Loyalty refresh April 1st 2023

[Stubbe-Unibet]

1 hour ago, Wizard said:

Agree w @yayaGamble

There used to be a quarterly carry over for XP once you at a certain level, which prevents you from hitting a period end of the quarter when you know you cant hit the next level and the incentive to put in volume is low. 

With the current setup (especially with each level taking more volume to complete) it seems quite likely people take a break / switch sites or something for the last week or so if they know they cant hit the next level.

Data shows the opposite is the case 🙂 this is with current system, obviously 

[pokerLoco]

3 hours ago, Wizard said:

Agree w @yayaGamble

There used to be a quarterly carry over for XP once you at a certain level, which prevents you from hitting a period end of the quarter when you know you cant hit the next level and the incentive to put in volume is low. 

With the current setup (especially with each level taking more volume to complete) it seems quite likely people take a break / switch sites or something for the last week or so if they know they cant hit the next level.

 

 

 

 

As someone who reached 5mio+ XP this quarter, also moved for last two weeks to other sites. Had choice to clear 11.5k bonus to have 53% rb or fail and have 18%, decided to rather try other sites.

This will happen everytime for at least few days if excess XP are not being carried over after clearing last step before end of quarter.

Edited March 24, 2023 by pokerLoco

[Makiavelli]

On 3/12/2023 at 12:54 PM, Stubbe-Unibet said:

It's just a matter of time before these questions get asked, so I might as well answer them now:

Will I personally get more or less with the new system? Does it matter if I'm winning or losing?

I'll try to be as transparent as possible here. Networks/sites like GG, iPoker and Pokerstars pay more rakeback to losing players than winning, and there's a reason they're secretive about it: it's no small difference. This obviously makes perfect sense from a site perspective. If someone is winning €25,000 (or €100,000 for that matter) in three months, before any rakeback is paid, it makes little sense to pay this player an additional €25,000 in rakeback. The money is for instance much better spent supporting a player who's about breakeven or slightly winning, before rakeback. I don't think any of the aforementioned sites have ever been transparent about it, so let me be the first:
If you're winning a decent amount before rakeback, you'll be getting less from the bi-weekly bonuses than when you have a downswing and struggle to make a profit at the tables. However, this only affects the bi-weekly bonuses and the "regular" loyalty system treats everyone the same, which means you're still guaranteed a pretty good rakeback percentage as a winner - and we're 100% transparent about this percentage.
I personally think we've found a pretty good balance with the new system, where everyone will know what to expect, rake isn't some mysterious thing that's determined differently depending on your win rate and we're giving more of a helping hand to the high-volume players that need such to make decent profit. 

So to answer the question: will you be getting more or less rakeback? It depends how you do at the tables. If rakeback is fundamental to your profit, you won't be disappointed. If you're crushing the games, you'll be getting less; but still a very decent percentage.

TLDR: yes, we're moving a little bit closer to the main competitors, in the sense that everyone won't be treated the exact same: if you're about breakeven, you'll get more than someone who's crushing. However, we still have a guaranteed minimum rakeback and the difference generally isn't that big, compared to today. 

What is the maximum rakeback for winning player who`s getting only 5% bi-weekly bonuses?

[Tekes]

While this is not great news, it is understandable decision from unibets point of view to reward losing players. Ideal situation for a poker site would be if everyone would just lose slowly due to rake. I am personally fine with this decision as long as you won't continue further down this path in the future. After all poker is supposed to be a skill game and punishing players who are decent at it is not cool in my opinion. Thank you for being open about this.

[SShcherbyna]

7 hours ago, Tekes said:

After all poker is supposed to be a skill game and punishing players who are decent at it is not cool in my opinion.

I don't think the purpose of the new loyalty program is to dictate winning players. From the point of view of an amateur player, it is nice when you get more bonuses during the period of failure. And everyone will be better off if amateur players are satisfied.

[Tekes]

2 hours ago, SShcherbyna said:

I don't think the purpose of the new loyalty program is to dictate winning players.

As I said: "I am personally fine with this decision as long as you won't continue further down this path in the future."

[Ace-Two]

So am I reading it right only 2 people would have completed the new levels this quarter?

