Jump to content

Community Big Win Casino Tournament - Week 3


RayL

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 470
  • Created
  • Last Reply

@JeppeL Week 3 had already ended when you raised the wagering 10X a couple of minutes past midnight how is this reasonable? It's one thing to change a soon-to-end tournament, altough still bad, but something completely different on shortpaying people on what they've already won and is theirs. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@HAI_ROMANIA it was 10%/0.10X multiple days before the tournament had ended and still remained there after it had done so. When Jeppe-Unibet wrote his post past midnight (tournament end) informing it would change retroactively, it still remained in the official rules of the first page, and was only changed there too just 12 hours ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


@Nospheratu wrote:

@JeppeL Week 3 had already ended when you raised the wagering 10X a couple of minutes past midnight how is this reasonable? It's one thing to change a soon-to-end tournament, altough still bad, but something completely different on shortpaying people on what they've already won and is theirs. 

 


@Nospheratu I don't follow, when did I raise the wagering by ten times? As far as I can remember I've only brought it down, first to 2,5x and now to 1x.

@Livertool I'm not sure of the game, I've requested spins that would be available for all winners(as they're from different markets) but something different than Starburst :)

@HAI_ROMANIA Bonus released.

Former Community Manager
Link to comment
Share on other sites


@JeppeLwrote:


@Nospheratuwrote:

@JeppeL Week 3 had already ended when you raised the wagering 10X a couple of minutes past midnight how is this reasonable? It's one thing to change a soon-to-end tournament, altough still bad, but something completely different on shortpaying people on what they've already won and is theirs. 

 


@Nospheratu I don't follow, when did I raise the wagering by ten times? As far as I can remember I've only brought it down, first to 2,5x and now to 1x.

@Livertool I'm not sure of the game, I've requested spins that would be available for all winners(as they're from different markets) but something different than Starburst :)


A couple of minutes after the tournament had ended you raised the wagering from 10%/0.10X up to 1X.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Nospheratu The original wagering requirement on the bonus is 25x, I first set it down to 2,5x(10% of the original requirement) and now down to 1x. If a wrong number was left on a post due to error in edit, but at no point have I added to a post a higher wagering requirement than the one before.
You wrote last week that you were worried we would highten the wagering requirement in the following weeks and the 10% was just a ruse, but I gave you my word I had no intention of doing anything of the sort and since then put it down to 1x req because I agreed with you it should be low as possible for two reasons:

1) It's a casino tournament and prizes should benefit casino players.

2) The original described payout was in cash, and upon switching it to bonus prize it should still be as close to the original prize as possible(without me breaking company policy though, which I would  have done if I'd just added the bonuses and releasewd without any wagering).

/Jeppe

Former Community Manager
Link to comment
Share on other sites


@JeppeLwrote:

I'll tell you what, since I changed it in the middle of a promotion, you can let me know when it's 10% done at 2,5x and we'll release the bonus money manually - is that fair in combination with the added prize money?


This is the old post by Jeppe so don´t get where did you get idea of 0.1X wagering???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@JeppeL Why would you inflate a wager 25 times to begin with to bring it down later?Obviously a cashprize of 200€ is much better than a bonus of 250€ that needs to be wagered 25 times. In the original first page post "it says 2.5X - but just let us know when you've reached 10%", wich everyone would interpret in regards to their currently won prize and that you would manually make it wagered through when we've reached 10% of our prize. And this is how the payouts were made in practise aswell.

2,5X wager is not an improvement just because 25X is comparably much, much worse. It's not an improvement if it's 2,5 x prize and then 10% wagered off on that either wich is the best case scenario you can go by if that is the calculation/definition you want to point to. it ONLY makes sense if the definition was 10% of paid out prize because because all other calculations would've seen it devalued and not made sense to begin with anyway. Therefor the only reasonable scenario left is comparing 0.10X to 1X wich is what i'm doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Nospheratu, haven't really followed this discussion, so might have missed something.

Well, at first you'd get € 200 without a wagering requirement. This has now been changed to € 250 with a x1 wagering requirement?

If this is the case, you're getting a much, much better deal now, so I don't really get why you're complaining? - you're theoretically getting an extra € 42 or so :)

Sorry if I've missed something and the above wagering requirement isn't correct.

