Jonnys and Psrquacks talk crap thread so we dont de-rail other threads, thread

[psrquack]

"Why do you increase the rake at NL4, PL4 and NL10? First of all I want to make it clear that despite the increase, the rake on these stakes is still really good, and NL4 remains the industry best.. We believe that the rake at NL4 is almost too good today, in the sense that it gives little incentive to move up in stakes, and the stake becomes much tougher and not as great a place for new players to start out, as we want."

Let me understand this: regs are captured the limit so action isn't so tempting as previously, so we increase the rake and hope regs will leave the limit and join to the higher stakes what will increase our income and beginners who aren't so skilled or tight will generate us the same rake or more aswell. Let me guess: this is good for economy.

[psrquack]

"Why do you increase the rake at NL4, PL4 and NL10? First of all I want to make it clear that despite the increase, the rake on these stakes is still really good, and NL4 remains the industry best.. We believe that the rake at NL4 is almost too good today, in the sense that it gives little incentive to move up in stakes, and the stake becomes much tougher and not as great a place for new players to start out, as we want."

No question, they hired Negreanu.

[Stubbe-Unibet]

---

@psrquack wrote:

"Why do you increase the rake at NL4, PL4 and NL10? First of all I want to make it clear that despite the increase, the rake on these stakes is still really good, and NL4 remains the industry best.. We believe that the rake at NL4 is almost too good today, in the sense that it gives little incentive to move up in stakes, and the stake becomes much tougher and not as great a place for new players to start out, as we want."

No question, they hired Negreanu.

---

Industry low on NL4 (despite increase) and overall less rake for the site; no matter how you try to spin it, that is not a sensible conclusion ;) you can't just ignore the other arguments either :)

[DaVitsche]

---

@psrquack wrote:

"Why do you increase the rake at NL4, PL4 and NL10? First of all I want to make it clear that despite the increase, the rake on these stakes is still really good, and NL4 remains the industry best.. We believe that the rake at NL4 is almost too good today, in the sense that it gives little incentive to move up in stakes, and the stake becomes much tougher and not as great a place for new players to start out, as we want."

Let me understand this: regs are captured the limit so action isn't so tempting as previously, so we increase the rake and hope regs will leave the limit and join to the higher stakes what will increase our income and beginners who aren't so skilled or tight will generate us the same rake or more aswell. Let me guess: this is good for economy.

---

This will be very good for the economy. Have you noticed the cap being lowered?

[Stubbe-Unibet]

---

@psrquack wrote:

"Why do you increase the rake at NL4, PL4 and NL10? First of all I want to make it clear that despite the increase, the rake on these stakes is still really good, and NL4 remains the industry best.. We believe that the rake at NL4 is almost too good today, in the sense that it gives little incentive to move up in stakes, and the stake becomes much tougher and not as great a place for new players to start out, as we want."

Let me understand this: regs are captured the limit so action isn't so tempting as previously, so we increase the rake and hope regs will leave the limit and join to the higher stakes what will increase our income and beginners who aren't so skilled or tight will generate us the same rake or more aswell. Let me guess: this is good for economy.

---

I think I've already answered that in the OP :)

Yes, the transition between stakes will be more natural and smooth. Yes, we aim at making NL4 better and more entertaining for casual player/beginners.

Will it ultimately result in more rake/money for us? It depends.

No, if it doesn't have the desired impact (benefits mentioned in OP), we'll get less rake than we do today (we are overall lowering the rake). 

Yes, if the changes have a good impact on the ecology and site as a whole, we will likely end up earning more by offering a better cash game experience. Everyone wins :)

No matter how you try to spin this, I don't see how it can ever be interpreted as a bad thing for the customers :)

[psrquack]

---

@DaVitsche wrote:

---

This will be very good for the economy. Have you noticed the cap being lowered?

---

I would accept it if you could tell me some arguments why do you think this. My opinion the gap between NL4 and NL25 is too high in the point of view of bankroll necessity that many regs will stay at the limit and try to adept to the situation what is good for incomes but not for the economy. It would be great if those regs would have the possible spendable money for poker but due to the current situation they are satisfied to grind at lower levels. I also doubt this.

Yes, i have noticed, now I'm waiting for the all hands will be raked regardless of flop have seen or not and the justification why is this a great improvement and why is this good for economy.

[psrquack]

---

@Stubbe-Unibet wrote:

---

No matter how you try to spin this, I don't see how it can ever be interpreted as a bad thing for the customers :)

---

 

More rake is better for the customers.

Increasing more hands in where you are paying rake is better for the customer.

Paying more will encourage players being more tight.

