FeelsBadMan

3x Extreme 125x's one of which was an Extreme 3'rd place , and with an Extreme 125x Badbeat 73.61% favorite

24 points at the 5€ stake 🤷‍♂️

averagely big stack 🤪 

wow, you guys are nuts, would have taken me an extra 2 days just to get to 3 FTs (if I was still in the comp) by running crazy hot (in the shit buyins) and you both are already on 4, so sick ⚖️

Congrats @MaecTpo and @cameleonul , insanely tough competition 😅

On the rules change, this is a prime example why you should always vote kids, your vote matters, I was ambivalent on the old rule and tie breaker rule so 1 vote could have swayed it to whatever you wanted. 

I don't mind the original rule of fastest poster, but I can see it getting messy.

I kinda like the idea of a whole week deathmatch in the case of a same day tie breaker, 2 people fighting for their lives, for those 20 cent cashes in nano FTs the entire week 😁 obv with a 250€ consolation prize for whoever loses the tiebreaker 😜

2'nd Final table with the BAD BEAT style points lucky but also 0 lucky wombo combo

a tiny FT, infobox seems to be slow with the updates 

85.66% of sadness and Trip Tens top hand for the most 0 lucky 🍀 baddest beat one can imagine 

96.46% worth of sunday 0lucky 

First submission to the 0 lucky club, top hand KKK44, not a screenshot cause the client doesn't know how to do replays:

tikiet pls

Can confirm that he did win a 25€ ticket with the alias Pionrj ... Iany was just a bit distracted at the moment by chat and it slipped his mind to collect the alias 😄

8 minutes ago, FeelsBadMan said:

test

one more

EDITED FOR PUBLIC SHAMING

Dark reader indeed looks pretty damn good

Hi, can you please change my community name to FeelsBadMan so it can match my main alias/avatar (frog) ? Kinda getting sick of how often I end up using that "community avatar" that isn't the right community alias for promos and leagues and stuff, should have chosen that name from the start 😀 

@Leo-Unibet You don't have to explain yourself to us, we're just giving feedback (even though one feedback was a bit aggressive and drunk 🤣 )

I like the 20 levels idea for day 1, indeed it's probably better to end far from the money and let it pop on day 2, that's mostly why we gave this feedback, not for the 2 people returning on day2, but more because of the unnecesarily long day 1 given the circumstances. And yeah I assumed it was because people complained about the bubble and their feedback focused more on lets just burst it already :D , understandable.

As for having different setups for different buyins I understand where you're coming from, I have mixed feelings about this too, as low stakes players want to play good tournaments too, would definitly be against making them turbo, it just seems that the feedback is that thay're a bit too long for the very tiny prizes, and 10-12 for 1€ , 12-15 for 10€ with 15k chips still makes for a very well structured tournament compared to what else is available at their stakes (while very slow tournaments are more standard at the higher stakes), and it would also help making the total runtime more similar for the 4 tournaments despite the fact that the low ones have 3 to 4 times the entries,  and then you can make custom day1/day2 splits where day 1 ends at the same-ish time, but the lower ones are further along. Just an idea, dunno what is better, completely up to you what you consider is better, it's not something that affects me as I don't play the 1 , and I don't mind the 10 lasting however long, just basing this on a few personal anecdotes I've heard and lack any real data on what people prefer.

Overall I really liked these tournaments, quite enjoyable to play 👍

^ Just posting a short translation of the angry finnish message. We all probably agree that day 1 could have been shorter (less levels), ideally day 1 and day 2 would be roughly equal, so like for a 10 hour total runtime, 5 hour day 1 +5 hour day 2. This time the "new DSO" had half the stack size (great change IMO) and 2 extra levels of day 1, compared to the old DSO

Personally, other than the weird day 1 day 2 split which seems like an honest mistake, and that doesn't really affect me, I quite enjoyed the structure. a bit too deep at the start but got past that by lateregging an hour in.

Also it probably would make sense to have lower events a bit faster, like for the 1€ event, don't think almost anyone would complain if it were a 10 min day 1 12 min day 2, and for the 10€ maybe like 12min day 1 and 15 minute day 2. The prizes just aren't worth it for most, and these blind timers would still give a very good amount of play for the level of thournaments at those stakes, and it would make it easier to split day1s and day2s equally-ish across the board.

