LCW

If a concrete hand example is of use: hand number 2074436046 from tonight.

During this hand the previous sequence ended and prizes were dealt. After that, I made quads on the river, played the hand til the end, and it never showed up as the leading hand, which it would have been for around 10 minutes until someone made bigger quads.

51 minutes ago, Seb-Unibet said:

Hi @LCW,

You are absolutely right. Prizes are handed out immediately after the 20 minutes. If your hand hasnt been finished within the time period, it will count for the next sequence. 

If you think there was an issue with one hand, can you please share the hand ID with us?

Because the setup looks alright and I can tell you that all eligible hands count - and if a hand starts in a first sequence but finishes in another one. It will always counted for the later on. Please let us know if you experienced any issue with a hand and we will check it.

Thanks

I actually haven't seen a hand that would have eventually held up as the best one not count towards the later sequence, so I haven't witnessed any high hand actually go to waste yet, if I'm right. But I've held quads once or twice, as well as a bunch of full houses when the time period has ended, only to see that a flush or something is still in the lead after like 2 minutes. Saw another player have a straight flush in one of those ongoing hands when the timer switched, that didn't end up on the leaderboard. At that point I still figured maybe he's geographically not eligible for the promotion. But since then, for a while now, if I've held or have noticed a full house or better during a sequence switch, I've started to check if it shows up on the "leaderboard" and it never seems to.

If you have tracked what hands were in the lead after x minutes, I'm sure I can dig up some hand histories that didn't hold top place in the beginning of a 20min sequence. But I don't have a hand history that would show a better hand than the hand that ended up as the best after the full 20 minutes.

As far as I can tell, the prizes are dealt immediately after the 20 minute timer goes to zero, so hands that have been dealt during that 20min period are obviously still going on as the prizes are dealt. But then, those ongoing hands that end too late don't seem to count towards the next 20 minute race either. Seems unintended?

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

On 2/1/2023 at 12:52 AM, bctrips said:

Also i think bonuses are good for traffic, but it has to be worth it and 5% might be questionable i think no matter how well player is doing. Especially if 5% bonus targets are players with better results i don't think many will accept bonuses like 9750-488, 8000-400, Its probably not worth pushing yourself  much more and add extra stress/deadlines just to get 5% which is like 1BI. If its just little more effort invested, like idk 6300k-315 then ok great for some, but to push yourself should be more reasonable risk : reward at least 10%. 

So if possible i would suggest if we now have 5%- 30%  maybe instead we have 10%-25% in future setups? Or something similar just so that min is 10%.  I cant imagine anyone getting 20% or 25% canceling bonus because its not 5% more,  but 5% and 10% is quite different (cancel right away  or chase difference).

Im curious what everyone else think ? Do u agree, or not ? 🙂

 

Agreed.

I'd assume that for most, chasing the rake goal over the 14 day period is pretty much a daily ordeal and/or at least a constant little stressor in the back of one's mind. Will also probably lead to some compromises regarding other interests or social life, as well as stop-losses and tilt-management.

For me it would most likely be:

20%: Great, this is a no-brainer.

10%: Well, I guess we're gonna be doing this now.

5%: Meh, doesn't really tip the scale.

9 hours ago, Stubbe-Unibet said:

I can confirm the graph is 100% correct 🙂

SHould be mentioned elsewhere in thread that it's with the BP multiplier carry-over taken into consideration.

I see. I went through thread months ago, but only dug up the graph this time.

So in other words, any point in the graph is with the assumption that you ended up at that level the last period as well, if I'm understanding it correct now?

On 3/14/2022 at 5:31 PM, Stubbe-Unibet said:

@LCW no, the graph is showing total rakeback i.e. total rakeback received as a share of total rake paid, up until and including the level in question.

Rakeback for the last level is for instance +95%. I know this is different to how some competitors show rakeback, but I believe this gives a more accurate picture 🙂 

Right, that makes sense, and I agree it's a good way of showing it.

My nitpicky side couldn't help but notice that the steep rise from level 6-3 to 7-0 doesn't really make sense. You're still getting 40k bonus points with 12% extra reaching 7-0, which is the same as the steps before, so the first steep escalation shouldn't start happening until you're starting to progress from 7-0 to 7-1, no? I guess the same would apply to some other parts of the graph like the move from 5 to 6.

On 7/1/2021 at 8:56 PM, Stubbe-Unibet said:

You're getting something wrong 😉 Below the graph from my original post on the loyalty system:

 

Shouldn't the blue graph (New Loyalty) be totally flat between 7 and 7-6?

confirmed unibet switches the doomswitch on for naughty usernames, so if u have one at your table just enjoy and take their money

so far, the only one that's gotten a little chuckle out of me was TaggySits