Fred and Jeremy, Almost all the guarenteed tournaments are being cancelled because you can't make the 40 player minimum, Stealth is correct. Do something now before so many of your players disappear into the night. Drop the minimum number, make the quarentee lower if less than 40 people show, do something before everyone is gone. People want to play not be stood up, you can crank it back up when and if the play base builds but please this is just killilng it. All I hear from my player friends is complaints about the site now, really, I am not making this up. Maybe the forum tends to get the people that bitch the most but there are many players who don't come here and are very unhappy now. Poker Stars is just a click away and an event starts every 10 minutes and people are finding that out.

What he does not tell you, is that clear upswing, consist of an average 9% higher than it was a month ago. In other words 11 more cash player than they had 30 days ago. Five more cash players this week than they had last week.

That’s right 5. That is a clear upswing? Of course, that five maybe be no more than a few players deciding to play more tables to offset the cut in rake and may not include any more players than they had and could be even less.

Numbers can say just about anything you want them to if you are vague enough with the assessment of them.

This needs to be addressed by management urgently. That bots are consistently being found on WSEX, and action is only being taken against them, if at all, thanks to diligent players, is a huge concern. Nothing threatens the integrity of the site more.

As a relatively inexperienced limit player, who sometimes played 5/10 to 20/40 when taking a break from NL, I would no longer feel comfortable playing these stakes on WSEX knowing that bots continue to frequent these games.

That's what I was thinking. There really isn't much particularly unique about their model anymore.

65% universal rakeback for all players with their really bad rake structure is perhaps like 40% or something at some other site. The VIP tourney stuff is absolutely not unique in the least.

Them continually offering guaranteed tourneys which seemingly never ever run is somewhat unique though. I have no idea why they would do that. You want to get 25 people to sign up and look forward to the tourney and then turn them away and say "no tourney today" over and over again?
That is definitely a unique strategy.

The payment stuff isn't particularly unique though. Lots of sites seem to be having payment issues and perhaps don't know what they're doing.
the fact that teflon has gotten paid while others haven't is extremely interesting though.

I wonder if teflon's payment was smallish whereas the players who are still waiting for checks had larger amounts.

To be fair, there are some other smaller sites where a lot of the guaranteed tourneys don't run for the exact same reason.

It is a strange feature, though.

Okay, so not so unique to have tourneys that never run perhaps...just really weird.

Okay so maybe I'm not done posting...

FWIW: $1132.23

Cleared in my account today.

And we were stood up again this morning with under 20 players signing up.....
I didn't get to see the actual number as I was betting NE this weekend

Another day has passed and NO check.......
Now closing in on waiting a month for an overnight check.

People need to stop crying about the having the VIP tournies, seriously I don't think you realize how stupid it is to bitch about that. And Microbob, you are taking this too far, 65% on WSEX does not translate to 40% on another site.

It looks like they have removed the cap on the 1k guarantee turbos, so it might be an "experiment" to see if they should remove it on all of them. So far the first one had 54ish players and the last one 49, which are probably player highs in those tournies, so they should probably take note for the rest of them.

It has been said a million times, but at the very least you gotta drop the $50 dollar fee if you're gonna take over 3 weeks for checks. It's the only criticism that makes sense at the moment but it's a big problem.

tourneys = awesome.

but yes, fred and jeremy, what happened to "75% is here to stay"...I was pissed when you guys cut it from 100% to 75%. The tourneys are good for attracting new players, and I have noticed an improvement in traffic already actually, but you've still given a huge cut to your loyal base's bottom line.

if the traffic on WPX increases dramatically to where your profits from the poker room increase enough, would you consider restoring the rb to 75%?

Or at least try to possibly add a system whereby high volume players can earn a rate higher than 65%. What happened to a type of scaled system that everyone was talking about? I was getting excited for that.

Mine is a little more than that, but not much. I was called yesterday by WSX support, they told me my check and a few others were sent REGULAR mail instead of FedEx by mistake. They told me I should have it this week. I heard that 2 weeks ago too. And last week. This is just getting rediculous now, I have spoken with a few people and I seem to get a different answer from each one about where the payment is.

actually bob might be right. since ft doesnt rake 3/6 till $20, 40% isnt too far fetched. we get raked at .25cent for each 5 in pot. so $20pot we get raked $1. i rather keep the $1 then split the rakeback of .75cent between 3-6 players for 65% in 6max small heads up postflop pots, since there going to be many of those.

You're gonna have to elaborate. Assume for a minute that FT or Stars have 40% RB with WSEX having 65%. Say you play the same stakes for the same amount of time on each site and end up with the same amount of RB in the end. Wouldn't that simply mean that WSEX takes less rake from the pot? Which just means it helps the looser players a bit more since they are all dealt rake? Either way, I don't see how the 65% would come close to the 40% if you are just talking about money staying in your acct, and not being so near-sited the other way.

wsex rakes us earlier. you wont end of with more rake per say, but those $18 dollar pot(you win) you save by FT not raking you earlier adds up over time.each time pot is under $20,we saved $1, while at wsex its .75cent for pot under $20 x players that contributed to pot x 65% to you.y)es i agree that loose players benefit more at wsex.

There is no site that comes close to WSEX in value returned. There is just no way. If one plays and reaches the $75 minimum, to reach the free rolls, they are paying about $50 in rake to the site each week. They then get, as of now, $75 in added value each week from the VIP and another $25 in value from the monthly VIP, which is well over 100%. This of course takes into account only 100 players in VIP’s, which has been the case.

That is my math anyway. Not exact but it is close. No site pays this much back to players. Of course, if you play more than the $75 requirement, you give up some percentage of rake and if you play less than that, you give up a lot of the value.

