Fishiness factor at WSEX rising

[GrannyMae]

[ QUOTE ]
Peter,

I like the original post, and am glad you saw fit to report on the progress of WPEX. I'm glad you think it's more fishy, as I think yr opinion is valid. But what I honestly don't get is this:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe u should delete this post before somebody hurts you....

[/ QUOTE ]

I have bodyguards instructed to look out for affiliates.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are perhaps joking, but I detect a small note of seriousness here, and I really think too much is being made of affiliates being anti-WPEX. Please show me where affiliates have tried to sabetage WPEX? I have seen no such example -- maybe you or someone else can enlighten me.

It seems that a lot of people who are skepical of WPEX and full RB working are being accused, usually inaccurately, of being bottom feeding affiliate scum who will go broke otherwise (which is usually unfair -- sure there have been scummy affiliates *COUGH*busterstacks*COUGH*, but most of pretty honorable guys who engage in mutually beneficial financial arrangements, and are usually GOOD poker players to boot and don't need thier affiliate businesses to live). A lot of people are justifiably skepical. (A no rake site has, after all, never worked. Fortunately, it looks like WPEX is on the way to being the first.)

[/ QUOTE ]


i play at wpex, and have never bashed them.

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
You're attracting the wrong crowd . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. Most people here suck.

[chicagoY]

"Up next on Geraldo, KJ and the road to hell!"

[jzpiano]

[ QUOTE ]
Peter,

I like the original post, and am glad you saw fit to report on the progress of WPEX. I'm glad you think it's more fishy, as I think yr opinion is valid. But what I honestly don't get is this:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe u should delete this post before somebody hurts you....

[/ QUOTE ]

I have bodyguards instructed to look out for affiliates.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are perhaps joking, but I detect a small note of seriousness here, and I really think too much is being made of affiliates being anti-WPEX. Please show me where affiliates have tried to sabetage WPEX? I have seen no such example -- maybe you or someone else can enlighten me.

It seems that a lot of people who are skepical of WPEX and full RB working are being accused, usually inaccurately, of being bottom feeding affiliate scum who will go broke otherwise (which is usually unfair -- sure there have been scummy affiliates *COUGH*busterstacks*COUGH*, but most of pretty honorable guys who engage in mutually beneficial financial arrangements, and are usually GOOD poker players to boot and don't need thier affiliate businesses to live). A lot of people are justifiably skepical. (A no rake site has, after all, never worked. Fortunately, it looks like WPEX is on the way to being the first.)

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm not an affiliate, I play on WPX I was just making a comment based upon Ancient's comment of



[/ QUOTE ]You're attracting the wrong crowd . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry if it was taken the wrong way [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[lefty rosen]

I have noticed that they actually have some table selection now. As for the fishyness of the site, it's rising but still generally a rock garden. When the tables play like a Friday night Party game then I may come back....... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[thing85]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're attracting the wrong crowd . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. Most people here suck.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people here are better than average (average being a losing player), so yes, this is the wrong crowd to attract. While not everyone here is great at poker, there aren't many loose fish either.

[primetime32]

most people here are better than average, but i rather have a few good players to help fill out tables to keep the fish around. If a fish comes to a site and sees limited action he may go somwhere else. If we have to deal witha few decent players, so be it.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
People were complaining about rock gardens before and a good player would have probably only broken even when there were under 1000 players.

[/ QUOTE ]

There have never been anywhere close to 1000 players on this site. If you want to see the actual number of players, check this link. It shows the number of active players, and not the bloated numbers from the sites (which count the multitablers for every seat that is filled).

[Arnfinn Madsen]

The Scoutsite do not include tournaments. At WPX it is logged in players, not at the tables, you can see that by how the number increases before the freerolls. Other sites AFAIK count seats occupied, WPX doesn't.

[Ron Burgundy]

That's nice. Too bad it's still rigged.