[Stubbe-Unibet]

37 minutes ago, Ace-Two said:

So am I reading it right only 2 people would have completed the new levels this quarter?

Yes, 2 players this quarter. We're normally at 2-5. 

[PSB]

@Stubbe-Unibet

 

I tried to send you a PM, but it says i have 0 messages to send :)

I would like to kindly decline the rake 3300 bonus and have it removed from my account.  Gonna be a dad in a few days and will not have time for this challenge atm.

I would still love to send you a pm as i have a couple questions about my stats.

Thank you

[Stubbe-Unibet]

2 hours ago, PSB said:

@Stubbe-Unibet

 

I tried to send you a PM, but it says i have 0 messages to send 🙂

I would like to kindly decline the rake 3300 bonus and have it removed from my account.  Gonna be a dad in a few days and will not have time for this challenge atm.

I would still love to send you a pm as i have a couple questions about my stats.

Thank you

PM sent. Congrats on the baby! 🙂 👶

[avatarthief]

I recall that Unibet got consistently negative feedback on this forum about "rake x, get y" bonuses, specifically about the strain it put on high-volume players. So I'm curious as to why - after testing it out - the site not only integrated them into the loyalty system but went one further and geared them to reward losing players. Was the test period meant to test the viability of the bonuses or was it more about acclimation/optimization of an idea that had already been decided on? Could there realistically have been a result that would have led to the bonuses being dropped?

Also, though most players might be able to manage the bonuses in a healthy way I do want to note an ethical concern that this decision could have devastating effects on the mental health of certain players, most of whom belong to the break-even/losing categories.

[Stubbe-Unibet]

2 hours ago, avatarthief said:

I recall that Unibet got consistently negative feedback on this forum about "rake x, get y" bonuses, specifically about the strain it put on high-volume players. So I'm curious as to why - after testing it out - the site not only integrated them into the loyalty system but went one further and geared them to reward losing players. Was the test period meant to test the viability of the bonuses or was it more about acclimation/optimization of an idea that had already been decided on?

Also, though most players might be able to manage the bonuses in a healthy way I do want to note an ethical concern that this decision could have devastating effects on the mental health of certain players, most of whom belong to the break-even/losing categories.

Feedback was generally positive and the bonuses did what they were supposed to: offer greater rakeback to the breakeven or so players than to the winning. Also doesn't make much sense to compare the past sendouts with the one that'll go out on the 10th, as it's completely redesigned - it's built from scratch and not a single formula or value from old setup has been reused). The bonuses were always rewarding breakeven players more than winning; now it's just to a greater extent. What you're actually complaining about here - or very concerned about - is: 1. breakeven players get easier bonuses, 2. breakeven players get a greater rakeback % from bonuses 🙂 

Would like to stress that no really bad players/big losers will get any of these bonuses. There're multiple exclusion criteria looking at loss and skill level. Have no indication of your last point and you make it sound like we're asking players to suddenly increase their volume by 100%, when the bonuses are generally just asking for a similar amount to what you've raked in your highest rake weeks in past quarter. 

2 hours ago, avatarthief said:

Could there realistically have been a result that would have led to the bonuses being dropped?

Yes, of course.

[avatarthief]

2 hours ago, Stubbe-Unibet said:

Feedback was generally positive and the bonuses did what they were supposed to: offer greater rakeback to the breakeven or so players than to the winning. Also doesn't make much sense to compare the past sendouts with the one that'll go out on the 10th, as it's completely redesigned - it's built from scratch and not a single formula or value from old setup has been reused). The bonuses were always rewarding breakeven players more than winning; now it's just to a greater extent. What you're actually complaining about here - or very concerned about - is: 1. breakeven players get easier bonuses, 2. breakeven players get a greater rakeback % from bonuses 🙂 

Would like to stress that no really bad players/big losers will get any of these bonuses. There're multiple exclusion criteria looking at loss and skill level. Have no indication of your last point and you make it sound like we're asking players to suddenly increase their volume by 100%, when the bonuses are generally just asking for a similar amount to what you've raked in your highest rake weeks in past quarter. 

Yes, of course.

I don't personally like the change as I'm sure others don't, especially if their volume is irregular, but the complaint and the concern are different issues.