If one cannot meet the requirement of $75 dollar in rake than one can come close getting the same value at PS, with rake back, the difference in rake structure and the value of the FPP’s that they offer. Add to that the value of the increased table selection and for those players, I have no clue why they play here. However, for those that make the VIP’s it is a great value.

Having said that I do not understand how they can continue to offer these VIP’s if they can not attract more players to help cover the cost. So, do not see these lasting at these requirements if they do not increase traffic, and I do mean a big increase.

Of course, this is adds up to only $175 a week in added value, considering I am giving up almost 2BB’s per hundred hands in profit compared to what I make on other sites with more traffic not sure it is such a great value, even less so as I hear about the problems with checks. I have been waiting on one for 10 days now.

So, the problem for WSEX and me is one and the same. Not enough traffic and this has been there problem at least for a year, if not longer.

So why I have problems with WSEX, I also find some great things about their site, but then if we can’t get paid in a timely manner all this math adds up to zero.

First of all, I can think of plenty of things that can and did threaten the integrity of the site more than bots.

How about the "not having to post blinds" cash game bug? (Fixed)

Or the "close then re-open the table when someone goes all in and you can see their (and their opponent's) hole cards" tournament bug? (fixed)

The lack of bubble and final table hand-for-hand logic in MTTs, while not a bug per se, gives the site a certain lack of integrity.

Anyways, shouldn't bots be easier to beat than real people?


How not to lose to Poker Bots:

- Learn to play good solid poker and beat up the bots
- Play No-limit or Pot-limit
- Play shorthanded, 5- or 6-seaters
- Chat with your opponents. If they cant tell you their name and what they do for a living its time to get suspicious.

gamblernc1 - If you are counting the freerolls as part of the overall value as well then that assumes you are going to play all the freerolls and are also going to make the minimum required rakeback to qualify for the freerolls (thus making them all worth more).

Stopping your play short to maximize the rakeback value of the freerolls is kind of ridiculous, don't you think? So if you play more then you are actually getting LESS value from WSEX because you have already passed the point where you qualified.

Similarly, one doesn't need to play that much to get $200 worth of freerolls each month on Stars if one were dedicated enough. That would have a fair amount of value to the medium volume player low-stakes player. I dislike the freerolls anyway.

This is pretty much what I was thinking.
I admit I haven't crunched the numbers and am mostly just guessing. It might be closer to 45% or 50% or something else on some other site's rake-structure. I don't know.

But the high rake on some of the WSEX games definitely makes up for the 65% they are giving back.

If they gave 70% rakeback that could sound nice but if they raked $10 a hand then it would still end up being $3 rake per hand and that wouldn't be so nice after all. There is always a point where the rake structure makes up for the benefits one might get from a high rakeback percentage.

I disagree with the general assertion that WSEX is the best value out there. It had a chance to be. But with poor game-selection and already high rake it just isn't.

I absolutely cannot make $100k+ in rakeback at WSEX playing the same number of hours as I do on Stars. I will make more than that much on Stars however.
Most Stars players won't of course. But I will be in roughly the 65% category on Stars for the year and I'm not interested in cutting DOWN on my play so that some cheap little freerolls (which do take time as well of course) make up such a large percentage of my value.

I think that's pretty ignorant to be honest. The three things you mentioned are technical issues and as far as I know are now solved. The stakes involved, e.g. in the tourney issues, also are not nearly as significant.

And what you posted about beating bots is also ignorant. If HU and short-handed limit specialists can't beat certain bots, then it is not simply a question of playing "good solid poker". Also, lol at chatting to your opponents to determine whether they are a bot or not. Who is going to give out their name and occupation anyway?

guys what do you think of wsex? are they really that generous, I remember reading some security issues they have that turned me off

I see that wsex finally put RAKESHARE at their website. Good job!

Aren't all integrity issues technical issues? To solve the majority of the bot problems requires a technical solution: CAPTCHAs.

And the tourney issues are significant if this site ever wants to grow and have guarantees approaching the million dollar mark.


Yea that was supposed to be a little more tongue in cheek. I forgot my emoticon.

i dont know what FR you are talking about,. I metioned VIP's which are not FR, just value added.

as far as PS I assure you you will not see a VIP on stars with 10k added and only 100 players, not even close. don't get me wrong, I like Stars and will be playing there, more than likely, in the future, but Fr has nothing to do with VIP. Totally different.

as far as stopping Fr well how would I know that?. Depends on where you play and why. Might very well be the smart thing to do if you play enough on WSEX to make VIP's and then play remaineder on another site for other reasons, no way to address that as like i say depend on your goals.

I did not say WSEX was best value. I siad they return the most value and they do. Do the math. They are returning well over 100% of rake through rakback and VIP's. I mention the problem they have with traffic, rake, and how much value is lost due to harder to beat tables and lack of table selection. I questioned if it ws even worth it with these problems. so I am not sure what you are talking about with WSEX being the best value. Many other things go into that other than rake back, as you point out.

Still, the first $75 in rake gives th best value out there. I never meant to stop playing because you reached $75 in rake as a way to make more money. I meant might be best and what I might do, is make the $75 for VIP, then play at another site.


as far as you making 100k happy for you...lol

Still, I don't think that changes the math.

I could see that happening LAST week when the guaranteeed tourneys started to fall apart with the 40 player minimum.

Today for the noon event, at 11:50 there were SIX, count'em SIX players entered.......

WSEX is saving money by not having those tourneys but losing more and more players.
Hahaha the minimum is gonna have to be TEN to jump start those tourneys

Ohhhh and I'm now closing in on a month of waiting for an overnight check.....

For you guys having a "value" conversation, what's the value if you can't get paid?