Leaving regs (moving up/playing less or going to competitior) means less tables especially in the prime time.

I'm spinning this. Well, that else.

[psrquack]

I don't like debatting to @Stubbe-Unibet , cos he deletes the whole conversation at the end, but it's funny to see how quick he appeared here.

[Stubbe-Unibet]

---

@psrquack wrote:

---

@Stubbe-Unibet wrote:

---

No matter how you try to spin this, I don't see how it can ever be interpreted as a bad thing for the customers :)

More rake is better for the customers.

Increasing more hands in where you are paying rake is better for the customer.

Paying more will encourage players being more tight.

Leaving regs (moving up/playing less or going to competitior) means less tables especially in the prime time.

I'm spinning this. Well, that else.

---

I think your posts speaks for itself in terms of warranting a reply, so let's just leave it at that :) 

[FreedoM]

You know i love you @psrquack, but lately you do a lot of unnecessary quaking. From where i stand you are crossing a lot of common sense barriers.
From wanting to know the criteria/where to find the password for the private MTTs to requesting a lot of stuff from Unibet/Employees/Ambasador's and not really using it when you get it and also acting like a wall to change when you probably don't really play the games it affects on a regular basis. So there is no point to all of this. Much ♥️.

[psrquack]

---

@FreedoM wrote:

You know i love you @psrquack, but lately you do a lot of unnecessary quaking. From where i stand you are crossing a lot of common sense barriers.

From wanting to know the criteria/where to find the password for the private MTTs to requesting a lot of stuff from Unibet/Employees/Ambasador's and not really using it when you get it and also acting like a wall to change when you probably don't really play the games it affects on a regular basis. So there is no point to all of this. Much ♥️.

---

I don't really understand this. I never asked password for private MTT. I asked informations what can I do to meet the requirements (registering and being active in a forum/raking within a period etc) and playing the tourney next time. Please read this post:

• To the ambassador thing:  The Head of Poker gave an interview in where he told you can meet Ambassadors here. I gave credit to his words and asked where to find them, because my lack of quality wasn't enough. If they would saying me i misinterprete something then for me it would be ok, but nobody contradicted that.But as you can see after asking it ambassadors are more active here what could improve the quality of the community.
• To use a stuff: don't understand it too: what should I use? The hand analysis topics they have written here? They are for common use and after realising the hand is about the Supernova and I don't have experience how users acting there regularly I kept myself away from it, because I can't say any relevant to that.
• To the received things: ReCorpH set up a private freeroll here . After reading  that I pm'd him asked if organising a private freeroll (the quackroll 2) is possible or not. He told me it's technically possible  but denied all of my offers (I will pay the PP, I will gave the buyin as paysafecard code to invited players, I will rake the required pp so Unibet shouldn't spend on it any cents etc), so for Unibet wouldn't cost anything and it would be a great common party. He refused all my offers but promised asking how could this make happen. After not answering me for 3 weeks albeit I pm'd him twice I gave up this and I wrote that I won't ask it anymore.

I like you aswell, and ready to answer to the questions if there are any.

[FreedoM]

I apologies @psrquack :lovekiss: for taking everything out of context. :dissatisfied: Feeling :annoyed: at Myself.

[psrquack]

---

@FreedoM wrote:

I apologies @psrquack :lovekiss: for taking everything out of context. :dissatisfied: Feeling :annoyed: at Myself.

---

Please don't feel yourself annoyed. Nothing happened. Glad having forum members like you here.👍

[Stubbe-Unibet]

I assume freedoms comment was mostly triggered by today's post. At least the common sense part is a perfect fit :)

You've said before that you're not trolling, but I don't think you're fooling anyone anymore ;)

You're completely disregarding common sense, taking things out of context and just writing straight nonsense for the sake of disagreeing - that's the only way I can interpret it.

You're trying to make an amazing change for the players into something negative; a poker site charging less rake in a time where sites are moving in the opposite direction. Even if we removed rake completely, you'd surely find something negative to highlight. I can already imagine the comments: "you don't have free cash games to play, so if you don't have any money on the account, you don't benefit from the removed rake", "why have the freerolls been removed!?!?", "as only the winning player is effectively charged rake, it means that the best players will benefit the most", "This means there'll be no promotions. That's terrible"

 

If you absolutely have to troll, you can at least try to keep it constructive at the same time instead of it just being the old boring moaning :)

 

Yes, the above is harsh, but it's tiring when you continue trolling after having been told off several times already. As I've mentioned before, you're the only member I've had to do this with, and now so many times that I've actually lost count. You weren't trolling like this back in the good old days, so I know you're capable of suppressing the urge :)

 

[psrquack]

@Stubbe-Unibet: I'm ready to defend my posts if you are able to post them.

