DonkeyHunter
-
Posts
14 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Bug Reports
Posts posted by DonkeyHunter
-
-
On 11/3/2022 at 9:05 AM, Andy-Unibet said:
It didn't run, I missed Sunday out of the template for some reason. It'll be there this week.
Ok, nice.
On 10/20/2022 at 9:43 AM, Andy-Unibet said:Reporting a bug
Ā
Only screenshots of the individual MTT lobby/ticket (after you've clicked on it) with the issue or the full name of the MTT, including start time (add timezone) and buy-in for filter issues will be accepted.
Happy hunting!
MEGA Qualifier to Tittle Fight with 6-10 min level up time is tagged H, should be T right?
MEGA Qualifier to Hundred with 6-10min level up time is tagged T in comparison.I think start time was 17.40.
Ā
Unrelated question, do you know what happend to the flags in the hands of the Norwegian avatar?
-
On 11/1/2022 at 6:30 AM, Andy-Unibet said:
I did just haven't had a chance to get round to replying š
The leaderboard filter I believe was for an old Player of the Year promo that ended last year. It's probably something that just needs removed at this point. While you're right that technically some events are part of a leaderboard just now I think the major filter plus the fact all majors that count for the LBs are marked with (major) in their name and they're all bright red is probably enough for players to understand what is and isn't included in the only MTT leaderboard running š
Makes sense š.
On 11/1/2022 at 6:30 AM, Andy-Unibet said:Ten-Spot does run every day. The only majors that don't run daily are the ā¬100 ones and technically the ā¬50 Sunday Saver, which is just a bumped up version of the ā¬10 Daily Saver that runs the rest of the week.
Ā
Tickets are generic for all majors of that buy-in so you may have used it for another major?
It's all good, and also I didnt win the ticket for it. Can you comfirm that it did actually run on Sunday? It's possible I was missing "-" when searching for it.
-
9 hours ago, FeelsBadMan said:
IMO PKOs don't need the same level of survival imperative baked into them as normal tournaments, because that's how you end up with people getting into top 5 consistently with 0 or 1 bounties. They're missing the whole point of the tournament and a large part of the fun and EV, they're supposed to go for bounties and create action. Obviously you can't go too far in the opposite direction either like the 90% bounty tournaments where getting far is pointless, that's no longer a tournament, just flinging bounties at eachother. The current iteration has great incentives to both go for bounties and for late game survival which always have to be weighed against each other when deep, and that made for some really fun tournaments the past week, with some great final table dynamics.Ā Also due to these being PKO's it would feel kinda crummy to be paid slightly above half the buyin for cashing as opposed to regular tournaments where at least you get more than you paid for it, so I think it would make sense to have a bit less people paid in PKOs, to have it be a bit more satisfying.Ā
A little bit more flat, sure, that can be reasonable (personally I've enjoyed them the way there are now), just not too much, which I assume is what you want too, only mentioning it because feedback has a habit to be applied to the extremes, like a few people asked for addons, Eeeeevrything became an addon, a few people wanted 6max, eeeverything became a 6maxĀ š
Appreciate the input.
PKO's are slightly less about survival than regular tournaments and I accept that. Consider the extreme case where first place takes entire prize pool. That would completely change everything.
Compared to regular tournaments PKO's have been a lot more top heavy, which I think is the main issue. The non-bounty part of the distribution has now been tweaked, a very good decision IMO. The min cash is still greater than buy in like you mentioned and I think thatās fair. PKO's will remain more top heavy but the difference is not that brutal. Because 1st win their own bounty, we are often still going to see 1st = 2x2nd. The only way to even it further would be to adjust the bounty % and/or the progressive % unless I am missing something.
-
13 hours ago, Andy-Unibet said:
It does sound like you're talking about a very specific and small subset of players that only play reg speed, non-qualifiers. The idea that someone would go from playing the schedule to not because there are 1-2 less tournaments to play seems extreme but ultimately if we end up getting reactivated or new players that go from 0 to x tournaments and existing players to add additional tournaments to their sessions then it's a trade off that we're willing to make if population prefers the schedule the way it is.
