|
|
#12
10-27-2007, 10:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why not WSEX?
The problem with no rake sites is that it predominantly attracts the sharks, for whom lower rake is pure positive. What would be the point for the fish to come to rock gardens to save on rake when they're going to be demolished on the table, and lose 10x what they saved on rake?
For the losing player, lower casino rake may or may not be a good thing. Losing players pay two kinds of rake: one to the casino, and another to sharks (by losing to them). Those two kinds have an inverse relationship with each other. In a certain range, higher casino rake actually helps the fish, since it drives out the sharks, and the decrease in "shark rake" more than offsets the increase in the casino rake. I predict that if at some point sites would openly compete on rake, and fish would rationally choose their sites based on that information, the softest games would be at the site with the highest rake. 
|
|
#13
10-27-2007, 10:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why not WSEX?
I don't know why people are thinking it's some great mystery. The games are just harder. Yeah, I suck at poker, but so do most people. I win a little at my levels on other sites. On WSEX/WPEX, I lose. Not from bad beats or LOL OMG RIGGED, the other players are just beating me and are stronger than the players at similar levels on other sites.
So I play elsewhere. Getting my rake back is nice, actually winning at poker is better. You can say I suck at poker all you like (you would be 100% correct), but there are lots of people like me out there.
|
|
#14
10-28-2007, 01:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why not WSEX?
So we have a place that is 75% rakeshare compared to 27% Fulltilt and there are no games? lol
sounds about right
|
|
#15
10-28-2007, 03:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why not WSEX?
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know why people are thinking it's some great mystery. The games are just harder. Yeah, I suck at poker, but so do most people. I win a little at my levels on other sites. On WSEX/WPEX, I lose. Not from bad beats or LOL OMG RIGGED, the other players are just beating me and are stronger than the players at similar levels on other sites. So I play elsewhere. Getting my rake back is nice, actually winning at poker is better. You can say I suck at poker all you like (you would be 100% correct), but there are lots of people like me out there. [/ QUOTE ] This was exactly my experience. I would be up after rake back at the end of the week but it wasn't any fun.
|
|
#16
10-28-2007, 03:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why not WSEX?
[ QUOTE ]
Harder to get funds there. That simple. [/ QUOTE ] And lack of advertising. I actually thought the old WPEX ads were pretty decent....and they are how I found the site. They could just start re-using those. Simple fact is the sites that use TV ads are the sites with the highest player counts. Ability to get funds there being a very close second...but it is still second. [ QUOTE ] I don't know why people are thinking it's some great mystery. The games are just harder. [/ QUOTE ] The games are not that much harder (and there is some debate whether they are harder at all.) Any existing increased game difficulty is more than compensated for by the rakeback, aces never lose, freerolls, and tournament overlays. Trust me, it is because of these things, and not my skill, that I am up $$$ at WPEX. Point blank this site pays you to play.
|
|
#18
10-28-2007, 08:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why not WSEX?
[ QUOTE ]
As a player it turns my stomach to think that the rake I pay Stars somehow finds its way to the pockets of some of these dancing buffoons who do everything and anything to get their face time on ESPN. I really don't want to be the mule whose labor supports the cult of personality in which Stars invests. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Yes, I too have no idea why WPX hasn't been a roaring success or why there haven't been downward cost pressures on other sites. WPX is/was the perfect, stripped down vehicle in which a competent poker player could do quite well without the supporting the massive carnival that now mushrooming at the bigger sites. [/ QUOTE ] Look, you may not like paying rake and you may think some of the sites paid players are buffoons but we need them. We need the sites to advertise to attract the casual players. We need that dead money to keep rolling in. We needed Moneymaker and his elk that followed. Just having minimal rake with no advertising is bad news. All you will end up with is a tank full of really good players and no little fish to feed off.
|
|
#20
10-28-2007, 09:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why not WSEX?
There are sites with good rakeback deals and much much greater table selection.
I get 39% rb on Interpoker (but you have to play quite a bit to get that) + 1000$ monthly bonus + a lot of promos the do. That's at least 50% rb dealt each month, a lot of times more. I prefer to play with 50% rb, softer games and a lot of tables (relative to WSEX) going than 100% rb , tough games and no tables.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
