Congratulations WPEX on dumbest improvement ever

[TheScientist]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just sampled September 6th to the 13th. About 64% of the hands were with full hand histories, 36% with no hand histories.

No word on Epassporte yet.

Traffic is definitely coming up this past week, particularly in the evenings.

Fred

[/ QUOTE ]

Fred,

You rock!

Is it possible to know the average number of players per hand for each? The reason I ask has to do with the actual player demand in the case where the average number of players per hand is dramatically different - e.g. all of the HH tables were 2 or 3 players but all of the HH'less tables were 9 or 10 players (or vice versa).

If the averages are the same then your figures suggest that 2 in 3 players on WPX prefer HH tables and 1 in 3 prefer HH'less tables.

RIIT

[/ QUOTE ]

RIIT, Here's the thing about interpreting that data.... It shows the current composition of players. I'm not so sure that's actually what you want. If you want to grow a poker room, you generally tend to look at a target demographic.

WPEX already HAS the 'anti-HUD' clientelle there in full force. For them, this is the room they have hoped for.. if there are really a large number of these players, there'd be a lot more tables going.

What they don't have now, are the large amounts of regular players who would like to play at a site with more traffic, easier deposits, and HH's to keep records of their play. These players have other, better options and are playing on other sites right now.

But first things first...Epassporte or other similar deposit method please. Yes, I know if I really, really wanted to play WPEX, I could make use of one of the other, less convenient methods. There's really not a lot of motivation for me to do that right now, with the way things are currently. However, open up an easy way to deposit, and you will be attracting many more of the players that I would like to play against. Then I will follow suit.

And this whole HH, non-HH thing is really ridiculous. It is my opinion that it is hurting more than helping...I would much rather you go all to one of the other - because 80% of players are just going to play where there is a game, regardless of it being a HH table or non HH table.

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
And this whole HH, non-HH thing is really ridiculous. It is my opinion that it is hurting more than helping...I would much rather you go all to one of the other - because 80% of players are just going to play where there is a game, regardless of it being a HH table or non HH table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anybody care to explain why the availability of HH vs HH'less at WPX is somehow going to threaten player population any moreso than these possible choices would or would not:

Game: Hold'em, Stud, Draw, etc.
Limit: FL, PL, NL
Big Blind: 2c, 5c, 10c, 20c, 50c, $1, $2, $5, ..., etc.
Table Type: Cash, SNG, MTT
Table Size: 2, 5, 6, 9, 10
Speed: Granny, Normal, Turbo, Ultra-Turbo
Timeouts: Allin, Noallin

Fred simply added this item to his list of player freedoms

Tracking: HH, HH'less

So somebody wanna explain to me why you think the choice of HH or HH'less would cause WPX population to drop while any of the other choices would cause the population to grow.

Why is HH / HH'less choice any different than any other player choice/freedom insofar as it's impact on player population?

RIIT

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
WSEX GM:

I advise that you guys hire a new poker room manager/marketing director. Your attempt to please all the players, all of the time is a classic marketing 101 error, it will doom your poker room at the rate you are going.

For good examples feel free to explore the B&M forum threads about poker room management, live rooms learned long ago to cater to the players who devote the most amount of hours at their tables and are helpful in starting games. Your model flys counter to many of the established rules that are proven over time - not wise.

[/ QUOTE ]

TT,

Your suggestion might be true for live B&M rooms but the context here is online poker. If you really believe what you're saying then you might need to offer an explanation as to why major online sites offer some or all of the following player choices/freedoms:

Game: Hold'em, Stud, Draw, etc.
Limit: FL, PL, NL
Big Blind: 2c, 5c, 10c, 20c, 50c, $1, $2, $5, ..., etc.
Table Type: Cash, SNG, MTT
Table Size: 2, 5, 6, 9, 10
Speed: Granny, Normal, Turbo, Ultra-Turbo
Timeouts: Allin, Noallin

Yes it is good business sense to offer tables that represent the center of player mass. But surely you cannot be suggesting that an online site offer only

$1/$2 NL Hold'em Turbo 6-Max Cash tables
(for example)

and nothing else. If you think the choices I've listed are fine and are good for business then why exactly will the additional player choice/freedom of HH/HH'less not do the same thing?

RIIT

[Triggerle]

I'm not sure if you are leveling but for one a variant turbo/non-turbo is not as much of a deal breaker for those players that drive traffic to a site than offering disguised dumbed down variants of poker to the droolers that would be there anyway because they can't tell the difference.

Also, major sites can afford to fracture their player base because each fraction will still have enough players to form a critical mass. Here we are looking at a start-up site that can't manage to grow because not enough games are running and the solution that management implements is to further fracture their user base.

Look at a comparable start-up site like Everest Poker. They started with limited variants and managed to grow impressively despite having a horrible interface.

FWIW I would not be surprised if Everest carefully introduces other variants in the future but I'm pretty sure they would not risk to fracture their player base in a way that some games are not running anymore so that they would eventually lose those players.