Ok, so first of. I do think you did you great job on the new schedule. It does seem the site is more popular than ever.
That example was just another way of saying there are only 7 reg-speed NLHE in that time window. In comparison, Stars has almost triple that in the same time window.
Itās not the subset that only plays reg speed I have in mind, but rather they prefer and play reg speed for the most part.
If players pick the most attractive tournament (highest GTD), does it really matter if there is an equivalent tournament with a smaller GTD. Donāt you think the higher GTD will be prio for most anyways? I think we agree that adding 10 more tournaments is too much, however maybe there is space for 1 or 2 more? Having said that, itās not a huge dealbreaker if you donāt. The fact that you can re-enter might be a factor I didnāt take into consideration.13 hours ago, Andy-Unibet said:The turbo changes are not just customer feedback, it's industry trend. Other sites are moving towards this structure as well and they have many more customers and data to back up the change. The feedback isn't really that people don't like slow tournaments either, it's just that they want them to be quicker at the end of the night. I wouldn't say that's unhappy feedback, more of a suggestion we implemented.
I agree with all of that. The only reason I really brought it up is because I was worried "everything" would eventually turn into turbos.
13 hours ago, Andy-Unibet said:As mentioned in an earlier post, payouts in PKOs that are 6-max will be flattened from today.
Very nice to see, I think thatās a very good decision. The top-heavy structure of 50/50 is the main issue I have with them. The bounty ratios are one way to change that and why I was arguing for 25% progressive.
13 hours ago, Andy-Unibet said:I'll change a couple of the filler PKOs to non standard for a bit of variety.
Interesting, which ones?
13 hours ago, Andy-Unibet said:There are a lot of contradictions going with the rest of your post. You don't like turbos/hypers but want changes to them, you think 9-max is tight yet you want PKOs, a format that favours action, that are 9-max. It's all very confusing.
I donāt see the contradictions. Maybe I have been unclear. I was trying to avoid my post turning into a book.
I do play turbos, I just play less of them. My least favorite is the 9-handed turbo and I think I have made it clear why. However, I do think itās a bit more reasonable when levels are 6 and 7 min (Yes 7 min is technically not turbo). I did for instance play the old 9 handed Unidentified Object with 6 min levels.If I wasnāt clear about it, I do think the 6-Max PKO's are great tournaments. The only reason for having one 9-Max is variety really.
13 hours ago, Andy-Unibet said:Having said that, I've changed the Battle Royale to 9-max since there are two ā¬5 6-max PKO majors and slowed down the ā¬10 ā¬400 Freezeout PKO so it's not turbo.
Nice, I assume you mean the ā¬5 (not ā¬10) at 20.30? It still has the "T" tag, dont forget to remove that. 99 entries on the first day is pretty good for a freezeout. Did you change the start time forward?
13 hours ago, Andy-Unibet said:I can't change the Cage to 9-max because it's 6 min levels and all turbos should be 6-max right? š
Haha š, you are right.
13 hours ago, Andy-Unibet said:Battlegrounds is a copy of the Ice Giant that always did well so don't see a reason to change that either.
Ice giant was 25% progressive btw. Is this you giving credit to 25% PKO's? š
13 hours ago, Andy-Unibet said:For new point 2, it's around or before 1am and most are finishing before. If you want them to finish even earlier then we need to lower the level times and that doesn't seem like something you'd want so you're asking for the impossible really.
This wasnāt really a complaint. Was just pointing out that it can be possible to finish earlier by skipping like 1 or 2 tournaments, because most finish before like you said.
13 hours ago, Andy-Unibet said:Appreciate the feedback, nice to be able to look at it on a more granular level.Ā
Thank you for taking my feedback into consideration. I take that the changes you made means at least some of my arguments make sense.