"You're trying to make an amazing change for the players into something negative;"

No. Please post an example.

"Even if we removed rake completely, you'd surely find something negative to highlight. I can already imagine the comments: "you don't have free cash games to play, so if you don't have any money on the account, you don't benefit from the removed rake", "why have the freerolls been removed!?!?", "as only the winning player is effectively charged rake, it means that the best players will benefit the most", "This means there'll be no promotions. That's terrible""

Those are your words only what are existing within your head only, but I'm ready to read an example where I have acted like this.

"If you absolutely have to troll, you can at least try to keep it constructive at the same time instead of it just being the old boring moaning"

Last one: https://www.unibetcommunity.com/t5/Unibet-Idea-Exchange/Moving-DSO-flip-freeroll-starting-time-to-5-minutes-earlier/idc-p/315692#M3068 

"Yes, the above is harsh, but it's tiring when you continue trolling after having been told off several times already. As I've mentioned before, you're the only member I've had to do this with, and now so many times that I've actually lost count."

Sorry for reading that, but still don't know why. Posting an example would help.

"You weren't trolling like this back in the good old days, so I know you're capable of suppressing the urge"

Again, I'm not trolling, just wanting to make things running smooter, but ready to talk about it if you are putting examples into conversation.

 

[psrquack]

"At least the common sense part is a perfect fit
You've said before that you're not trolling, but I don't think you're fooling anyone anymore
You're completely disregarding common sense, taking things out of context and just writing straight nonsense for the sake of disagreeing - that's the only way I can interpret it.'"

 

I would like to hear your opinion about this @Rushbie , @Livertool @ReCorpH @RayL and @XY . As I read your posts you have balls to tell your opinions face to face even if this not flattering. Thanks.

[Stubbe-Unibet]

Short comment as I'm about to board the plane to Malta. I'm not saying you never contribute with anything, that's not the point. The freeroll start time for instance was a decent improvement :)

However, the share of your content which is constructive and sensible,that is very far from what it was two years ago :)

There's no need to try and put a negative spin on everything or turn everything into silly discussions, when it's as farfetched as it's often been the case the last year. Constructive criticism is more than welcome, and I don't want a community where people are expected to just clap their hands at every tiny change - that's of no use to me. I started the community to get more player feedback and involvement, I started the poker UAT group for the same reason. I want honest feedback. Problem is that I don't consider your "contributions" anything like that, and the trolling and silly discussions just turn into an unwanted waste of time. Time I could use on proper feedback and product improvements :)

[psrquack]

Some contributions:

Matching Ian Simpson's working hand's analysis thread to the previous not working one. 

Pointing on a wrongly setted up tournament:

Tamed new member here:

https://www.unibetcommunity.com/t5/Betting-and-Sports/Basketball/m-p/315200#M40503 

Showed you an alternative way how to save your blogpost if you were timed out:

https://www.unibetcommunity.com/t5/Community-Blog/UnibetLife-Stubbe/bc-p/313068#M587 

Tried to help why cashdrop is not available:

https://www.unibetcommunity.com/t5/General-Poker/Cashdrop-promo/m-p/312846#M46156 

Guided a member how to particapate on cardschat freeroll legally:

https://www.unibetcommunity.com/t5/General-Poker/Cardschat/m-p/312129#M46102 

Tried to help why almost similar usernames are possible:

https://www.unibetcommunity.com/t5/General-Poker/Bootcamp-Leaderboard-Very-Similar-usernames/m-p/311754#M46049 

Letting you know technical bug with the Omaha freeroll:

https://www.unibetcommunity.com/t5/Unibet-Poker-Freerolls/freerolls/m-p/311562#M961 

Reported many bugs on your topic. I think those contribution to community in the last month from my side is far enough. Still waiting the posts in where you find a destruction from me.

 

[Rushbie]

---

@psrquack wrote:

"At least the common sense part is a perfect fit

You've said before that you're not trolling, but I don't think you're fooling anyone anymore

You're completely disregarding common sense, taking things out of context and just writing straight nonsense for the sake of disagreeing - that's the only way I can interpret it.'"

 

I would like to hear your opinion about this @Rushbie , @Livertool @ReCorpH @RayL and @XY . As I read your posts you have balls to tell your opinions face to face even if this not flattering. Thanks.

---

Aff, look man, we sure are at the same pond alright :Smile: But there are no hostile duckies towards simple thingies than you can be, mate :Smirk: It's just sometimes better to take the bread. As much as it may hurt.

