Jump to content

Tables Breaking


Recommended Posts

Hello I just start my session on the cashgame tables and open 8 tables. I have 2 tables with 6 people seated right now, since all the others seemed to break.This is sometimes really annoying. Let me explain this clear and why unibet is missing out on rake becouse of this:

we have 96 seats in the player pool. to keep things simple everyone is playing 4 tables and nobody is joining (peak time). 16 tables are running and 24 players in total. Player 1 and player 2 leave. Resulting in 88 seats and atleast 4/16 tables with </= 5 players. Let's assume 6 tables run 5-handed and 1 table runs 4-handed. Player 3 on 1x 4-h table 1x 5-h and table 2x 6-h table decides to quit his session aswell. We now obviously end up with more and more tables not having 6 people playing. since people that play multiple tables, or recs that chill while watching a movie etc. usually do not like to play with 4 and 3 people. All of sudden more and more people start to quit their sessions. making this breaking of tables a vicious circle when peak times end and more people leave then people are joining.

Please acknowledge that:

1. this happens allot of times

2. people are simply not playing becouse of this (like me now writing this post).

3. People quit their session only and only becouse tables break

4. the current system does not make it viable to leave 2-4 handed table and join a 5 handed one. Not to mention the 2/3 handed tables that continue to run like that becouse 2 people are stubborn to leave and all others don't want to play that table.

And finally fix this problem! (out of the top of my head):

1. people join 4-handed+ as a standard

2. heads-up tables will be closed.

3. If people leave a 4-handed table they will not get reseated there.

4. always prioritize 5handed then 4handed

5. deploy 2 people from queue simultaniously on 3 handed tables

Tables breaking post peak times should be seen as a serious problem on your to do list and be taken care of professionally so that the playerpool does not get annoyed with it every time it happens. ūüėě

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...


I love short handed¬†ūüėŹ¬†

But yeah it's a massive issue, and been documented time and time again on @DaVitsche s stream how the player pool just plummets when it happens because it's a bad experience for so many players.

@FeelsBadMan Whaaaaat....Is that it. I was expecting the hulk and all we got was David banner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@jonny2192 wrote:

This has been a concern of some players for awhile @DaVitsche being the best known player who hates short handed tables.

tagging @JeppeL and @Chris-Unibet in case the thread has been missed.

Not missed @jonny2192, but wanted to see if there were any replies first to hear what others than OP thinks, keep'em coming if anyone else has an opinion :)

Former Community Manager
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unibet is aware of the issue. Some people don't mind, others (like myself) don't enjoy shorthanded play.

It's obviously not as easy as deciding to change the system, it needs to be coded, tested, implemented. It's important to understand that the current system is in place to prevent bumhunting (at least, that's what I thought).

So the challenge is finding a balance between both personal preference and protecting weaker players. I've suggested a filter, where you can choose what the minimum #players is at the table before it seats you. I heard mentions of a balancing feature that would merge 2 3handed tables etc. Not sure if that is still being looked at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Done some digging to see what was discussed in the past. It turns out it's a big task to implement a merging table solution and risky one as well if we don't do it properly. 

The initial idea was to make sure we don't make the experience worst when traffic is raising. Merging too many tables at that time would increase the queuing time since less free seats would be available. Overall, keeping few tables shorthanded is fine as it allows some players to jump into the action directly. But when traffic falls, too many tables are short-handed and that's when it becomes an issue.

The idea would therefore be to merge tables when we have more than X short-handed tables. And do it so that it doesn't kick players out. If the same player is playing multiple shorthanded tables, we don't want to force him to leave one to merge the tables together... or not without placing him on a third table. 

There's also the blinds situation to ensure that it lets you play directly when your table is merged except if you were seated out on your previous table. 

Anyway, as you can see, it's not an easy one. I believe there's some value to do it though if we do it well. But it's one of those where it's hard to break it into smaller / less risky tasks. It pretty much as to go with the entire package (and could be tested on one stake for example). 


From the discussion, I found something that seems a bit easier to implement. Nothing amazing but we should at least make sure that when tables break, we automatically give a seat to the players who didn't quit the table intentionally. And maybe there's a point to let them play for free (not have to wait for big blind) as well. That'd be a first small step into the right direction. Do you feel that would improve the situation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that tables don't break, you just end up being stuck with 20+ shorthanded tables that can't break cause the people that want another table get seated back at the same table. But the few that do break, that 1 extra player per table might help a bit and them not having to wait for BB is also a really good idea. 

I made a suggestion a long time ago for a sort of manual table merge where players can choose to get rando moved when tables get short handed if they want, forcing short tables to break in the process, and if the traffic is low the queuing/moving process prioritizes getting tables to 5 handed so still room for people to join while tables also become playable. 

Of course if then you have  12 5 handed tables instead of 20 3 handed it will be harder for 2-3 people 8 tabling to instantly find tables, but if all their tables are 3 handed they're going to quit the session anyway most likely.

And table merging is kinda weird in cash games, but how about giving people an option to move to a fuller table when tables get 3 handed (not including sitouts), so a sort of manual merge. Like a button popping up next to the leaderboards button, idk something like Want to move? something obvious dunno. and when someone clicks it they get taken away from the table and get placed in a separate queue where they can't join the same tables they're on already (they could also still be playing at the table while they're waiting for that queue with a looking for a seat for you message somewhere where it doesn't obstruct the game, and have them as waiting for next hand at the new table, but that starts after they finish their hand at the previous table), and that queue prioritizes getting a certain table to 5 handed and then the next and the next, this way some tables will break and people will be moved around by their own accord. Also get that same option when you're the last player at the table and it breaks, you want to move to another table? 

The move would still be random and outside of the player's control, and by design the table will be too full to have the option to move all the time when they get there (mostly) because 4 handed would not display that button any more.

Or maybe display the button 4 handed when the server detects a large amount of not full tables to stop the snowball effect in it's tracks, but not any other time. 

Yes at higher stakes it would make table selecting a tiny bit easier but well opening all the 3 tables to see who's playing ain't that hard either.



Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...