Regarding the irregular volume / complaint, the gap between the difference made to a player who plays roughly the same amount of hours every week and a player for whom the hours can vary widely (for many possible reasons, work, study, stress-relief breaks, complications like bipolar disorder) is enormous. If some one playing regular hours gets a bonus based on their highest-volume week then there is very little difference in the amount of extra time they have to put in, but for people with irregular weekly/monthly patterns in their play the bonus (if undertaken) would make a huge difference to their schedule and the amount they have to play to keep the edge they had prior to the change. Unless this irregularity is something you factor in? It does seem like a kick in the teeth to be told you need to regularly play the highest volume you had in 3 months during a fortnight with little other time conflicts or during a manic period etc, just to be able to get comparable rakeback to what you used to get when you could choose your own hours based on what suits your life.

I think I saw some one else here suggest x/y bonuses that a player can freeze, which I think is a fantastic suggestion and would resolve my complaints, if not others.

 

Regarding the concern, it draws from my own experience. I initially pushed myself further than I should have done because of a "how can I pass this up?" mentality stemming from an anxiety disorder. It was more money, but I was playing many more hours than I should have been and my partner had to insist that I gave up on it because it was negatively affecting my life, in more ways than just the time lost. I have a fairly mild manifestation of OCD but I can imagine that others who fixate more strongly (or who don't have people close to them to care and provide perspective) could chase goals that they can't achieve without compromising their real lives and it could exacerbate mental stresses they are already dealing with, whether they achieve them or not. This could apply to other anxiety disorders too. I am aware that people have the choice to skip a bonus, but I didn't and others with similar conditions probably wouldn't either. Now that it is a part of the main loyalty scheme it will be even harder to let go. I can not stress enough that the effect of something like this could be much, much worse on some one who has a harder time dealing with it than me.

I hope there is something more to the way you arrange the bonuses than squeezing as much volume as possible out of players without risking their loss of interest, and that you will try to take the real lives behind the computers into account. Can you give me a better sense of the exclusion criteria that you mentioned? I might have misspoke by suggesting people with this issue are on the losing end, I don't know how often that is the case. I am a winning player myself but these bonuses affected my mental health from the outset.

Edited April 1, 2023 by avatarthief

[Livertool]

Either of them don't really concern me but just out of curiosity that came out of looking new rb system:

Germans back?

Reaching highest level gives only 18% RB? Well there is incentive 😁 Must be mistake cause chart says otherwise or then i'm just confused with complexity or translation.

[Stubbe-Unibet]

17 minutes ago, Livertool said:

Either of them don't really concern me but just out of curiosity that came out of looking new rb system:

Germans back?

Better safe than sorry 😄 Assume that part was just kept from old page

26 minutes ago, Livertool said:

Reaching highest level gives only 18% RB? Well there is incentive 😁 Must be mistake cause chart says otherwise or then i'm just confused with complexity or translation.

No, bonuses would change for you, or you'd get a custom one. You can get up to 65% after last level. But this is hypothetical. Few players will rake much after the last level.

46 minutes ago, avatarthief said:

I don't personally like the change as I'm sure others don't, especially if their volume is irregular, but the complaint and the concern are different issues.

Regarding the irregular volume / complaint, the gap between the difference made to a player who plays roughly the same amount of hours every week and a player for whom the hours can vary widely (for many possible reasons, work, study, stress-relief breaks, complications like bipolar disorder) is enormous. If some one playing regular hours gets a bonus based on their highest-volume week then there is very little difference in the amount of extra time they have to put in, but for people with irregular weekly/monthly patterns in their play the bonus (if undertaken) would make a huge difference to their schedule and the amount they have to play to keep the edge they had prior to the change. Unless this irregularity is something you factor in? It does seem like a kick in the teeth to be told you need to regularly play the highest volume you had in 3 months during a fortnight with little other time conflicts or during a manic period etc, just to be able to get comparable rakeback to what you used to get when you could choose your own hours based on what suits your life.

I think I saw some one else here suggest x/y bonuses that a player can freeze, which I think is a fantastic suggestion and would resolve my complaints, if not others.

