Stubbe-Unibet

We're considering making the satellites (not the finals) re-entry or re-buy. What's your issue with it being re-entry? I understand why you wouldn't want them to become addon. Shouldn't be a problem with the UK tour, but will need to discuss it with the team :)

Given the feedback in the thread, these are the rules I'd go with, if we were to implement it today: Exchangers an opt-in service (can request access by email or in a dedicated thread)Daily exchangers instead of weeklyNo exchangers for € 250 ticketsIf you’ve got more than x tickets, you’re not allowed to exchange further ticket to that level:Once you have 20 tickets at € 2 and € 1 level (20 tickets for each level), you’re not allowed to exchange further tickets to this levelOnce you have 20 tickets at € 10 and € 4 level (20 tickets for each level), you’re not allowed to exchange further tickets to this level – so once you’ve got 20 €10 tickets and win a € 50 ticket, you’ll be forced to play the € 50 ticket (unless you lose more € 10 tickets so you’ve got less than 20 again)You're not allowed to have more than 20 (haven't decided on the exact cap for this one) €50 tickets, if you're making use of the exchangersPossibly a slightly shorter expiry date on € 50 tickets You'll be removed from the eligible list, if you're found to breach the T&C (we'll of course be reasonable here) @jerry, @FeelsBadMan, @FreedoM, @Merenitsu thoughts?

The goal of hoarding is to minimize your risk and to not go broke! And with the proposed structure that definitely is possible; not to go broke. You can have several hundred buyins for the lowest level. Is there going to be more risk? Yes, when we "force" people to take shots at higher levels, there naturally will be, but in terms of going broke I don't really think so. You risk setbacks you wouldn't have before, but you don't really risk going broke, when you've got 500 buyins :) Let's assume you're not allowed to exchange UO250s, Uo50s last for 6 months and there's a cap for UO10s (be it 10, 15 or 20 tickets) in order to be allowed to exchange tickets. What's about to happen now? Actually, it's pretty simple: The goal of hoarding is to minimize your risk and to not go broke! Let's say you attract new and old players that play the satellites and exchange the tickets. The highest "basecamp" for these players will be the UO10s. These games will be the "motor" for the hoarders now as you give them no incentive to become a regular at the UO50s. Under your proposal, using a UO50 ticket automatically means that you either lose it or you have to go on, play the UO250s and win the live package. The probability for an average player to have a UO50 ticket and turn it into a live package is 1 in 49,42. Roughly speaking, you need 50 Uo50 tickets to secure a live package. Under your proposal, playing a UO50 leads to a significantly negative result in 49 out of 50 cases. And you expect people to line up to take a shot? Let's assume you're a profitable hoarder with 10 % ROI at the UO10s (which is pretty solid). In order to win one UO50 ticket, you need to play 50 UO10s. That's a lot of time and effort one needs to invest. It's one thing to take a shot at the UO50s, knowing that you can always trade back down but nobody is going to throw away these tickets like it's nothing for a 2 % chance. Here's what's going to happen under your ill-fated proposal: Some people will start playing the UO10s and exchange their tickets until they reach the cap. Once they're capped out (doesn't matter whether it's at 10 or 20 tickets), the hoarders will then save their additional value in the form of UO50 tickets and exchange these UO50s back into Uo10s once they fall below the cap. Making sure they can constantly register for the UO10s with fresh tickets. For a savvy regular, it doesn't matter whether he has 45 UO10 tickets in his account or 20 UO10s AND 5 UO50s, it's both 450 Euro in UO tickets and only a question of experienced ticket management.The cap you proposed is actually totally useless.... The other big problem however is that due to your "reform proposal", you keep winning players in the UO10 and maybe even in the UO2 pool, making the games tougher for the casuals you want to protect. As I mentioned before, for winning hoarders, these two levels are now the "motor" for any satellite success. Is that really what you had in mind? You certainly have some valid points here, but it's all with a very conservative approach in mind, which I don't think is very applicable when speaking about the exchangers as a whole. Yes, the cap might not work, if the player stop playing the € 2 tournaments and only play € 10, but would you really stop playing the € 2 tournaments, if you're at the € 10 level? Guess some additional rules might be needed then :) Let's say we will need limitations for the previously mentioned reasons, what would you suggest? The other big problem however is that due to your "reform proposal", you keep winning players in the UO10 and maybe even in the UO2 pool, making the games tougher for the casuals you want to protect. As I mentioned before, for winning hoarders, these two levels are now the "motor" for any satellite success. Is that really what you had in mind? This is always going to be the issue with the exchangers, no matter how we implement them, and it is the main reason they were removed. The impact will obviously depend on the actual implementation. In terms of this aspect, we should never have exchangers, but in a way they're a necessary evil that does have it benefits :)

