WSEX: Official Monthly Thread: July. (#11 of 12.)

[rJ_]

In case $5000 added wasnt reason enough to play. How about you could spend the whole time sweating <font color="red">ramashiva</font>.

rJ_

[Borknagar]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm considering offering parallel rooms. One with full names in the hand histories, chat, and seats, and the other with fully anonymized seats and everything.

My people don't like it. What do you think?

Fred

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be a good idea if you had a player base as big as Pokerstars. As it is now you have very few games running at American Prime Time and even less (fewer?) when us Europeans want to play.

[Crane]

I used to play at WSEX before I quit online poker. There were a bunch of things I couldn't understand about that site.

There would be 600 players logged in, but where were they? 500 or so of them would be in a tournament! Screw the tournaments. Get people into the live games.

I hated the software interface. I just coudln't stand it.

The games were double tough.

I couldn't understand why they weren't getting any business with 100% rake back. This was before Neteller and the Internet fiasco. (Now it's hard to get money to the sites, I know, but then it was easy.)

How did sites like Party and Stars grow to be so big? Here is a site with 100% rake back and they never got more than 1500 players that I ever saw. Why was that? You have to start asking yourself, maybe nobody is getting the word.

Anyway I couldn't play there now if I wanted to. Getting money off and on is such a pain that I just gave up online. I didn't care for it all that much anyway--too addictive.

[DarkForceRising]

What about giving all sign-ups the opportunity to become affiliates? Or at least mini-affiliates?

Example: I've been playing live about 5 days a week lately. I tell people about the site but the best I can really do (given the brain dead state of most players) is write down the site address and hope they log on and deposit (unlikely).

How about sending us slick looking business cards with our own sign-up codes? New prospects would then log onto a site with a clear explanation of the profit potential.

Although most of us won't create the traffic that a professional affiliate will, this more tangible form of "word of mouth" advertising could result in more traffic, with the incentive of a small piece of the action for those of us that refer new blood.

The new recruits would also have the same opportunity to make a few extra bucks off of the friends they sign up and so on down the line. Kind of like multi-level marketing, I suppose.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with the new 75% rakeback is NOT that people get 25% less and it is not bitterness either!

The problem is that people are disappointed that the 100% rakeback-model got screwed up by incompetent management. Now players have to pay 25% of the rake to keep these guys in business. The best idea in online poker got spoiled by the worst execution possible.

These 25% are an incompetence-fee, nothing more, nothing less.

By the way, I wonder what the 75% rakeback on a rather high rake means in comparison to 27-35% on a medium rake. It's certainly not the difference in hard numbers that the WPEX GM likes to advertise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Think of how incompetent Full Tilt and Poker Stars management must be. I's sure that you send them e-mails calling them incompetent as well, right.

Again, it really bothers me when people act this way toward the poker site that offers by far and away the best deal going. I might add that they are one of the few sites willing to put up with Americans after the BS created by the UIGEA as well. I'm not sure how insulting there management is called for here. If they would have started with 50%, and bumped it up to 75%, you'd be grinning ear to ear, but you would have less money in your pocket today.

Traffic's the problem, and its a problem it look like they are going to try to fix. FWIW, why don't you pitch your free poker plan to the biggies and see how they respond.

After they don't, then pitch them aces never lose, 75% rakeback.

When they don't respond, try pitching 50% rakeback.

When they don't respond, come back and apologize.

[/ QUOTE ]

A site that offers 100% rakeback must take over the whole internet world by force. If that doesn't happen they must have made a mistake somewhere. It is that simple.

Just telling people that it didn't work out and now they have to install a 25% rake is admission of defeat. It's not the idea that didn't work, it is the implementation.

If you don't see that, I can't help you.

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with the new 75% rakeback is NOT that people get 25% less and it is not bitterness either!

The problem is that people are disappointed that the 100% rakeback-model got screwed up by incompetent management. Now players have to pay 25% of the rake to keep these guys in business. The best idea in online poker got spoiled by the worst execution possible.

These 25% are an incompetence-fee, nothing more, nothing less.

By the way, I wonder what the 75% rakeback on a rather high rake means in comparison to 27-35% on a medium rake. It's certainly not the difference in hard numbers that the WPEX GM likes to advertise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Think of how incompetent Full Tilt and Poker Stars management must be. I's sure that you send them e-mails calling them incompetent as well, right.

Again, it really bothers me when people act this way toward the poker site that offers by far and away the best deal going. I might add that they are one of the few sites willing to put up with Americans after the BS created by the UIGEA as well. I'm not sure how insulting there management is called for here. If they would have started with 50%, and bumped it up to 75%, you'd be grinning ear to ear, but you would have less money in your pocket today.

Traffic's the problem, and its a problem it look like they are going to try to fix. FWIW, why don't you pitch your free poker plan to the biggies and see how they respond.

After they don't, then pitch them aces never lose, 75% rakeback.

When they don't respond, try pitching 50% rakeback.

When they don't respond, come back and apologize.

[/ QUOTE ]

A site that offers 100% rakeback must take over the whole internet world by force. If that doesn't happen they must have made a mistake somewhere. It is that simple.

Just telling people that it didn't work out and now they have to install a 25% rake is admission of defeat. It's not the idea that didn't work, it is the implementation.

If you don't see that, I can't help you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you not read anything that Fred wrote? The part that "didn't work" was that there wasn't enough crossover to the sportsbook to justify the costs of running the rakefree poker room. If you nits had a little gamble in you, we'd still have a 100% rakefree room.

Sure, if WSEX was willing to pour unlimited money into promoting and running their rakefree poker room, it would be much bigger than Stars by now. But if you can't see that that result is probably not compatible with thier interests, then I just don't know what to say to you.

These guys are running a business for christ's sake, not a [censored] hippie commune.

[zaphod]

I think the best way to get crossover to the sportsbook would be to force people to wager the rakeback on the sportsbook. So if i get 100 dollar in rakeback in a week i have to do 100 dollar in sportsbets or the money go back to the WPX.

[Fraubump]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the best way to get crossover to the sportsbook would be to force people to wager the rakeback on the sportsbook. So if i get 100 dollar in rakeback in a week i have to do 100 dollar in sportsbets or the money go back to the WPX.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so obvious and easy to implement that I don't understand why they don't do it (it's been suggested numerous times). You want to get people to bet on sports betting? Make them bet on sports to get their rake back, so they experience sports betting and maybe like it and get hooked and become regular customers. Hoping they'll magically jump from poker to the sports book just because it's the same company is a low percentage wish at best.

[Palomino]

There would be no grinders (and hence no games) if you forced everyone to bet 100% of their rakeback on sports. I for one wouldn't consider playing there if this were the case. However I can understand being forced to play some amount in the sportsbook to show good faith.

[Banzai]

[ QUOTE ]
There would be no grinders (and hence no games) if you forced everyone to bet 100% of their rakeback on sports. I for one wouldn't consider playing there if this were the case. However I can understand being forced to play some amount in the sportsbook to show good faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you bet on all the outcomes of an event (excluding freak events) you would still be getting approx. 90% rakeback. This is still probably not enough if WPEX have gone to 25% to cover costs.