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if you are leveling but for one a variant turbo/non-turbo is not as much of a deal breaker for those players that drive traffic to a site than offering disguised dumbed down variants of poker to the droolers that would be there anyway because they can't tell the difference.

Also, major sites can afford to fracture their player base because each fraction will still have enough players to form a critical mass. Here we are looking at a start-up site that can't manage to grow because not enough games are running and the solution that management implements is to further fracture their user base.

Look at a comparable start-up site like Everest Poker. They started with limited variants and managed to grow impressively despite having a horrible interface.

FWIW I would not be surprised if Everest carefully introduces other variants in the future but I'm pretty sure they would not risk to fracture their player base in a way that some games are not running anymore so that they would eventually lose those players.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that adding an additional player choice will "fracture" the population and slow the growth of the site.

If what you're saying is true then by this logic a site could remove one or more types of low population tables they currently offer and "unfracture" the player base and presumably grow - so a site should remove all PL SNG's to "unfracture" the FL and NL SNG player base; but then of course, why not then also remove the FL SNG's to "unfracture" the NL SNG player base.

Sorry, but I'm not buying the "more-player-freedom = slower-site-growth" line here.

RIIT

[jafeather]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but I'm not buying the "more-player-freedom = slower-site-growth" line here.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because the problem isn't the equation you state above. To put this, as you did, in the form of math:

(Already poorly populated tables) / (Increasing numbers of tables those few players are sitting at) = (Even lower table population) = (Negative or stagnant site growth)

Your equation could be corrected as such:

(More player freedom) = (Stagnant or positive site growth) only under the condition that said freedom does not fragment the player population into undesirable levels.


Many have stated in this thread that the problem isn't the choice, it is the timing of the choice. People simply don't want to go to a site to have to hope there will even be a table of their favorite game going at that time. Many times I have had to play at one or even two levels away from my desired limit...and even then to find only one table often half-filled. That's just not worth the hassle when I can go to Stars and be playing a full table(s) of any limit I desire in mere seconds.

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but I'm not buying the "more-player-freedom = slower-site-growth" line here.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because the problem isn't the equation you state above. To put this, as you did, in the form of math:

(Already poorly populated tables) / (Increasing numbers of tables those few players are sitting at) = (Even lower table population) = (Negative or stagnant site growth)

Your equation could be corrected as such:

(More player freedom) = (Stagnant or positive site growth) only under the condition that said freedom does not fragment the player population into undesirable levels.


Many have stated in this thread that the problem isn't the choice, it is the timing of the choice. People simply don't want to go to a site to have to hope there will even be a table of their favorite game going at that time. Many times I have had to play at one or even two levels away from my desired limit...and even then to find only one table often half-filled. That's just not worth the hassle when I can go to Stars and be playing a full table(s) of any limit I desire in mere seconds.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only way you can claim Fred's decision is unwise is if it causes fewer player births (i.e. deposits) and/or more player deaths (i.e. withdrawals)

I'd like to point out that this entire line of reasoning would suggest that a brand new site should have one and only one table available on the day they open the doors because having two tables would "fracture" the population and lower the player birth rate (note that on day1 the player population is 0 and so the number of tables and games cannot alter the existing death rate of 0).

RIIT

[Triggerle]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to point out that this entire line of reasoning would suggest that a brand new site should have one and only one table available on the day they open the doors because having two tables would "fracture" the population and lower the player birth rate (note that on day1 the player population is 0 and so the number of tables and games cannot alter the existing death rate of 0).

RIIT

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone who knows anything about running online games/mmogs/communities will tell you exactly that.

A multiplayer online-game will not have multiple parallel worlds to chose from when the initial expected sign-up is just a few thousand players. They will add new ones when the existing ones become crowded.

If you run an ailing game where there are not enough players per world to make playing fun you would not approach this problem by opening additional worlds.

A message board new to the market will not have dozens of finely grained sub-forums if they expect to start with only a few hundred members.

(In reality, an initial marketing effort is usually used to jump-start the whole thing so you can start with more worlds/forums/tables.)

[Hume]

[ QUOTE ]
Hello,

We responded to the wishes at this site and other customer requests by offering a full hand history, do what you want with it, hook up IBM Super Blue with a HUD if you like tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

So bots are allowed now? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[jafeather]

[ QUOTE ]
The only way you can claim Fred's decision is unwise is if it causes fewer player births (i.e. deposits) and/or more player deaths (i.e. withdrawals)

[/ QUOTE ]


This is mostly true. Is is also, pretty much, the point many of us have been making.

It seems there used to be always a couple games going of my preferred level. If I started a third, it would often be quickly filled, and then a fourth the same.

Recently there is often zero games going of my desired level, and sometimes also at either adjacent level. When I have attempted to start a table it only sometimes fills, and rarely completely. Attempts to start multiple tables have failed.

The number of players shown to be online consists of cash games, freerolls, play money and tournaments. Perhaps even "just logged in but not playing." I'm not sure how traffic overall has been lately, but I know my preferred cash game is down dramatically. The result: I don't even look for my game very often on WPEX anymore...I just go play elsewhere. I am not alone.