With the ticket exchanges we consistently had overlay in the finals (significant overlay) and we have to prevent the excessive ticket hoarding and force the € 50 tickets to be used when it's reasonable. We do Not benefit from the excessive hoarding. I don't see the correlation between ticket exchanges and overlays in the finals. Let's not forget one thing: During the ticket exchange era, you were offering 6 packages a week. You decreased that number to 5 now (through the backdoor). If things don't change, you'll have to reduce the number of packages to 4 in the near future, as you barely break even right now in the 250s. Hitting the GTD was much more difficult during the exchange era. The exchangers did impact the overlay in the finals.You post is pretty much one big exaggeration, which doesn't help you. The trend is negative, and there's obviously a reason we're considering bringing back the exchanges, but it's far from being as bad as the picture you're painting. I'm exaggerating, they said! Significant overlay was due to the ticket exchangers, they said! 34 entries in the UO250 yesterday for a 1500 Euro overlay after the first full week of not subsidizing the UO50s from Mon-Sat anymore. That was quick. But I guess this is also the hoarders' fault... Let's not go around in circles :) We've already discussed this and you bring nothing new to the table. It's not simple and we never said it was solely due to the exchangers, but it is a factor as I've explained in the previous posts. Just 5 hoarders will win about 12 € 250 tickets a week (this is assuming they play all € 50 tournaments or there's overlay). It's not rocket science that this will have a significant impact if the players are conservative and don't play the finals but exchange to € 50 tickets. Then @FeelsBadMan is obviously right - again, we're going around in circles and already covered this - that this is a temporary situation, as these players will move on eventually, but we do have new players starting to exchange, and then it's a real issue and planning is more difficult. The funny thing is that with the new exchange rules being proposed here (no exchanges of UO250s, reduced "durability" for the UO50s, limit on UO10s and UO2s a player is allowed to keep to be eligible for exchanges) the liquidity will surely not improve at the 50s and the 250s, however the games are probably going to be tougher for the casual and recreational players at the lower levels of the tree. Don't think we'll touch the expiry date on the € 50 ones :) I'm not sure why you think the liquidity won't improve at the higher levels? Sure, in the beginning it won't (it'll likely have a negative impact, but that's not because of the limitations we're proposing), but eventually players will move on and take shots at the higher levels, if they're winning at the lower levels and have accumulated the max allowed quantity of tickets. Guess your assumption is that not a single player will see any benefit in the proposed setup/the ones making use of the exchangers last year won't start playing again/play more? I don't think this is a fair assumption, even though it might apply to you. We did have several players who did A LOT of exchanges but had a very aggressive BRM. Looking at the numbers for these players, I'm sure it'll have a positive impact, and even for some of the more conservative players I believe it'll have an impact, when comparing to todays situation.

