Pickleman

@Stubbe-Unibet10 mins to go until the super qualifier starts. Any news on the Merenitsu special? As it stands three of us are tied on 4 reactions. Ticket each? 😇🤣

May not look like *such* a terrible beat until you realise this pot is on the (pure) bubble of E85 - so it's bubble boy or chip leader: wait for it . . . .

+1 I know it's a bit selfish as a money making player to not like RB systems that redistribute more to losing players, and I totally get that you're doing it to sustain those players, but those RB systems are a bit scary and just make me think those sites are a bit dodgy (however wrong that thought is).

OOH I like your version. But yes, you're really stuffed with the criterion that the UI needs to have similarity/compatibility across all platforms, significantly mobile gaming. I agree with your first sentence. So we just need a simple, elegant, transparent way to present the multiplier rewards visually. How about base reward and level bonus?

I think the problem Unibet are trying to solve is how to have a loyalty system which appeals to both high and low raking players. Frilly, gamified bits = low raking players $$$ = high raking players The problem with the old system was that high rakers had to go through all the small stakes levels each quarter, with very little of value to them while they did - they wouldn't have gotten to above 25% RB until they'd raked about 9k, and probably wouldn't have bothered with all the freerolls and €1 tickets. The new system means they get 25%RB+ effective from the off. Unibet have solved the problem by having a second tier of bonuses which depends on your level of rake. But I absolutely agree with you - a one-stream RB system would be much more elegant. Stars solves this problem your way: have rewards based on your level, and you keep your level as long as you rake a certain amount in a certain period. The problem is that Unibet are committed to the quarterly rake system as it ties in with their UO/UOS system. If they'd turned around and said: OK level 6 and 7 players keep their level, but everyone else has to level up each quarter (so they get the gamefied bits), it might have alienated the low stakes players and felt less inclusive? Would be really interesting to hear the thoughts of @Stubbe-Unibet et al on this subject.

To clear up these questions and misunderstandings about how the multiplier rewards bonuses work, perhaps have a tab somewhere which keeps a history of these payouts? I know it's another tab, and that's not elegant, but if people can see how often they get these rewards and what they were, they'll be able to work it all out more easily. Maybe it can be on the history tab like the challenges used to be? Or somewhere on the loyalty tab alongside the level rewards? I mean, I get why you haven't done this . . . by the time you get to level 7, that's literally 1000s of notifications. But there must be an elegant solution. Maybe total pay out so far, this quarter plus dates/times of the last 20 payouts? Dunno

As I pointed out in a previous post, the effective rakeback for level 7-9 (taken as a standalone) is almost 96%, so there's no way Unibet were going to give 3000e per equivalent-sized jump in loyalty points there on up. But props for getting to level 7-9. And pretty damn quickly too! And props to @Stubbe-Unibetfor telling it how it is. There's very little motivation for Unibet to keep money making players playing at their site. I guess the only proper argument in favour is liquidity?

Point 4 under Game Lab is absolutely spon on.

@Leo-Unibet Just seen the schedule for UOS 13. It includes an Omaha tournament (E22/23/24) which starts at the earlier time and has 10 min blinds. Thank you for listening to us - this kind of thing is what makes Unibet the best. Sadly I'm not free that night, but I really hope the tournament is a success and a decent structure Omaha tournament remains a feature of the UOS. Omahaphiles - if you want a decent structured major Omaha tournament make sure you promote this tourney! If these tournaments get loads of runners then Unibet will put more of them on.

I can't find the schedule for the UOS 13 even though it's supposed to be in this release. Is it not there yet?

