Why not WSEX?

[Beermantm]

I've noticed that WSEX is not gaining any ground in Poker. Is there a reason why a place that pays out rake as a default plan is not getting more players?? The place seems dead. Every time I log in there is about 500 players online total. I didn't think the software is that bad but then I'm no power user either.

Can I get some opinions here??

(if in the wrong section feel free to move)

[RustyBrooks]

Well, I wouldn't call this the right forum.

I guess there just isn't a lot of advertising behind it. They have almost nothing except holdem going and there are not a lot of fish, so I don't play there.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

I've been asking the same question for a long time. If you go back at look at the older WSEX threads, a lot of posters have thrown out many, many theories, none of which make sense. Its like the Bermuda triangle. I have just accepted that the answer is that people like to pay rake.

[Rek]

I would love it to become popular. I played there about a year ago and the no rake was fantastic. However, I stopped because of the lack of choice and there are very few poor players around so it is a constant battle. Also I thought the graphics were poor.

Without advertising the fish and casual players don't go there. Rake is not a huge factor for them. They see the adverts for PokerStars, Party anf Full Tilt and chuck their dead money on those. They have some fun and repeat. Once they improve and take the game seriously rake becomes important. They find out about WSEX but when they try it they find it too hard and leave.

Rake is a necessary evil. Advertising, upgrading software and customer support costs money. Rake plays for all that plus the sites are not a charity and need to make profits themselves. I think WSEX would have been better with say 70% rakeback and investing 30% for advertising. However, it is a bit of a chicken and egg scenario. With their current amount of players 30% wouldn't cover a good advertising campaign.

[TheDna]

And they prolly cant advertise = no fish ever.
Thats prolly the reason party is so fishy, party has by far the HIGHEST rake :P And there are loads of players.

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
I think WSEX would have been better with say 70% rakeback and investing 30% for advertising. However, it is a bit of a chicken and egg scenario. With their current amount of players 30% wouldn't cover a good advertising campaign.

[/ QUOTE ]

They did move to 75% rakeback this summer, to cover expenses and to provide some money for advertising.

How they got to there current sad state has been fairly clear to me. I've been an observer, player, fan and booster since they went rakefree.

The long and short of it is that they were completely unprepared to handle volume when they went rakefree. The software was hideous, as was server performance. Scandals erupted like the blind bug that allowed some cheats to skip blinds, lag would fold your cards for you, and when it became accepted knowledge that a ring of game theory based bots was operating on the site, and WPEX kicked them off, that was the final blow that sent population crashing to the point you can't get a game up.

The software and server problems seem solved (though testing under heavy volume may prove different), but marketing has still been lacking. They ran a promo last week of 100% rakeback that was mildly successful in getting at least a 10/20 going, but I think it's basically a dead zone until they get some good marketing. And quick, while the football bettors are out, I hope.

[jfk]

Leaving aside the pros and cons of WPX for the moment, the basic question is, "Why aren't there other online card rooms competing based on price?".

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.

There's no reason a $3 rake should be an industry standard and that bigger games should get popped for $5.

A tourney with a $1000 entry shouldn't cost 100x the entry into a $1 tournament.

It would not surprise me to find that there's some degree of soft collusion among poker sites with the aim to keep costs artificially inflated.

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.

[sparky3474]

I wish I could figure it out. There should be a domino situation there, small rake, more players, more players, more games, great site but no, nobody comes. Play there for a week, pick a game when found, see your rakeback Monday am and you would think people would never leave.

[questions]

[ QUOTE ]
I wish I could figure it out. There should be a domino situation there, small rake, more players, more players, more games, great site but no, nobody comes. Play there for a week, pick a game when found, see your rakeback Monday am and you would think people would never leave.

[/ QUOTE ]

Harder to get funds there. That simple.

[sparky3474]

Moneygram from Walmart and they give you double the cost back into you account, $9 and you get a credit of $20, what could be easier than that?