-
On 10/28/2022 at 10:16 PM, DonkeyHunter said:
One more thing. I think I have found a bug. There is a leaderboard promotion with the new major tournaments. Shouldn't the "Leaderboard" filter apply to major tournaments?
Did you see this one @Andy-Unibet ? Never mind if this has already been mentioned.
Unrelated question: Does Ten-Spot not run on sundays? I do think I played the satelite (I could be wrong), but couldn't find it in the client.
-
On 10/29/2022 at 5:25 PM, Andy-Unibet said:
I'll reply in a random order because I think some of them can be bunched together.
2/3/7. Not sure if 2 is you being positive or negative :). Yes, there are less tournaments in the new schedule and it's by design.
There have often been comments in the past from players that they don't open the Unibet client because there is nothing to play, relative to other sites. When you look at the old schedule it's quite easy to see why, when the the biggest nightly was a 4k GTD ā¬10 R/A. The rest of the schedule was filled with low GTD filler that were on par with 18 to 45 man SNGs on other sites.Ā
In order to try and redress that, we needed to try and make sure that the finite number of buy-ins customers had collectively each night stopped being spread so thin over too many tournaments and were more concentrated toward more tournaments we could promote. That's why the majors as a group exist, why all qualifiers only go to the them and why most promotional rewards going forward will also target them. We're never going to be able to compete with the GTDs of Stars and GG but as players get more savvy around lowering variance, bankroll management and rake we wanted to create something that would hopefully appeal to as many players as possible and really push what we could offer in terms of GTDs. Simply adding more filler is going to hurt that because it's going to take buy-ins away from the majors. If the site grows and more players turn up, we'll definitely add more as demand increases.
2/3 kind of contradict each other because you want tournaments that finish quick but you also don't want them to be turbo. The only way that works is if the field size is tiny and that's not good for us, and more importantly, for you. If the tournaments are not attractive, players don't come and play... and especially the players you want in the field.Ā
3 is an unpopular opinion I'm afraid, almost universally the opinions we've received is that players want tournaments to be quicker in general, speed up as the night goes along and for the fillers to be things they can add in while deep in big tournaments and not worry about committing to another 4-5 hours after busting the big tournament.
Having said that, we've only committed to the majors finishing around 1am so there may be some changes we can do to some of the fillers to slow them down a little since we're not under the same time constraints. It's something I'll have a look at next week.
1 is a nice easy one, consistency. As mentioned previously, the new schedule is about attracting new players and we want them to be as comfortable as possible when they start playing. The client itself is a little jarring if you've come from some of the other sites so adding the complexities of abnormal PKO formats seemed like a bad idea.Ā
I think some of your reason for 50/50 being bad are valid and some are not. Casual players don't study, period, so I don't see why the % really matters but they are used to getting 50% as a payout so it seems best to be consistent with that as much as possible. The payout issue will vary depending on bounty sizes remaining so regardless of the % there will be some variance and there is an argument that if the KO % is lower then we'd have to create a new payout structure that didn't pay 1st and 2nd equally to balance things out, confusing things more. All the PKOs are not deep with 200bb starting being the max so I don't think your last point is really relevant. There is no point playing 300bb deep in a bounty when the format is built for eliminations.
There will be various MTT series in 2023 and there will be events within those series where the buy-in split and/or the payout split will be changes to add the variety you're asking for. I'm not completely opposed to changing one or two of the fillers in the schedule to have different splits but I think keeping the majority in the same format just makes more sense for the time being.
4. 5-6 min tournaments are turbo. I could see an argument for 4min or less but why the turbos as well? That would create a major imbalance between 6 and 9-max in the schedule as a whole. It's also not something I've seen any competitors do.
5 is not intentional and something I can look at. There was a general consensus from the higher stakes players that they prefer 6-max to 9-max which is why it's leaned that way. PKOs in general work better when players play more hands so 6-max helps facilitate that.
6 is bug in the new release, the info should be there and it's being fixed but the addon is always going to be double the starting stack for now.
