avatarthief

Ok thanks. Just thought you would want to know that it isn't just the chip leader that sees their other alias in the middle. The attached hand was from the first and only table, the current chip leader at the time is in the top right.

This bug makes players able to see two of a player's aliases without using any skill. Fix this please, it's got no response in the bug report section.

So it's not just the chip leader, other people can see the wrong name too. I can now link a player to two aliases for no reason other than the game is bugged.

ok i will post it there

While playing at the Short-Stack Master competition, I have noticed that when I take the chip lead the alias name that appears in the middle of the table is often not the one I am using. This happens very frequently and this time it is not even the most recent alias name it was one from a few days ago. I have always seen other chip leaders being represented by the alias they are using so I doubt others are seeing the same as me, but given that I use many aliases and don't want connections being made between them it's still a little unnerving. Either way, it's a bug so I thought you should know about it.

Just found that when looking through loyalty details. Pretty sure they're the same ones since Stubbe said they had been incorporated into rakeback. Which answers all my questions.

It's been a month so I'll ask again in case you read it but then forgot to reply. Why is it not possible for these bonuses to be re-activated on my account? Am I right in thinking they are still active for all other players that want them?

Thanks. I wasn't saying the avatar should be removed, just that it has a lot of that potential. Not as much as the fish though, that's deadly.

It is on Unibet and I saw it this player on Tuesday playing PLO cash. It is the "S.W.A.T. team" avatar. You can only read "S.W." as the assault rifle gets in the way of the "A.T." and the lettering isn't obvious as it is the same colour as the reflected light. so unfortunately it is very easy for players to use it to make violent implications with their screen names. It's the same avatar that player used for their "WhiteSomali" character.

this avatar + this name = 🤮 the picture didn't post (can't find a way anymore for some reason), but the name was "Younguns" and the avatar was a balaclava'd person holding an assault rifle.

Apologies. I had never attempted to rebuy for 100BB 4 times in a row before so assumed someone could do that indefinitely if they wanted, which I shouldn't have. On the subject of cash game tickets, would Unibet ever consider making larger tickets available for a given stake?

Could you tell me why?

When it happens to me I can still buy in to the table for the same buy in with cash, just not with the ticket, which only ever allows 100BB (and that seems like the error in a nutshell). Also the system does not seem to punish ratholing when using actual cash, like AT ALL 😆

Since the update has happened now and the bonuses have been integrated into rakeback, could you re-activate the bonuses on my account?

Could you re-enable the bonuses on my account please?

I sent you a PM.

Remind me where to find that file please? *All of the documents in program files using "log" search were modified months ago. There were no connection issues at all (browser and other apps were connecting), I received the same two messages that other players were receiving during the issue on this thread (though I didn't get a screenshot of "login failed") and the down time lasted about 20-30 minutes I think. It might be a different issue but it doesn't seem to be about my connection and this is the first time.

The issue is not resolved it seems. I would like a refund for this tournament please.

I don't expect anything from Unibet, you are running a business and you are right that vulnerable people Should be protected in other ways, although in practice they aren't and they might not even be known. OCD itself can be a silent killer and you could not easily estimate just how many players on your site would be affected in this way, whether they have that condition or not, or how badly. I wanted to make you aware of the reality for some and hopefully, as people, be able to take it into consideration - especially if you think of taking further steps to incentivize volume in the future. I get that it's just a necessary part of this type of business but in terms of mental health there is an inverse correlation when you push it past a certain point. There are costs that won't turn up on spreadsheets so please be careful.

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.

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.

I reckon rather than a bug it is actually a cut corner in the software, i.e. the company did not see accurate equity calculations as being worth the cost of programming into the software. I think this because whatever equities are presented are rounded up/down to the nearest 2%, which is a cut corner in and of itself. We can't know though because Unibet has yet to give any details.

Stubbe I have seen you say many times that one of the main aims of (and attractions to) Unibet Poker is to reduce the disparity between skilled players and "recreational" players. Skilled players don't usually look at the equities, so - and correct me if I am wrong - it seems to me that showing incorrect equities to unskilled players could only be a benefit the skilled players.

The equity shown is based solely on the cards that are face-up. Have you ever seen someone with top set on a monotone board have less than 8% (or in NLHE have you ever seen someone with a pocket pair be all-in against a higher pair and have less than 4%)? That's because when all of the outs for turned boats / quads (or the other two cards of the lower pair's rank, for the NLHE example) are in folded hands, this is not factored into the equity calculation. I have spoken to Stubbe before about this and they described it as an error in the software that they intended to resolve. He didn't explain the error and so now (given that this was a while ago, the issue is not resolved, 25% is a massive error and explaining it does not create any real advantage to players based on skill) i am asking them to explain why the error is happening.