Hello all. Now the summer series is over I have to get excited about the next series . . . So the preliminary date for the UO is 26th Sept. Does that mean we're looking at 11th Sept - 26th Sept for the next UOS?

but you don't need to earn 4,365,500 to go *FROM* level 7-8 *TO* 7-9 because that's the cumulative total right? you only need 385,000 points. I mean if you had to rake €39805 then it would be like 10% rakeback or something, and it's supposed to be about 50%

OK, I figured as much. So can I get a bit more explanation as to what I'm getting wrong? Here's how I interpreted the table: To get to level 7-9 from level 7-8 you need to rake 385,000 points (i.e. 4,365,500 - 3,980,500 points) which is equivalent to EUR3850 in rake. When you do that, you get a level reward of EUR3000 plus you also get a multiplier bonus of 69,300 points (which is equivalent to EUR693)? You can see where I got the 96% from! But I'm guessing that's ridiculous, I just don't get where I've gone wrong. Would be helpful to know because it presumably applies to the other levels too!

Am I getting something wrong, or is the effective rakeback at level 7-9 almost 96%?! I'll never get to that level of course, I am just interested!

someone's already busted so I'm guessing it is too late

@Leo-Unibet bounties in the UOS PLO mid (i.e. 50e buy in) are showing at 2.35e. Too late to fix this I'm guessing?

Bit late to be asking, as I'm on the bubble right now, but is there a bubble buster freeroll is this UOS (XII)? @Leo-Unibet @Stubbe-Unibet

Will the new graphics be tested in Omaha too? Currently, in the hand replayer the winner's chips always obscure their left-most card which is a pain in the neck

This tournament had only this one hand played at this table. In which case I think the "nearest dealer button" rule prevails? @Stubbe-Unibet ?

Well, I don't know for sure what happened, but I'm guessing it is the following: If more than one person busts in a hand, the order of payment in a tournament for the busted players is NOT how good their hands were, but how many chips they started the hand with, in other words it could go something like this: Player A - 10k chips (wins with straight flush) Player B 9k chips (Ace high) Player c 8k chips (quads) Player d 7k chips (full house) If they all went in, player A wins the pot and therefore everyone else busts, but Player B cashes AHEAD of players C and D by virtue of starting the hand with more chips. It may be a funky rule, but it's applied universally in tournaments around the world.

The leaderboards are still on the website. Go to unibet>poker>poker promotions>UOS online series XI then you'll see the leaderboards lower down the page

I always thought that the reason that Omaha tournaments were "demoted" to the later slot was because the number of runners were lower. But it seems that the numbers for the later NLHE tournaments are about the same. Can we have just one Omaha tournament with a decent structure, one that isn't a shovefest around the bubble? While hold em players enjoy 12m, even 15m blinds, we have 6m, in a poker variant which needs to be deeper to play properly. Start at the earlier time, 10k chips, 10 min blinds. Or else 10 mins blinds but with rebuy or re-enter structure. It really isn't too much to ask to have ONE tournament out of a series of 145 that is a decent Omaha structure.

I tell you what, I won't be sad to see the back of some of these major challenges. I've played 3000 hands on my current major challenge and only 6/10 of the way through. They're supposed to take 1000 hands:scared: I know I can skip it, but it's a bit late for that now!

Actually ratholing does confer an advantage to the ratholer. If we consider that there are two general ways of making a profit in poker 1) having value and betting it, 2) having a worse hand but bluffing it - the second of these is massively reduced when the opponent is short stacked. In fact, it's relatively straightforward to devise a strategy of "fold most things, but when you have enough equity, commit" which works for a short stack but for which there is too much jeopardy when deep stacked. Rolf Slotboom wrote an entire book on it for Omaha! It's basically an implied odds/reverse implied odds issue. So it's not just an ethical dimension, it's actually bad for the game to let shortstackers (consistently) get away with it. For sure, sites allow short stacks so that less-rolled players can take a shot, or play more comfortably at higher stakes at least. Taking steps to mitigate ratholing is a way to reduce money going out of the player pool to what is essentially a cookie-cutter way of making money for some types of player.

I did it AGAIN FFFFFFFFFFFFFSSSSSSS im not asking for another ticket swap I guess this is god's way of telling me not to bother keeping my normal Mtt tickets. But please tell me something will be done. If I can do this twice knowing what the problem is this is obviously something that needs to be fixed