8. The GTD is probably too ambitious and/or we're not generating enough tickets for it. There was a request from the higher stakes community to add a faster tournament later in the evening so that's why it's there but initial feedback was it got a bit push/fold a bit fast so I added a minute to the levels.
We're also in a week where there are multiple live events running, including 2 sponsored by Unibet that we've sent players to so some of the week one overlay may disappear next week when everyone get's locked in for winter.
Thank you for the reply š, here is another wall of text. š
Ā
2/3/7. 2 is positive and at the same time letting you know that I want a couple more tournaments to play. I guess large guarantees attract players and especially the weaker ones and therefore it makes sense from a business perspective to channel all the money into a fewer number of tournaments like you said. I donāt expect you to make decisions that donāt make sense. The downside could be that players who prefer to play many tables end up not playing at all.
Ā
2/3 I donāt think they contradict, because I donāt mind smaller fields. Iāve seen others mention this on here as well as the main reason they play on Unibet. One of the Classic tournaments yesterday had 72 entries, 8 min levels and finished in 3h 41min. Letās assume I play every reg-speed between 17:05 and 20:05 in the range 2-25. Thatās 10 tournaments, which I guess is reasonable. However, letās say I donāt like Omaha for some reason, then its suddenly looking a little thin.
Ā
3. Could it be a factor that you receive more feedback from unhappy players, than happy players? I donāt know. You have the data. If most players want turbo, most tournaments should be turbo, I guess. But then again, its not like 8 min levels is some kind of super slow deepstack structure.
Ā
Ā
1.
1.1 It matters because it pushes regulars out of their comfort zone. They cannot just auto pilot apply the same standard bounty math or take advantage of their experience. I donāt think it matter much to recreational what the ratios are.
1.2 The payout distribution. Here is comparison between yesterdayās Ironman (370 entries, 11.89% ITM) in green and Title Fight (255 entries, 9.41% ITM) in red. I have calculated the payouts as a percentage of the total prize pool for positions 1st ā 10th. Here is the distribution:
As you can see the PKO's are very top heavy. And because of that you lose some of the survival aspect. Here are the percentages for reference.
Ironman [20.46, 14.60, 10.73, 7.85, 5.86, 4.33, 3.18, 2.26, 1.63, 1.27]
Title Fight [22.62, 11.66, 8.03, 6.48, 4.78, 3.19, 1.62, 2.66, 1.20, 3.14]
1.3 I donāt think you have to create a new payout structure. 1st win their own bounty + bounty of 2nd place finisher so there will still be a difference. However, on average 1st and 2nd will be closer.
1.4 My argument is not that PKO's should be 200bb++ deep. However, if bounties are bigger early it would give more incentive to loosen up a bit when stacks are deeper. Consider a ā¬25 PKO. When bounties are 12.50 you win 6.25 (25% of buy-in) in the standard version. In the 25% progressive version you win 0.75x12.50 = 9.375 (37.50% of buy-in). Bounties are 50% bigger early (9.375/6.25 = 1.50). Maybe it would be interesting if one of the bounty majors were a little different? The majority can be 50/50
Ā
4. For the same reason hypers should be 6-Max. 9-handed turbo/hyper feel very push/fold. That's not interesting at all, when most all-ins is a flip and there is no post flop play. Why not just play a FLIP tournament? 9-Max play tighter than 6-Max, and because blinds increase more rapidly its most of the time a push.
If you change Bullet and Session Saver to 6-max, you can balance it back by changing one of the bounty tournaments to 9-Max.Ā
5. Fair enough. Iām not against 6-Max and I will play the tournament regardless. In fact, I donāt mind if majority of tournaments are 6-Max. All Iām saying is maybe one of them can be 9-handed, because there is no 9-Max PKO.
Ā
8. That makes sense.
Ā
I guess I should probably add a couple thing I like about the new schedule.
1.Ā Ā Ā The lower rake.
2.Ā Ā Ā Tournaments finish before 1AM. I still think this is late for someone who have work in the morning, but I guess itās possible to skip a couple tournaments and still finish in a reasonable time.