[Livertool]

Yeah, i don't want to get between others raffles too much and certainly don't want to restrict what anyone wants to write (for example politics :laugh:)

But just overall, like in this rake case, you can use some things as indicators like if you don't get likes or supportive comments then there might be chance that you are on your own in that one or then others just don't get it. In either case it is not worth to carry on too long cause they are not going to change anything just out of one members opinion and certainly not in case like this when rake reduction is just announced, not even tried yet. In time everyone can say how is that working for them. Unibet might even realize that they are losing money over it and change it back where it was 🤣. I don't know what they pay to ambassadors but i think davitche makes more money from poker so he genuinely thinks it is good change and not just promoting Unibet. I don't know what site rakes what and don't play that much that it effects me but overall imo less is better.

Didn't pay attention that much to know what other things you were raffling about cause don't like reading essay, yet writing one right now, and frankly got other things to do. Just saying that using little bit of seflcencoring occasionally never hurt none. We all have to pick our battles and think matters from both side of tables and go from there. Sometimes we do better, sometimes worse.

[DaVitsche]

I don't understand the lack of positive reaction to the rake changes. 4NL will be almost unchanged as total amount raked, the biggest difference is that the majority of the rake now will be paid by the biggest winners.

10NL is a slight increase, and again, one that will most likely impact the big winners on the stake and actually have a better impact on the average players. But even this isn't that crazy of an increase.

25NL & 50NL will undergo a massive benificial change. And if you want to talk in term of Unibet "making money off more rake". The €100's they will gain extra from 10NL will be nothing compared to the 1000's of paycut they just took from 25NL & 50NL just so the ecology can grow and progress healthier.

@Esir his blog was a nice example of a good reg, failing to move trough 25NL, partially because of the rake, as the impact on his winrate from paying more rake combined with having to deal with better regs just means too many 10NL regs couldn't move up, so they just accepted their faith, and stayed on 10NL. There's going to be that anecdotal story of that one guy that succeeded and had a heater on 25NL/50NL to make to to 100NL, but those are rare.

A big part of this problem is a general failure to understand how this industry works, I've worked a lot behind the scenes in BE for more than 10 yeras, had some good talks with Unibet staff as well, which helps you to get a clear view on how all of it works.

Promotions cost money, that money needs to reach the players you want to help. On 4NL & 10NL the siituation got to a point that you couldn't reach that group without spending the majority of your promotional budget on players that were already winning a lot. Which means you need to change the ecosystem. It's a very unromantic view of the industry, but it's just how things work.

The weirdest thing is that the people that complain the loudest are often totally unaffected by these changes, even crazier are benefittin from them. Yet somehow they have convinced themselves that any change is bad, therefor we complain about change.

All sites are increasing rake, and after (5!) years of fighting, people finally managed to get the idea going up the corporate chain that it is indeed better to earn less money, because it'll allow for more growth. Think about how hard that discussion must have been while the gambling sector in general is in decline. So I want to make sure the Unibet staff knows that I'm super grateful. I have requested these changes for a long time, despite them not really affecting me, because I knew they were the better thing to do, and it'll increase the chances of someone that takes the game serious, and doesn't just sit around and complain all the time to actually build a bankroll, make it to midstakes, get those UO packages, make some friends, gets better and manages to turn pro and live the dream.

[Rushbie]

Gosh the title of this is quite a sword

Orr wass it offtopic.
Can we talk about random sht now?

[Livertool]

---

@Rushbie wrote:

Gosh the title of this is quite a sword

Orr wass it offtopic.

Can we talk about random sht now?

---

Agree. Too much derailing with facts in perfectly good crap thread. I would ban people if i had powers 🤣

But now that i read rake changes with more thought to see what is the fuzz about, i didn't find anything wrong about it. If i got it right, it favours players to move up on stakes and, regardless what unibet motives are, it should suite every player very well. I mean i would be surprised if all players wouldn't want play highest stake possible that their bankroll and skills allow.

Don't see anything bad about table cap reduction either. Tbh i think there are really small minority that can play well with more than 2-4 tables in cash games. Sng and especially hexa are different matter. So insane as it might seem, i would reduce it to 4 max cause it would probly speed up game and people would have to think little what they are doing and not call/raise every ❤️♥️❤️ty hand and then suck out on river. Yeah yeah, i know, in long run i should like to see them play with bad hands but i am in tilt over bad beats way before i see long runs 🤣 So maybe 6 tables is sweet spot so noobs can pretend that they can multitable until they realize they can't 😏

 

[Rushbie]

Morning walks at the seabay. Not much people around, but not complaining about the company :laugh:

 

[psrquack]

Fought for this so hard in the last 2 years. Now it's too late.

Tabaluga.