Pickleman

Yep - still says 6 now. Like I say, not an issue for me, but just so you know.

@Stubbe-Unibet not a big deal since I was nowhere near the money in the leaderboard, but I was given 6 leaderboard high points where I should have 9? (7 bounties + two tournaments entered). Only pointing out in case your system is missing things somehow.

So silver 11 for this week only the later four tournaments on Sunday are eligible (Because the earlier four are two days)?

@Andy-Unibet I've misclicked about bought a UO €10 MTT ticket rather than a generic MTT ticket. would you mind taking it back and crediting me with the bonus points? Many thanks.

I will proceed with bubble strategy as if it rounds down 🤓

Out of interest if 17% of pool is a fraction does it round down or up? So if there are 98 runners in the tournament does it give leaderboard points to 16 or 17 players?

Silver this week: finish in top 3 of a Winter Festival event

Oooh - so there'll be some PLO tournaments in the last week?

Final table a bounty MTT (at least 80 runners) without winning a single bounty This is a challenge for me (nit!). I've actually won a bounty MTT only collecting one bounty in the process, which of course is the minimum number possible.

I think his point is you can't win a hand with more than 2 hole cards used, so you don't need the "at least"

Yes, with the promos, make sure to state explicitly in the rules whether it's NLHE only. Some of the tasks would be much easier to get with PLO

If you wanted to reduce the late reg bunfight and reduce the edge the adders-on have over those who are not rolled or else not aware that it's rational to add on, you could always keep R/As but reduce the addon chip amount to the same as the buy in. That's the way addons used to be. It's just the poker providers migrated to double addon to make it even more value to add on (therefore increasing rake).

@Leo-Unibet there seems to be a winter series PLO tournament on 7th Feb, which is in the week after the PLO week. Dunno if it's a mistake or there will be PLO tournaments in the fourth week. Just pointing it out in case.

Well, I managed to win 9 flips in a row, but only got 600 bonus points because I cashed out twice in the middle. Is that running bad or running good? 🤪

Yeah we don't get anywhere near enough "HU4Rollz!" on this forum. I guess none of us a balla enough.

OK, thanks for confirming. I swear I had, but I'm obviously wrong!

Hi @Stubbe-Unibet - no that's a new one I picked up from the Xmas mission on the 14th. I had one before about 1-2 weeks ago?

Ha! I was about to say, that's probably why Stubbe wants to remove them!

I've pointed this out to Stubbe a while ago. Similar situation to you - taking a shot at a stake higher than my comfort zone and was just below the rebuy threshold. I suggested different colour boxes or even only one pop up window with separate buttons for rebuy and addon. Nothing doing so far . . . @Stubbe-Unibet?

I think I had a rake 10 get 5 playthrough pending that's now disappeared? I don't know if it expired (it's not supposed to, right?) but I doubt I used it because I've been in back-to-back other bonuses before it.

I don't assume anything of the sort. I was asking the question. Of course they know more than me, that's why I'm asking them the question. Nothing in my text assumes I know better. We're trying to be constructive here and help in the community so please be a bit less judgemental and conflagratory. By making accusatory, hypercritical statements about others (who you don't know, and clearly, whose texts you have not read thoroughly enough) is just going to make the community a lesser place. Why would be bother at all if when we make throw away statements like "have you tried ditching guarantees?" we are just going to be met with answers like "You seem to assume too much that providers know somehow less what their doing than you"

What I'm asking for is actual evidence that it would lessen the player pools. I get that we all think it would (that's why they exist in the first place). But when was the last time that anyone actually tested the hypothesis? And have things changed in poker since that time? And what about in the case of a small site which doesn't have guarantees to shout about?

Out of interest, how much do tournaments guarantees play in this issue? I kind of get the feeling that some tournaments get binned because they don't make the guarantees often enough. But if that's so, why not ditch guarantees altogether? I mean, when was the last time anyone actually checked whether they work or not? 2009? I remember the good old days on Microgaming circa 2004 when only the big weekly events had guarantees on them. The rest were just "the prize pool is what it is" And yes, I get it, the whole point of guarantees is to entice players to reg because "look at what you can win". But in the modern game does that work any more? And more to the point, if you're a small site with small fields like Unibet, if you follow this logic, then surely for Unibet, it doesn't because the guarantees are de facto so much smaller than the competition. Why not just ditch guarantees altogether? Surely the cost of running a tournament is virtually zero once the guarantee is taken out of the equation?

Not you personally…. Everyone

my point was in Omaha the equities are often closer than you think they might be. Hence the illusion of turns and rivers being manipulated somehow