Pickleman

Yes I do hope you cross-check all your "rigged" posts with the ones where you flop the one out in the deck that gets you paid:haha:

That'll teach me to make the dinner before the tournament. Made the same mistake on Monday with the UOS PLO25

any reply to this? Of course, the one tournament I forget to reg in my alias is the one I'm winning @Stubbe-Unibet I'm currently regged as ltrllythfmt in case you're feeling generous

Is there any way to change your alias once you've already regged for a tournament? I've forgotten to reg as my alias

The cliff's notes from that link I posted is that you should expect to win five flips in a row once every 62 trials. and also: wins in a row. expected no. of flips to hit 1 2 2 6 3 14 5 62 10 2046

If it were true that the prize was always double what you started with, you should be indifferent to flipping - it would be just a 50:50 gamble on doubling your prize. However, some stages give you more than double: so when you've got 40 bonus points for example, the next flip is for 1e hexapro. That's more than double your money so it's rational to flip. The prizes increment like this - more than doubling every now and then - all the way to the top. In other words, if you assume you had infinite flips, it would always be rational to gamble - the highest prize is the highest ROI. BUT, you don't have infinite flips, so it's a risk of ruin problem. These problems are pretty complicated mathematically (I had to google the formula because I couldn't work it out myself 😃)*. So instead of working out the optimum stage to aim for given how many flips you have, it's best just to pick a "more than double" prize target stage you're comfortable with (based on the number of flips you have and how gambly you're feeling) and keep flipping till you reach it, then cash out. * if anyone is interested in the maths, knock yourself out 🤣 https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/364038/expected-number-of-coin-tosses-to-get-five-consecutive-heads

@Stubbe-Unibet Hi Stubbe, Still getting the following bugs with the mobile (ipad) version: 1. Resizing/text size issues when going freom landscape to portrait or vice versa - app defaults to small size text and won't go back. 2. Search box becomes large when you click on it, and won't disappear when you click elsewhere, obscuring the Omaha/Hold em buttons. 3. Occasional login fail when you allow the app to lapse and log itself out. On relogin attempt it severally says "you're logged into another device . . . " or "you're logged out" and won't log you back in no matter how many times you repeat. Have to kill app and reopen to login. 4. Occasional inability to put in a password for password-entry tournaments. Text box appears, but can't put text in. Have to kill app to reset - going to another page and coming back doesn't work. Also - a more global request - in rebuy tournamemnts, is it possible to have the rebuy/add-on options for a tournament either appear on the same box simultaneously (as they do in some other software) with checkboxes so that rebuy and add on options are easily distinguished? Either that or put the rebuy option in a different colour to the add on? I accidentally rebought when I meant to add on in the 50 rebuy Omaha UOS. This would not be a problem if the rebuy and the add on gave you the same number of chips, but as the add on is worth twice the value of the rebuy for the same price, that's a really bad idea financially at that point! a) there's no way to go back and correct your mistake once you've made it, and b) it's easy in the heat of the moment, if multitabling to miss that it's asking you for a rebuy not an add on and misclick it, because the window is almost identical. Many thanks.

Thanks @ReCorpH To be honest I was partly joking - I think if you're going to collude, you wouldn't attract attention to it like this! Nevertheless, there was obviously some kind of explanation and I wondered what it was. Nice to have mods to answer these questions - and quickly too!😃

Was going to play this tournament but don't fancy it for some reason....

You could try these three articles: https://www.thehendonmob.com/alex_rousso/tournament_poker_therapy_pain_and_heather_graham Topically enough, written when I was a Unibet ambassador! The link above is to the first article, but you can also find parts 2 and 3 if you click my name on the list of writers on the right. Another possibly helpful one - appropriate title given Esir's tagline is this one: https://www.thehendonmob.com/alex_rousso/id_rather_be_lucky_than_good You may already know all about luck and variance, but it's always good to have a detailed look at bankroll graphs of money-making players to understand just how swing-y the whole thing can get.

I see the tournaments for UOS X have been loaded into the client. Are there going to be any leaderboard promotions for this series @Stubbe-Unibet ?

Won the Omaha Deep Space (64 runners) as Card_undead

PLO8 has a really small player pool so I think, sadly, cash games would not be a flyer. However, tournaments could work - you'd only have to run one a night. It's really good for recs because you're always backing into something in O8 which means you've always got some equity to cheer on. And of course, you can never bust if you have The Wheel 🤣 The good news is it's only a minor software tweak to add the low bit of high/low if the existing software copes with the four cards bit. However, I'm guessing the Unibet bods have their hands full already 😏 Nice to dream though!