3.Ā Ā Ā 6-Max Omaha.
4.Ā Ā Ā Except for a couple things I mention in this post, I think the majors are fine.Ā
-
1
-
-
Hi! š
This is a long one. Iām just going to list everything by numbering. Please feel free to let me know if you agree or disagree. Use the numbering to avoid any confusion.
1. I miss the old tournaments with different bounty ratios (Correct me if ratios are wrong here). This was as far as I know unique to Unibet, at least the number of different of ratios.- Ice Giant Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā 50% bounty, 25% progressive
- Shooting StarĀ Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā 50% bounty, 25% progressive
- Space madness bountyĀ Ā Ā 90% bounty, 10% progressive
- Dwarf Star bounty Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā 25% bounty, 25% progressive
- SupermoonĀ Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā 50% bounty, 50% progressive
Why?
First, simply just because it keeps thing more interesting when every bounty tournament is not the same.
Second, regular players study the 50/50 PKO format because its the most common PKO format and recreational players donāt.
Third, in 50/50 PKOās a too large fraction of the prize pool goes to 1st place compared to 2nd -9th.
Fourth, in PKOās sort of the survival aspect of MTTās is lost. A lower progressive value means more fold equity in later stages of the tournament. It would be nice to reintroduce fold equity to PKO tournaments (yes, this is a joke ā¦. sort of). At the same time bounties are bigger early and makes thing more interesting early when stacks are deep.Ā
2. The thing I really like about Unibet is the smaller fields which in the end means lower variance and they are less time consuming. You can finish a reg-speed tournament in 4 and not 10 hours. Overall, the feel of the new schedule is that there are less tournaments overall, but guarantees are larger.
3. This might be an unpopular opinion, however there is too much turbo in the new schedule. The old 8-min level tournaments were like the perfect semi turbo compromise between players that like normal speed tournaments and turbo players. There are 2 non-turbos between 20:05 and 00:30. I understand and agree with the goal to finish tournaments before 1AM. With the smaller fields of non-major tournaments, I donāt see how this is not possible. I just realized Fofty was changed from Turbo to 7min levels, a change in the right direction in my opinion. So that makes it 3 tournaments.Ā
4. I think everything, at least most tournaments with level-up speed <= 6 min should be changed to 6-Max. There is a reason most hypers are 6-Max.
Ā
5. What happened to 9-Max PKOās? There is not a good balance between 6-max and 9-max PKOās in my opinion. Iāve seen others mention this on here as well ever since all the old āFalling Starā was replaced with āShooting Starā. I suggest changing the Battleground to 9-Max. The Battleground, Title Fight and Slobberknocker is essentially the same tournament with different buy in level.
Ā
6. In lobbies of R/A tournaments the Add on field is empty. It would be useful to know how many chips add-on is compared to starting stack. If the purpose of that field is for something else, please add this information to the description text. Does this count as a bug?
Ā
7. More filler āvanillaā or PKO non-turbo tournaments. If they are lower buy in (please not nano), hopefully they dont steal attention from majors.
Ā
8. Letās talk about Fofty. It is 1 of the 2 highest buy-in daily tournaments. Edges are lower because itās a turbo and the field is slightly tougher, which is why I think a slower structure makes more sense. This tournament was the only major tournament to never meet the guarantee I think. Maybe the guarantee was simply too ambitious? My guess is that most spend their 50 euro in The Title Fight and all the turbo lovers play Bullet instead. But then again, not every tournament can be a favorite. I do like all of the non turbo majors so far and will probably play most of them whenever I start a session.
Ā
-
1
-
One more thing. I think I have found a bug. There is a leaderboard promotion with the new major tournaments. Shouldn't the "Leaderboard" filter apply to major tournaments?
-
3 hours ago, Purps said:
Click that...
The edit option is usually there for 30 minutes ( I think )... but sometimes it disappears faster than that.