@RayL, just give me € 50 cash at the office instead ;)

10 to 15 limit for 10e and 50e would do for me (maybe at least 10e? for example im sitting on 19x10e and probably there are people with many more). @WuDu is mostly right but what i like that Unibet is trying to meet us halfway. Maybe if i dont understand in the full the reasoning i can appreciate making the tickets last for 6months which was fantastic gesture and now those exchangers (make them work next week! 😉). Even with those limits (again 10 seem little too low) there is leeway to work with for everyone. The rumour of bringing back exchangers already made some impact 10e sat from 19;25CET. The day before im pretty sure it was 6/7 people and there are times this doesnt even start. 19 people is like good old days👍 25 * of both € 10 and € 2 tickets will probably be okay, but need to discuss it with the team. In the initial proposal from me, there wasn't a limitation on the number of € 50 tickets you can have, as you can't exchange the € 250 tickets - will naturally be limited by the expiration date though.

5th or 12th of May I'd assume, but I'm not sure about this. @1needgoodflop1

That's a fair summary, but we didn't "lose many players". We're talking a low number of players with a high volume. I believe 10 and 20 buyins respectively is reasonable. With the ticket exchanges we consistently had overlay in the finals (significant overlay) and we have to prevent the excessive ticket hoarding and force the € 50 tickets to be used when it's reasonable. We do Not benefit from the excessive hoarding. At the end of the day, what matters is that we get cash buyins into the system equal to the value of the final GTD. Why do you need 100 tickets at each level? Present some proper arguments if you want to change anything :) Ticket hoarders were willing to pay 11 % in rake over and over again, actively decreasing overlays, giving you the chance to offer higher guarantees at every level below the 250s. They also didn't take money out of the system as long as they were exchanging. To me, that sounds very beneficial to you guys. It's like a bank customer who doesn't withdraw. I don't see the correlation between ticket exchanges and overlays in the finals. Let's not forget one thing: During the ticket exchange era, you were offering 6 packages a week. You decreased that number to 5 now (through the backdoor). If things don't change, you'll have to reduce the number of packages to 4 in the near future, as you barely break even right now in the 250s. Hitting the GTD was much more difficult during the exchange era. As I said before, you don't understand the reasoning behind exchanging tickets at all. At the lower levels, you do it in order to build up a bankroll for the next level. You might argue that no one needs 100 UO10 tickets as you can only play 5 a day. That's correct, however the goal is to have enough tickets to play on the next level. 100 UO10s have the same value as 20*UO50s. And to me that's the minimum amount I'd like to have in order to play at a certain level in order to protect my bankroll and to minimize my risk. The changes you proposed don't go far enough and will not help you get back any of the players you lost. You said that you want to "force" people to act in a certain way (here: to use their Uo50s). Seriously, what's wrong with you guys? :Speechless: Unibet is not running a monopoly, you have to give people an incentive to act in a certain way. Again, ticket hoarders are a positive thing for Unibet, not a negative. Collecting tickets takes discipline and assuming you're a winning player, it's only a matter of time until playing at a certain level becomes stale and you're looking to move up. In the end, playing the qualifiers over and over again doesn't generate any profit for you unless you make it to the live tournament. The idea that you can impose certain rules and force people to act in a certain way led to the collapse of the UO satellite system in the first place. You want to give people a reason to play the finals? Find ways to make the live tournament more attractive. You want to protect players at the lower levels of the satellite tree? Make sure Uo250s/UO50s can only be exchanged to Uo50s/UO10s and not further down the tree. The weekly GTD last week was 28,7k. Week 15 of 2018 it was 29.8k. Just before the exchangers were stopped it was 30k.Some guys exchanging did take money out of the system, and one thing the ticket hoarders have in common is close to 0 cash buyin. As I've mentioned before, it's ultimately about getting the same cash in the system as we have as GTD in the finals. There are other benefits, but the cash buyin is not directly positively impacted by the exchangers in their old format.The overlay in the past couple of months has not been higher than just before the exchangers were stopped. We've simply moved the overlay from the 250's to the 50's. Looking at the same period of last year, this year has been really bad though, when looking at overlay. A long list of factors influence the overlay, so this number alone doesn't say a whole lot, but I have looked properly into the impact of the stop of the exchangers. The exchangers did impact the overlay in the finals.You post is pretty much one big exaggeration, which doesn't help you. The trend is negative, and there's obviously a reason we're considering bringing back the exchanges, but it's far from being as bad as the picture you're painting.Again, I am open to discussions around the limitations. I really don't think we can ever agree on bringing back the exchangers without limitations, even though I personally think it'd be an interesting experiment :)