Regarding the concern, it draws from my own experience. I initially pushed myself further than I should have done because of a "how can I pass this up?" mentality stemming from an anxiety disorder. It was more money, but I was playing many more hours than I should have been and my partner had to insist that I gave up on it because it was negatively affecting my life, in more ways than just the time lost. I have a fairly mild manifestation of OCD but I can imagine that others who fixate more strongly (or who don't have people close to them to care and provide perspective) could chase goals that they can't achieve without compromising their real lives and it could exacerbate mental stresses they are already dealing with, whether they achieve them or not. This could apply to other anxiety disorders too. I am aware that people have the choice to skip a bonus, but I didn't and others with similar conditions probably wouldn't either. Now that it is a part of the main loyalty scheme it will be even harder to let go. I can not stress enough that the effect of something like this could be much, much worse on some one who has a harder time dealing with it than me.

I hope there is something more to the way you arrange the bonuses than squeezing as much volume as possible out of players without risking their loss of interest, and that you will try to take the real lives behind the computers into account. Can you give me a better sense of the exclusion criteria that you mentioned? I might have misspoke by suggesting people with this issue are on the losing end, I don't know how often that is the case. I am a winning player myself but these bonuses affected my mental health from the outset.

There're 26 steps to the rake requirement alone (then there're separate flows for exclusion and rakeback %). And yes, there are different flows based on stdev and more. But of course we can't take an average week for someone with huge fluctuations and then pay them an extra 20-35% rakeback - we're not running a charity. To give a slightly better idea, I partly ignore the highest rake week for someone with significant rake fluctuations, I look at stdev of 4 highest raking weeks and do a subtraction based on that, and a lot more. Past bonus completion also makes a difference. Number of hands/tournaments etc. matter as well.

You're not meant to complete every single bonus. Even if you only complete a couple during the quarter, it's still a really nice rb boost. Everyone has the option of opting completely out of the bonuses and in the May (thought it would make it in April but looks unlikely) release we add the option for users to cancel bonuses themselves. 

I get what you're saying, but you can apply the same logic to any promo; the desire to chase 1st position on leaderboard, completing the loyalty system, completing lvl/step x in loyalty, completing every mission etc. etc. This is generally not an issue for poker and the very small minority that might have issues, they should be protected in other ways.

[yayaGamble]

Hi, I am getting the x12 multiplier and I was level 7 last quarter. Can you please check this? Ty

@Stubbe-Unibet

[Stubbe-Unibet]

14 minutes ago, yayaGamble said:

Hi, I am getting the x12 multiplier and I was level 7 last quarter. Can you please check this? Ty

@Stubbe-Unibet

Sorry about that! Indeed looks like something was broken with the carry-over. Relax are looking into it

[labadabadu]

1 hour ago, yayaGamble said:

Hi, I am getting the x12 multiplier and I was level 7 last quarter. Can you please check this? Ty

@Stubbe-Unibet

Same here

[Stubbe-Unibet]

@yayaGamble, @labadabadu given you both a temporary multiplier of 22. Hopefully - for our budget - it is fixed soon 🙂

[Oopsala]

1 hour ago, Stubbe-Unibet said:

@yayaGamble, @labadabadu given you both a temporary multiplier of 22. Hopefully - for our budget - it is fixed soon 🙂

Hi, looks like I have the same problem here

[novy]

Same situation here, only 12x multiplier instead of 18x as promised. 

[ogogogogo]

On 3/11/2023 at 11:23 PM, ImProSpin said:

During my 16 years in poker, I have seen different types of loyalty systems. From supernova elites to great chests and 3% rakeback. Everyone understands what we are here for, everyone wants to make money. I managed to catch three main eras , hegimony Party , Stars and modern GG . Everyone at one time believed that he was indestructible, but the market decided differently. In general, I would like to praise that the unibet management does not go to extremes and is constantly working to improve the conditions for the players, although I myself have not yet understood whether this improvement is for me or not)))).

In general, I wanted to ask if I recently received a 5% bonus, which means that I participated in the beta test of the new system, before I was given 10-20%.

 

[ogogogogo]

I'm sorry I sent the message by mistake in response to a message

[Stubbe-Unibet]

Put everyone at a 20x multiplier now - everyone that reached lvl 7 last quarter. Will put you back on 18x tomorrow at some point. Sorry about the mistake!

[LCW]

I'm confused. Are you supposed to have 16x or 18x today, if you made L7 last quarter?