EDIT: even x2.5 would be better than 200 in cash. You theoretically be left with around € 228 after doing the wagering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


@Nospheratu wrote:

@JeppeL Why would you inflate a wager 25 times to begin with to bring it down later?Obviously a cashprize of 200€ is much better than a bonus of 250€ that needs to be wagered 25 times. In the original first page post "it says 2.5X - but just let us know when you've reached 10%", wich everyone would interpret in regards to their currently won prize and that you would manually make it wagered through when we've reached 10% of our prize. And this is how the payouts were made in practise aswell.

2,5X wager is not an improvement just because 25X is comparably much, much worse. It's not an improvement if it's 2,5 x prize and then 10% wagered off on that either wich is the best case scenario you can go by if that is the calculation/definition you want to point to. it ONLY makes sense if the definition was 10% of paid out prize because because all other calculations would've seen it devalued and not made sense to begin with anyway. Therefor the only reasonable scenario left is comparing 0.10X to 1X wich is what i'm doing.


"Why would you inflate a wager 25 times to begin with to bring it down later?Obviously a cashprize of 200€ is much better than a bonus of 250€ that needs to be wagered 25 times."

Didn't give the decision of change enough attention and more or less copy pasted the requirements thinking the added money would've been enough to make up for it. I've already apologized for this I believe, and said I would listen to your feedback, which I did in bringing the wagering requirement down not once, but twice to where it now sits at 1x.

"In the original first page post "it says 2.5X - but just let us know when you've reached 10%", wich everyone would interpret in regards to their currently won prize and that you would manually make it wagered through when we've reached 10% of our prize. And this is how the payouts were made in practise aswell."

At no point has it said "but just let us know when you've reached 10%", I've checked the edit history. It's said "just let us know when you've reached 10%", meaning the visual percentage of playthrough on the bonus. When the bonus wagering counter reached 10%, it would mean you had turned over the bonus money 2,5 time and then to just let us know.

I'm sorry if that wasn't clear enough, but we released all bonuses when people came to us with 10% of the playthrough done. 

/Jeppe

Former Community Manager
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@JeppeL Yes it was somewhat unclear (the definition of 10%) - but i can see your point as valid now. As for 200 cash vs 250X1 i've been mentioning i've changed my mind on that one. Technically it's still not a strict right or wrong issue - someome could still prefer the 200 riskfree over 250 with some added risk, yet better value overall - but honestly i'd lean more towards the latter so yes i've been proven wrong. I had a point as you said before it jumped down from 25X to 1X but the rest... most of it i take back. I still don't think structures should be changing on the go however: in general, but in regards to prize and game structures in particular (Book of Dead in this case, wich on top of it all i don't even have to begin with)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


@Nospheratu wrote:

@JeppeL Yes it was somewhat unclear (the definition of 10%) - but i can see your point as valid now. As for 200 cash vs 250X1 i've been mentioning i've changed my mind on that one. Technically it's still not a strict right or wrong issue - someome could still prefer the 200 riskfree over 250 with some added risk, yet better value overall - but honestly i'd lean more towards the latter so yes i've been proven wrong. I had a point as you said before it jumped down from 25X to 1X but the rest... most of it i take back. I still don't think structures should be changing on the go however: in general, but in regards to prize and game structures in particular (Book of Dead in this case, wich on top of it all i don't even have to begin with)

 

 


@Nospheratu Everything is definitely up for debate, and I've think I haven't shied away from that. I agree that preferably we shouldn't change prizes in the middle of a promotion, and I wasn't happy that I felt the need to do it, but to ensure the best service for the whole community I feel confident it was the right decision. 

About Book of Dead, we specifically added that game because it wasn't available on another market than yours, because one of the games available on your market wasn't available for some of the other players taking part.

There's definitely still a learning curve for me on these tournaments, Stubbe and Marco used to run them in the past because they were more experienced within slots, so I'm taken any and all feedback from you guys and try to learn from it to make future promotions better.

/Jeppe

Former Community Manager
Link to comment
Share on other sites


@JeppeLwrote:


 

About Book of Dead, we specifically added that game because it wasn't available on another market than yours, because one of the games available on your market wasn't available for some of the other players taking part.

 


I understand but shouldn't every game be available for everyone? If someone doesn't have one that i do and then i lose one that he gets i mean yeah it is a sort of solution but more of a "broken" type if you get what i mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...