Other factors influencing the overlay. Definitely! We can't - and don't think the guys were back then - solely blame the exchangers for the final overlay. However, it did have an impact. You're totally right that if we had a set number of guys exchanging and we never had new customers starting to do this, the impact on the final wouldn't really be there. The guys winning would eventually (for some it'd take way too long, not because of a lack of skill but a very concervative approach) move up and play the finals, and the ones who were struggling to move up would help with liquidity, rake etc. (cash buyin still an issue here though, and that is the main factor). BUT, we did have new customers starting to exchange, and some of these were hoarding A LOT of tickets. It really doesn't take more than a few of these players to make things difficult, if there're no limitations, and they do hoard an excessive amount. I don't think it's a secret I've always liked the exchangers, but I've also seen the issues. We can definitely discuss where exactly the limits should be, but there has to be limits, and 100 buyins at every level is not the answer :)

The main purpose of the ticket exchange - from my perspective - is to allow someone to get a real shot at qualifying with very little investment and risk. 100 buyins isn't needed :) Thanks for saying my argument wasn't proper. I'm really appreciate that behaviour and I always enjoy the friendly air of the community. Glad to be here. Little investment and risk never will met. You generally won't be able to win your 20% chance 3-4 times in a row. The dynamincs, the players, the structure are diverse at the various levels. You can't adapt it if you are a hobby player. With other words you have to change your bet sizes/ your playing style/your playing hands/steal cards when you sit at the €2 and at the €50 qualifier. You can do it, if you are the one of the million guy. I meant no disrespect, but you should know by now that I don't sugarcoat things for you :) @FeelsBadMan responded to most of the things in your posts, so if there's something you'd like me to address, let me know :)

Why do you need 100 tickets at each level? Present some proper arguments if you want to change anything :) https://www.cardschat.com/f59/mtt-brm-how-many-buy-ins-275565/ The majority says 100 buyin is optimal. The UO sats are small field tournaments and the steps are only 5x (2>10>50>250), so that doesn't apply here. Furthermore, please note that we're not attempting to cater for someone with a really conservative brm; the excessive hoarding is not in our interest :) Please don't do this. You have written previously that you need an argument. Now you just want to skip it, beacuse that doesn't fit to your preconception. You also said that you doesn't want excessive hoarders. If so then why do you want to see arguments which supports the 100 tickets/level option? @psrquack exactly what @@Caladrias said. I did say to present proper arguments, not any argument. You can have 100 buyins at the lowest level - even several hundred - if you look at the total ticket value. The main purpose of the ticket exchange - from my perspective - is to allow someone to get a real shot at qualifying with very little investment and risk. 100 buyins isn't needed :)

Why do you need 100 tickets at each level? Present some proper arguments if you want to change anything :) https://www.cardschat.com/f59/mtt-brm-how-many-buy-ins-275565/ The majority says 100 buyin is optimal. The UO sats are small field tournaments and the steps are only 5x (2>10>50>250), so that doesn't apply here. Furthermore, please note that we're not attempting to cater for someone with a really conservative brm; the excessive hoarding is not in our interest :)

Can't say yet :) Yes, if you have 9 * €10 tickets, you can exchange a €50 ticket without a problem :)

