Quote from: alx52 on July 15, 2016, 02:25:18 AM

Why doesn't swc lower the rake? Rake should be like 0.1-0.3% tops. It's online, it's a computer dealing cards, no other costs. And being bitcoin, no other taxes either.

With 2% you can play in the casino. And in the casino you don't play 500 hands an hour either.

Or maybe nobody still plays poker these days. And PokerStars 120k players online is BS, or playmoney maybe. Or bots.

Other sites don't have anywhere near 120k players online right?

Bottom line, I'm still looking for a good place to play online. Can't find one. SWC is most promising, but still nowhere near what I'd like.

Rake isn't the problem at SwC. There are some costs with running a poker site: high-quality hosting, presumably some staff, churning out some funds to cover the GTDs, etc. I've made my point about how I believe offering straight rakeback promotions to new players is more attractive than having to earn krill to get rakeback, but I am probably still in the minority on that issue. (SwC does offer 50% RB for 3-handed or less play in 6max+ ring tables.)

The poker economy isn't really as robust as it was a few years ago, so 2006-level player base can't really be realistically expected from any US-facing site.
I don't like SwC because the management sucks: they don't deliver on any promises, they have poor communication, they don't fix the hand-history issue, and they are sinking financially. It just seems like they're either apathetic or incompetent. I'm not sure where you should play poker: Don't play on Betcoin would be my only advice. You can find some sites with traffic, you can also find some sites with good service. You probably can't find a site that has both. My alternative to SwC is nitrogensports.eu poker, which has its own host of issues, but at least the management isn't busto and they respond quickly to players.