I've never been a fan of Bodog/Bovada but I've certainly never thought they couldn't sustain it. Not sure what "experts" said that. Bovada quite intentionally positions themselves as the place for recreational "gamblers." Actual winning regs were a minute percentage of their player pool, I think much less than on the other sites/networks, so it wasn't a huge hit for them to go completely anti-winning-player like they did. In fact it likely brought them more traffic from the demographic they were targeting, which is exactly how they justified their position in the first place.
It doesn't change the fact that for a serious poker player, like Marge said, it's a shit site IMO. I didn't like them much before the Bovada switch, but after it was just horrendous to me. But even moreso than just a problem with the software or the anon tables BS, it was more my philosophical differences with them about what was "good" for poker. I don't think they've done ANYTHING AT ALL that is "good for poker," but I also have no doubt that they've done things that are "good for Bovada." And why shouldn't they, it's their business. They've identified their target market and go out of their way to cater to them, and have been successful at it. So no, I'm not really surprised. More power to them.
It doesn't change the fact that a lot of us who take online poker seriously still can't stand them, though, and choose to take our business elsewhere.
I would (and do) rather play on ANY of the other US facing sites. Unless/until they're the very last US-facing site standing (and maybe not even then), Bovada will never get another penny of rake from me as long as serious/winning poker players are unwelcome there. And make no mistake -- winning players are unwelcome. Winning poker players are "bad for poker." So says their VP who I've quoted at length here before.