So basically the maximum amount of ticket value a player can have is 100 Euro in UO10s and 40 Euros in Uo2s before exchanges are blocked again? With the trade off being the UO50s expiring earlier? To paraphrase LL Cool J, I wouldn't call that a comeback. In my opinion, this is not a smart idea, because you're trying too much here and artificially create rules that'll "probably" backfire again. It baffles me that after almost 6 months, you still have not understood why you lost so many players... A smart idea would be to allow exchanges at all levels, however come up with a solution, so that UO50 regulars are not playing the UO2s or UO10s with exchanged tickets. That would give the players the freedom to build their UO bankroll (if they want to) while also giving some protection to the lower stakes. That's a fair summary, but we didn't "lose many players". We're talking a low number of players with a high volume. I believe 10 and 20 buyins respectively is reasonable. With the ticket exchanges we consistently had overlay in the finals (significant overlay) and we have to prevent the excessive ticket hoarding and force the € 50 tickets to be used when it's reasonable. We do Not benefit from the excessive hoarding. At the end of the day, what matters is that we get cash buyins into the system equal to the value of the final GTD. Why do you need 100 tickets at each level? Present some proper arguments if you want to change anything :)

I'm afraid I don't really understand your question. It's actually pretty simple. If you have 20 or more € 2 tickets, you can't exchange a € 10 ticket to € 2 ticket. If you've got 10 €10 tickets, you're not allowed to exchange a € 50 ticket to € 10 :) If you have 2, 7, 15 or 19 € 2 tickets, you can exchange a € 10 ticket to € 2 tickets.

For now just UO, but UK tour could of course be added as well; we haven't discussed this in detail :)

What's not clear? Happy to explain :)

First of all I just want to say we really do appreciate all the feedback in this thread, and we have been listening - at least to some of you ;) Deciding to remove the exchangers was not an easy decision, and we're now in a situation where we're considering bringing them back, but we can't bring them back in the same format as last year. We've been discussing the setup with a group of members, and if we are to bring the exchangers back, it'll be with a setup like this: Daily exchangers instead of weeklyNo exchangers for € 250 ticketsIf you’ve got more than x tickets, you’re not allowed to exchange further ticket to that level:Once you have 20 tickets at € 2 and € 1 level (20 tickets for each level), you’re not allowed to exchange further tickets to this levelOnce you have 10 tickets at € 10 and € 4 level (10 tickets for each level), you’re not allowed to exchange further tickets to this level – so once you’ve got 10 €10 tickets and win a € 50 ticket, you’ll be forced to play the € 50 ticket (unless you lose more € 10 tickets so you’ve got less than 10 again)Possibly a slightly shorter expiry date on € 50 tickets Would love to hear your feedback on the above. I personally think it's a good compromise where we don't end up with people hoarding a hundred tickets at one level, but at the same time we offer a much safer way to play the satellites with a very limited initial bankroll - we acknowledge that by removing the exchangers, we did make it significantly less interesting to try to qualify for a small group of customers, a group of customers we'd love to see at Unibet Open. The exchangers have their advantages and disadvantages, and it's not as black or white as it's often been made out to be in this thread. For all the other off-topic discussions above, I'm happy to take those, but it should be in another thread :)

@jerry, a new deck of cards is unfortunately significantly more complex (will have to be added to settings etc.) than a simple background. The provider is currently investigating the exact scope of a new deck of cards :) Let's keep this thread on topic and take these other discussions elsewhere :D

No worries, I totally get that you think the other is significantly more important, and if both of these improvements were with the same team, I would agree with you :)

@wwaanneess these two are not related in any way and depend on different teams, but I hear you :)

Looking back at old threads and feedback from the past, more simple table designs have often been requested, so I thought I'd create a thread (after @Esir reminded me) dedicated to this question: what kind of design, if any, would you like to see added to the client? What's your personal favorite and which designs don't you like? This will also be your opportunity (tagging a few design wizards: @MrBandes , @pinki , @jerry) to submit your own proposal for a new table design that might be added to the client :)

https://www.unibetcommunity.com/t5/Bug-Reports/Instant-browser-poker-not-good/idc-p/237183

Nübel, the new Neuer. Just hope we can keep him for a few more years. Didn't watch the full first half as I had to deal with that freeroll, but Schalke were dominating in the 2nd half, and I think a draw was deserved.

The 2nd December was a mistake, sorry about that. Got confirmed it was supposed to say the 1st :)