avatarthief

2 hours ago, Stubbe-Unibet said:

It's got no response because it isn't prioritized at the moment. I'll update the bug report when we get to this one 

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.

On 26/03/2024 at 01:25, Stubbe-Unibet said:

https://www.unibetcommunity.com/bugreports/

Feel free to add it to the bug reports section, then it'll be reviewed and feedback added. I've got some thoughts on identities and leaderboards I'll share 🙂

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.

On 26/03/2024 at 01:25, Stubbe-Unibet said:

https://www.unibetcommunity.com/bugreports/

Feel free to add it to the bug reports section, then it'll be reviewed and feedback added. I've got some thoughts on identities and leaderboards I'll share 🙂

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.

On 7/31/2023 at 2:30 PM, player12322 said:

On the rakeback info page it says

"Upon reaching level 4, you unlock the possibility of receiving bi-weekly playthrough bonuses for a cashback boost of up to 35%! These bonuses come with a rake/fee requirement, which must be met to unlock the cash reward. You are not guaranteed to receive bonuses and the cash value can vary between bonuses. The bonuses pay 5% to 35% cashback. "

Are these "rake x, get y" bonuses different from the text above? As I got these bonuses before I reached level 4 aswell. 

@Stubbe-Unibet

 

Thanks

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.

On 6/12/2023 at 9:51 PM, Stubbe-Unibet said:

Afraid that's not possible at the moment

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?

On 7/21/2023 at 9:55 AM, Andy-Relax said:

This one? Seems to be part of the normal avatar set as I found it on my test account and it doesn't have any special avatars assigned to it. 

While any avatar might make it easier to get whatever dumb, T&C breaking reference the player is trying to make across, they're not offensive on their own. There are multiple avatars holding guns of some sort and lots more holding various other potential weapons (Hammers, swords, blunt objects, fish) so unless there is some wider company desire to remove all references to these thing from the client I think they'll end up staying.

I've cleaned up some of the reported aliases in the thread.

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.

On 7/19/2023 at 8:53 AM, GR1ZZL3R said:

  @avatarthief I'm not sure where you've seen this avatar but I don't think it's on UB.

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.

On 6/12/2023 at 9:46 PM, Stubbe-Unibet said:

Ratholing mitigation is working fine. See specs here: 

 

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?

On 6/12/2023 at 9:51 PM, Stubbe-Unibet said:

Afraid that's not possible at the moment

Could you tell me why?

On 6/3/2023 at 9:54 PM, GR1ZZL3R said:

 

 

 

   I had this happen a few times and as I remember the explanation it was because the system thinks you are trying to "rathole" even when you are not.

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 😆

On 5/29/2023 at 7:52 AM, Stubbe-Unibet said:

Bonuses no longer canceled on request in this thread or through support. Active bonus can be canceled in the client from today.

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

On 4/27/2023 at 8:02 AM, Stubbe-Unibet said:

Strange. Sorted now 🙂 

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

10 minutes ago, Stubbe-Unibet said:

Can see your ISP had a problem at the time of the disconnect - at least significant increase in reported issues (and at a time where there're usually few). The error message happens when there's no connection and I can confirm our servers were fine at the time (as you can see in your hand history, you were the only one having issues). 

There's a full guide here: 

But in this case there's no point really and the log file won't give anything useful

I sent you a PM.

11 hours ago, Stubbe-Unibet said:

Please send your log file by PM

And yes, issue is resolved, but this is a somewhat generic error message which can for instance show when customer has a connection issue.

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.

6 hours ago, Stubbe-Unibet said:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

20 hours ago, SShcherbyna said:

I hope this is a bug with the display

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.

On 1/16/2023 at 7:59 PM, Stubbe-Unibet said:

product block

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.

3 hours ago, SShcherbyna said:

@avatarthiefYes, indeed, if you put it into the calculator, it shows 7.5% instead of 10%.

  Reveal hidden contents

The Unibet client can see these "dead" hands

  Reveal hidden contents

 

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.

In this hand the equity shown is 2.5% off the actual equity. That's a 25% error in this case, which is the biggest I have seen yet and is very significant. Could you please explain why these errors are happening?

Still getting this error actually, although it seems 43 other players are able to join that game. Is there an issue with playing just in the UK?