I should have added that the corollary of this is that playing tighter is better when short stacked in Omaha. Since you can't raise all in, and since there won't be enough flops you can be sure to proceed with, knowing you're not making an equity mistake, it means you as the raiser (with a decent hand) can't afford to be so aggressive. (At least not in comparison with the equivalent situation in Hold Em). By the same token, the caller - even with a mid-range type hand, can afford to be more loose. It's only going to cost them 3.5bb and they have a bunch of flops they can hit which, regardless of their opponent's raising range, they know they have enough equity to proceed. In other words, it's more of a flop game, and therefore we need to be deeper to play it properly. BTW, I know it's only a few days away, but the tournament structure for the IPO Omaha rebuy still has antes in. Just wanted to flag that up in case it's been overlooked.

@Leo-Unibet As promised, some theory about tournament structure in Omaha and why deeper structures suit this variant more. I hope this is especially relevant with the announcement of UOS X and the impending IPO event. Let's imagine a fairly standard short-stacked situation in a mid-late tournament setting: it's folded around to Hero on the button with a top 10% hand and 12.5bb. Hero can make it up to 3.5BB raise, we'll assume that SB folds and the BB has a hand in the 10-30% range, i.e. a top 30% hand, but not the top 10% among them. So Villain can fold, call, or jam for near enough effective stacks. (Before we continue with the Omaha analysis, let's just consider the equivalent situation in Hold Em: with a 12.5bb stack and a top 10% hand, Hero can jam if he wants, or he can min raise to try to induce a jam from the blinds. Either way, he likes the spot. Villain has the opposite problem. He's got a dodgy call if Hero jams, and (although he doesn't know it) a poor equity rejam if Hero min raises with his 10% range)). More about Hold Em later. In Omaha, let's look at the equity on the flop Villain has with his 10-30% range against Hero's10% range. Here's the flop equity graph from ProPokerTools. It charts Villain's range against Hero's range on a whole bunch of flops and then sorts them according to equity. In other words, it's a frequency chart - so against Hero's top 10% range, Villain will flop around 66% of equity or more, 20% of the time against Hero's range. Around 40% of the time, he'll flop 45% equity or more. The key thing to take away from this graph is how smooth it is. Despite Hero having a really good hand and Villain having a decent but not amazing hand, there are a whole BUNCH of flops Villain is happy with and not so many our Hero is happy with. If you don't believe me, take a look at the exact same equity match up in Hold em: So, same hand ranges, different poker variant. The graph is a lot less smooth. There's a precipitous drop around the 20% of flops mark. On around two thirds of flops, Villain certainly doesn't have enough equity to call a jam, and should worry that a donk bluff bet is playing into Hero's hands. So there, in graphical representation, is the idea that "post-flop equities are much closer together in Omaha than Holdem". And just to be sure, here are the preflop equities, once again same ranges, the only thing that's different is the variant: Range 10%-30% hand top 10% hand Omaha 41% 59% Hold Em 35% 65% So what does that mean for tournament structures? First, Omaha is played pot limit precisely because the equities are closer together - if it were no limit, it's simply not in players' interest to hang around if they know they have an equity advantage - wiser to get all your chips in now, because it's that much more likely than in hold em that your opponent will catch up. Second, Omaha players need to be deeper stacked in tournaments in order to manouvre around the subtle differences in equity on flops. In Omaha a raise preflop is only a prelude to what happens on the flop - and therefore players need deeper stacks to make sure those decisions are not standard all-in-or-fold, see who wins situations. Whilst I understand that for small buy-ins, Unibet might not want to run tournaments that last all night, I think there is an understanding in poker that mid and large buy ins get the structures they deserve. I have to say that some of the structures for the 25 and 50 buy ins have been pretty much crapfests. What's particularly disappointing is that it hasn't been a question of some higher buy ins with good structures, some with worse - they've all been universally too fast, unlike in Hold em where the structures have been varied. The most influential factor in tournament structure is length of blind level. So please do consider some longer blind levels for some of the Omaha tournaments in UOS X.

@Stubbe-Unibet Hi Stubbe, Am I right in thinking the leaderboard payouts have now been done? I ask because I got two payouts with no explanation accompanying them, as follows: 1) I got some bonus points in my account (with no tag/explanation attached) on Oct 13th 11:00 GMT, which I presume was the Low leaderboard payout; and 2) today I got some money deposited directly into my account, with only a weird reference number, which I presume was the nano leaderboard payout?