I know I know, his angry message didn't seem like it said all this, but deep down it really did 🤣

@Leo-Unibet 

I quite like the new proposed layout.

big BIG fan of the color coded ladder stat in the infobox, and the implementation of it, just having a samll bubble with the number color coded rather than having the entire box background color coded like party did it which looks a bit ugly and harder to read. if there's payjumps I'd just keep the number in that color coded box instead of explicitly writing ITM and let the colors do the talking.

then infobox as a whole is really nicely positioned here, and doesn't require different layouts that end up covering stuff so that's super nice.

break icon under the clock at the top seems decent too, sets it apart from the others and if I'm not mistaken it's a layout other sites have chosen too, if possible I'd also add an icon there (to the left of the break icon, maybe with the R/A+ icon from the lobby) with the time in minutes till the end of rebuy / till the addon break starts, and that can be hidden after that period ends. IMO that is really nice and relevant information to have that is quite hard to discern currently, you have to look in the tournament lobby to see how many levels of rebuy, then you have to look at the blind levels, multiply and add breaks, it's a major hassle for such an important piece of info.

The text is soooooo much clearer in the pinki version than in the live UI when resizing to the minimum table size, it's like wearing glasses for the first time and finally seeing right. Obv an image will scale down far better than programatic text so that's not really a fair critique of the current UI but Relax should REEEEALLLY look into some methods to make the scaling of text be much clearer at the minimum table size (on the major popular rezolutions hd, fhd, wqhd,4k), please. Would also be extra sweet if resizing would be dynamic in a way, where the most important elements like stack size for example get scaled down less than less important stuff like avatars, but I realize that's probably beyond the scope of this and probably not really worth the dev hours and the headache of managing the resizing across devices. 

One more comment of the scaling, it seems like the 3.0 UI scales down more aggresively than the previous client version, as in, when the table is big the elements are bigger / more visible than they used to be (which is used as a selling point of the new UI), but when you scale the table down to the minimum they are the same size or maybe even smaller than in the old version, which contradicts that selling point. Maybe there's a reason for this and maybe it wouldn't look great but I feel like having stuff be bigger at the minimum table size is even more important than when the table is in full screen (mostly interested in text elements with relevant info). If you could please look into this @Relax that would be great 😃

Personally I prefer the current timebank UI around the entire border rather than the new pinki design for it.

I really like the bigger 1x 2x etc buttons, and the small spacing between the action buttons.

The stack size numbers could be a bit bigger, current UI has them bigger and stars UI has them even bigger than the current one. It's the most important piece of info on the table aftert the bets/action.

For the action labels, from the ones proposed I prefer the one where the FOLD has a gray background and red text rather than red background, as it's less of a call to action and makes the entire table less jarring. Generally the new action labels look nice, but worried about 2 things: 

1. the fact that they cover the cards might be confusing, maybe it's something that one can adjust super quickly to.

2. some people might complain about all the color, which they have in the past (while others would like it), as the current version is more subtle, just the text being colored. Maybe having an option to switch between a more popping version and a more subtle version could be a fix for that, but then the fact that the cards aren't visible when the action label is shown can become a major problem in the subtle version as it would be harder to see who's still in the hand. 

it is not so

@4kev tickets got rounded up, so anyone between 1 and 25 games got 1 full ticket, 95 games played got 4 tickets , not 3.

and they gave away 1.5x the guarantee in adition to giving the guarantee a bit late  (nvm I thought it actually popped eventually) so that seems pretty generous, not a big fan of doing it as a freeroll in general, but considering that they set it up within a day, with all the other stuff going on, is pretty cool.

 @staneyyy read thy message again for thou answer cometh within 

---

@staneyyy wrote:

if that's the case, i stand corrected. yeah for sure they should get rewards, not free jackpots.

---

Well, with 1 ticket for every 25 games played, rounded up, the players that played the most have a major handicap compared to people that only played a couple of games already. The top player should have had 2000+ tickets if it were distributed evenly and fair, but they did think of giving the little guys a bit more of a chance already. Nobody is getting any free jackpot, probabilities are still probabilities and it's only fair that the ones that played and contributed the most have the highest chance to win.  Single digit ticket gang here 😀

18'th in a low