Ā
Thank you. I guess i spent more than 30 minutes in the editor, because there was no edit option.
Ā
1 hour ago, Andy-Unibet said:1. We're going from a time where everything had a space name with very little reference to structure, not sure how much more clear we can be with the new naming š. I've not had anyone give feedback pre or post launch that they're confused about what they're buying into so I don't think we need to add extra stuff to the names that's not needed.
2. Before or after, I don't think it matters as long as it's consistent.Ā
1. I did actually consider making a post about blind level duration inconsistency in the old schedule, but did never bother. If you check the lobby and play the tournament, usually you remember til next time i guess. For example, there were both regular and turbo Singularity tournaments with the same structure.
All "Shooting Star" tournaments from the old schedule were the same tournament with different buy in levels. If you know the structure of one of them you know them all. That was sort one of the suggestions I was trying to make with the "Classic" "brand".
Anyways, lets just agree to disagree. Overall I do agree with you that the schedule is more consistent now. Its not really a big deal for me once I have played the tournament.
2. Fair enough, it's just a preference thing I guess.
-
Btw, how do i edit my own post?
-
Yes, you are correct Andy š, I did not catch the two or more variable chance rule. Hopefully I donāt give the impression that I think everything is all bad, because I donāt. Anyways, just take these as opinions.
- My main point is, there could be a more obvious naming rule. If players understand the naming rule without much thinking, it's easy for them to know what to look for.
- If "Classic" is the base/default, shouldn't additional parameters come after? Therefore, "Turbo Classic" --> "Classic Turbo".
-
4 hours ago, Andy-Unibet said:
A "Classic" is defined as a 3k (100bb) starting stack, reg speed (7-9min), re-entry NLHE tournament. I then tried to use the following naming conventions for anything that deviated from that.Ā
[speed] [stack size] [entry type] [name] [bounty] [Omaha] [shortstack size]
ĀIt ended up that entry type and name merged because re-entries became classi#cs, R/A is R/A and Freezeout is Freezeout so it's really just the other variables that dictate the name.
I quickly realised that calling every RE tournament a "Classic" of some sort was a bit pointless and created very long names. You could have a Turbo Megastack Classic PKO and things like that so it made sense to just remove classic from the name when enough of the original variables were changed.Ā
I'll be honest, I don't know if it's 100% consistent as it was a bit of a rush getting the fillers in before launch but I think it's pretty close that if 2 or more variables are changed then classic is removed and at least with the examples you gave that is correct. Just having a quick look at the lobby, there are definitely some inconsistencies between speed and stack size coming first in the naming and a few classics with two variables changed that need updated.Ā
The main thing is it's easy to tell what kind of tournament you're entering without looking in the specific lobby.Ā
Ā
There are non-major tournaments with 3k starting chips without the Classic naming.
- 13.15 ā¬0.50 Turbo Freezeout
- 17:15 ā¬1 Freezeout PKO
- 20:30 ā¬5 Turbo Freezeout PKO
- 23.30 ā¬25 Turbo PKO
There are freezeout tournaments both with and without the Classic naming.
- 10:15 ā¬1 Classic Freezeout
- 17:15 ā¬1 Freezeout PKO
- 20:30 ā¬5 Turbo Freezeout PKO
- 02:05 ā¬5 Classic Freezeout
There are tournaments with Classic naming that are non reg-speed.
- 15:05 ā¬2 Turbo Classic
- 18.45 ā¬5 Turbo Classic
- 20:45 ā¬1 Turbo Classic
- 01:30 ā¬10 Turbo Classic
- + all other "Turbo Classic".
In other words, "Classic" tells me two things
- It's NLHE
- It's not a Deepstack or Megastack.
Yes, I understand the point about avoiding very long names, but I would rather have longer names than having to check every specific lobby. It is mostly players that dont play tournaments on a regular basis i have in mind here. Regulars will get used to the schedule and it doesnt as much.
Ā
Please reconsider the meaning of classic. Here are two suggestions.