Hi @Leo-Unibet They certainly are being nitty, but not (necessarily) because they're nitty players, they're being forced into being nitty by the structure and what's correct for bubble play when you're short-stacked in Omaha. (I'll post again about this in more detail below) To reiterate my point, there were plenty of HE tournaments with generous structures, and they lasted 6.5+ hours (some needed to be 2-day events). There's no reason why *only* HE players should be afforded this luxury - especially in the case of a 50EUR buy in. I know it's a bit old school, but maybe consider running more generous structures the more expensive the tournament is? Or certainly allow for the option of that. That's the way poker used to be, and it certainly makes sense from a business point of view - for those larger buy ins, the players are paying more rake, shouldn't they be "rewarded" with more play, more structure? If you offered different structures, at least the players would be able to vote with their feet, as the saying goes, and you'd find out whether better structures mean more runners.

@Leo-Unibet Hi again Leo. I thought I'd bump this previous thread given our conversation in another thread about the Omaha Sputnik structure (regarding adding antes to the Sputnik) but also now that we've had all the Omaha tournaments of UOS IX. So first of all some notes from E101/E102: the money bubble hit after only about 2:15 hours of play. At the beginning of the money bubble, the average stack had 18 bigs, then 14, then 11, and finally when the bubble burst the average stack had 9 bigs. Please note that of the five sets of tournaments run, three had the "sputnik" structure I analysed above, and two had the 8k starting stack/6 min blinds that lead to having only 9 bigs on the bubble. Given that the UOS is Unibet's flagship online series, and given that Omaha is one of only two variants offered on the site, I think these tournament structures are a bit too fast. I mean, if I was going to enter a EUR25 or 50 tournament online, I'd like a better structure than that. Even the more recreational, gambly players might want a better bang for their buck. By comparison, the hold em tournaments have had some pretty amazing structures - and it doesn't have to be for big buy ins either. Some of the Nanos have been rebuys with 20k stacks/12min blinds or 15k stacks/15 min blinds. Bear in mind my point about Omaha having closer together preflop/postflop equities. If anything, Omaha tournaments should have BETTER structures than Hold em, not worse. So please do consider this when creating the schedule for UOS X. BTW, I'm happy to help - I've written lots of articles on tournament structure 😃 (I'm guessing I can't link to them here, but DM me if you want some links)

OK, bit more serious this time. E55 again, it logs me out during a hand when I'm facing a bet, and by the time I've logged back in - like no more than 30 seconds (i.e. easily enough time for the disconnect protection) - it had folded me.

on E55 tonight and constantly being logged out again. Not even looking at the lobby this time - logging me out straight from being on the table window. About 45 mins in and happened about 5 times already

to be clear - it was the lobbies of the UOS E40 and E37

Yes this happened to me too while registered in a couple of UOSs. Happened multiple times over a few hours while plalying on the iPad version. Also didn't have a rebuy button (when I was below starting stack) in the rebuy nano). Trying the desktop version now.

+1 As every book on poker that has ever discussed the issue says: antes are there to encouage action, and becuase in Omaha hand values are so much closer together preflop, you don't need to encourage action. By contrast, as stacks get shorter towards the latter stages of a Hold em tournament, it's rational to take fewer risks preflop because of the the threat of domination/coolering. Adding antes to the mix makes it more rational to take those risks. That's just not necessary in Omaha I have to say, I would love to have been at the meeting where it was decided that the PLO bounty should have antes. This is a bounty tournament (bounties = action) in omaha (omaha = action) which truly lived up to its billing as the most insanely action filled tournament. You would literally get four way all ins preflop on the first level. This was BEFORE antes were introduced.

Yes shame about the lack of print screen, but I transferred to my desktop to post the pic, and by then you can't get a visualisation of the hand in the hand history. Maybe on the new client you can always visualise hands? Always found that a bit galling - like you can only visualise the last 100 hands or so. So much easier to parse them visually. regarding the other issue: remember AX only needs to hit one ace to beat 66, not four. So that's not really a bad beat, just a 70%/30% standard. And as I say, it doesn't really mean anything big that the 66 hits under full, because it's also fairly standard to be FH v better FH in that spot e.g. against opp's 77 But I do agree with @Stubbe-Unibet that by the rules he picked, that hand does win.