope that made sense.

[RED_RAIN]

One thing that I don't think has been mentioned.

The note feature:
- The * isn't enough to really tell who you have a note on easily, it would be easier to see if it was an icon
- When typing a note, if you do an action, it then moves the note behind the table, I would prefer it to work where it keeps the note on top regardless of action until you close it

[NoMoreLurking]

#1 BY A MILE - Attract more casual players

This trumps all. Even rake-free games are unattractive if they are full of tight good players.

Use humor and boobs to attract people that suck at poker - works for me


2) 'NO DATAMINING... I repeat, NO DATAMINING'

HH on hard drives not available to players unless you are dealt into a hand

Instant HH window(again only if you are dealt in)


3) You HAVE to allow multi-tabling (single table poker with no cocktail waitresses = B-O-R-I-N-G), but more than 3 only helps the multi table grinders which hurts the games.


4) Allow the player to pick where his seat is shown (ala Full Tilt’s “Put Me Here”)


5) Full Tilt’s color coding of Notes on players is also a great user interface feature.

[spino1i]

yeh I'd just like to say getting 6-max (NOT 5-max!!) should be your top concern. A whole bunch of players that only play shorthanded will move over there. 6-max is way more popular than 5-max and 5-max has a nasty habit of the games breaking too easily. Fish feel more comfertable with 6-max, and arent we interested in bringing more fish to the site?

[Gregg777]

[ QUOTE ]
HH to hard drive helps the fish how?

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but you people crying about blocking the semi bots because it helps the fish really need to rethink your logic.

One rule for fish is: "Safety in numbers." They like to see a lot of people on a site.

Party and Stars look like "safe" places because there are so many players.

But if they eliminated multi-tabling, it would be a much different story.

So multi tablers do make a site look more popular than it really, is, making it more inviting for your beloved fish.

Second, except for the highest NL levels, multi-tabling semi bots are NOT THAT AGGRESSIVE. They are simply playing too many tables to make excellent reads.

Their money comes from high volume poker with fewer mistakes, not "killer read poker".

The ones making the most plays are the good players on one or two tables. They cause the most difficulty and are the most annoying to play with. (Mid level 6max NL)

So pretend you're a fish for a moment.

Would you rather play on a site with fewer players who are much more aggressive and making more plays?

Or would you prefer to play on a site with tons of people and for the most part they are not as aggressive?

[spino1i]

I think your right on this one Gregg.. I defintely would not be happy with a table cap of 3 or 4, and I think that keeping the max # of tables low isnt going to do anything but cause problems in the long run. Its not like these multi-tablers are going to make the games a whole lot crappier, theyre playing too many tables to make that good of decisions.