We need to talk about intentional tanking

[Brocky]

This isn't the first time I've discussed this topic (previously on twoplustwo) but it still needs addressing in my opinion.  Unibet supposedly provides itself of being for the players, the Unibet hoodie I've got even says so, so why is nothing done about intentional tanking?  For whatever reason there is at least one person doing this against me in the heads up games and it just creates a really unenjoyable environment. 

For a start, I think the time to act is too long, it should be 12-15 seconds as opposed to 20.  Nobody needs 20 seconds for every decision heads up, and if you need more time for a difficult decision you should have a 20-30 second timebank (one per match). 

Secondly, you have certain regulars (who have been reported by numerous players) who play too many tables and as a result you end up seeing about 3 hands per level.  There can often be 6 or 7 decisions in each hand (checking flop then calling villains bet, checking turn, calling bet etc) and if someone is using 15-20 seconds per decision that can easily be a minute or two per hand.  Unibet took no action against this player.

Lastly, you have the originally mentioned player who is using their whole time on almost every decision against me but snap-calling if I shove and they have a premium calling hand for example (or snap sitting back in after timing out).  It's obvious that this player is not struggling for time nor has a laggy connection, but intentionally trying to run the clock down to either frustrate me, see less hands per level which negates my edge or both.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on all 3 points because these are all factors which play into a player's poker experience.

@Patric-Unibet

 

[MetalWolf]

Can’t speak for HU, but this is also a HUGE issue in UOS tournaments when closing in on the points. You can get 3 or more players on a table completely timing out and time banking EVERY HAND and end up playing like 3 hands each blind level which creates a crap shoot in the later blind levels.

[Brocky]

I've noticed that too in the odd UOS that I've played. I argued at the time on Ian's stream that a time bank which refreshes every hand is not a time bank, just an additional 10 seconds per hand. The purpose of having a time bank imo is for those difficult decisions but it seems Unibet doesn't agree.

[DreamFyre]

This is happening in 5man SNGs as well, there's a certain reg at 10e/25e levels who always max timebanks every hand of heads up until it's <10bb and he can just follow his nash charts. Extremely anoying behaviour.

[GR1ZZL3R]

I totally agree, some of the UOs tourneys were really unenjoyable when players start timing out every hand even 50 or more places from the money. The tourney just drags on and on, and like you say blinds are going up every 2-3 hands. 😪

[Silver1]

Seen this take place at lower stakes as well, mostly in SNGs. Understand why some do it in SNGs, so that they can come down to the Nash push/fold play. But would be interesting to see how these guys would do at a live game. Don’t think they would approach it in same way.

[Patric-Unibet]

Hey @Brocky,

thanks again for pointing this out.

I have added all your 3 points to my list of things to discuss with the team on our next meeting and we will go through the pros and cons and what changes could improve your experience, timebank is definitively being one of them.

Regarding your second point, I cannot see much we can do about it. We cannot forbid players from playing X amount of tables, if they act intentially slower, that's a different discussion point however.

Again, thanks for the feedback and I will bring it up within the team.

[Merenitsu]

@Brocky  if you play 4 or more tables, you will not need 12-15 seconds. on 6 tables in omaha and with 20 seconds is difficult to play

[Brocky]

---

@Patric-Unibet wrote:

Hey @Brocky,

thanks again for pointing this out.

I have added all your 3 points to my list of things to discuss with the team on our next meeting and we will go through the pros and cons and what changes could improve your experience, timebank is definitively being one of them.

Regarding your second point, I cannot see much we can do about it. We cannot forbid players from playing X amount of tables, if they act intentially slower, that's a different discussion point however.

Again, thanks for the feedback and I will bring it up within the team.

---

Thanks for the reply Patric.  

With regards to my 2nd point it's about the experience for the recreational players.  If someone is needing 15-20 seconds for almost every decision, especially a reg who will have a set preflop strategy, then they are playing too many tables an are likely making it an unenjoyable experience for the rec.  I play 2-3 tables and even I get bored waiting for the reg to make their decision.  

On Pokerstars they started capping the number of tables specific players could play if they were regularly using all of their time.  

 

[Anarch9]

Time to act on unibet is one of the shortest from all others poker rooms that I know, so making that even shorter definitely will not be a good move. But some kind of punishing players who is tanking multiple times without any reason could be a good idea.

 

[Patric-Unibet]

Thanks for pointing it out @Brocky.

I didn't know that PokerStars did that, however we have to be realistic and something like this takes quite a lot of resources and our focus and resources will more go towards problems like improving disconnection/reconnections and server stability.

I will mention it but in my personal opinion I don't think it's realistic that we will have the resources to do that anytime soon.

Your other points however would not need too many resources (again, that's my personal opinion, I'm not a tech guy) and therefore are easier to discuss and if enough reasons for changes can be found to be implemented.

[Brocky]

Completely understand the resources aspect of things, I just assumed that as there was a table cap limit for cash games that one could possibly be implemented on an individual basis to players who had been reported for abusing the time they're given.  When I and others reported this reg previously his behaviour was supposedly investigated so I wasn't sure if it was a case where you could just limit his tables to 3 or 4 with the click of a button or whether it would take extensive resources to make any changes.

Either way I appreciate your response and I'm not trying to create a mass of work for a small team but I think it's important to highlight issues that could prevent Unibet growing to its potential.