1. The first thought that came to my mind when I saw the new schedule is that "Classic" must be some kind of "Vanilla" reg-speed freezeout tournament. Make Classic a "brand" within the non-major schedule, like the old "Singularity". Every Classic has 3k starting chips, is reg-speed, is re-enter and can be 6- or 9-max. With no exceptions to this rule. That way everyone knows what they get when they enter a "Classic".
The question is then, what to do with the remaining tournaments?Introduce the label "HoldEm" and simply follow your naming rule
[speed] [stack size] [entry type] [name] [bounty] [Omaha] [short stack size]which can be simplified to
[name] [stack size] [speed] [entry type] [bounty]
where [name] is "HoldEm", "Banzai" or "Omaha".
where [stack size] is "DeepStacks", "Megastack" or "10bb".
where [entry type] is "freezeout" or "R/A". re-entry is the default.
A few examples:
- ā¬5 HoldEm Deepstacks Turbo Freezeout PKO
- ā¬5 HoleEm Freezeout
- ā¬5 Omaha Deepstacks
- ā¬5 Banzai 10BB
If the goal is to keep names short, you could argue that [speed] [entry type] [bounty] are unnecessary because all that information is already available in the info column, and therefore the naming rule could be simplified even further. But thatās not really a big deal in my opinion.
OR
2. Have "Classic" mean 3k starting chips, which is the simple solution. That way, what you do is make sure all tournaments follow the naming rule.
-
Hi!
I found some Inconsistencies in naming of filler tournaments. There are more examples, however I will provide one example for each type of inconsistency. Let me know if I made any mistakes.
Ā
Based on scanning through a couple tournament lobbies it seems all tournaments have the same structure (they include all the same blind levels) and that the only difference are the number of starting chips and blind level duration. So, all good here.
Ā
First, what does the "Classic" label mean? What is the difference between Classic, Deepstack and Megastack? The key words refer to the number of starting chips, right?
Classic means 3000, Deepstack 6000 and Megastack 9000. Makes sense, except there are inconsistencies to this rule. Let's compare two tournaments.
ā17:15 ā¬1 Freezeout PKOā has 3000 starting chips.
ā14:40 ā¬5 Deepstack Freezeoutā has 6000 starting chips.
The āClassicā is missing from the first tournament. If the goal is to be consistent with naming it would make sense to rename
"17:15 ā¬1 Freezeout PKO" to "17:15 ā¬1 Classic Freezeout PKO"
Ā
The second inconsistency is the order of "key words" in naming of some tournaments. Again, I will compare three tournaments to show you what i mean.
18.45 ā¬5 Turbo Classic,
03:05 ā¬10 Deepstack Turbo PKO
12.40 ā¬10 Megastack Turbo
When a Turbo is a "Classic", Turbo comes first. On the other hand, when it's a Deepstack or Megastack, Turbo comes second. This is not consistent. The simple solution would be to rename to 18.45 ā¬5 Classic Turbo.
Ā
To keep things consistent, I think it would make sense for all filler tournaments to follow some general naming rule. Here is what I could come up with:
- First, start with the guarantee.
- What is the number of starting chips? Add "Classic", "Deepstack" or "Megastack".
- If Omaha add "Omaha", else (NLHE) add nothing.
- Level up speed? Add nothing, "Turbo" or "Hyper"
- If Freezeout add "Freezeout"
- If PKO add "PKO"
- If R/A add "R/A"
Ā
Third, I would suggest also to consider additional chances to the formatting. Here are a few examples (Yes, I know the second option is common on other sites).
a) 03:05 ā¬10 Deepstack Turbo PKO
or
b) 03:05 ā¬10 Deepstack [Turbo, PKO]
or
c) 03:05 ā¬10 Deepstack |Turbo, PKO|
or
d) 03:05 ā¬10 Deepstack (Turbo, PKO)
Ā
I have some additional feedback as well, but I will probably make a separate post in the feedback thread at some point. Hopefully this was helpful.
-
1
-
I registered late for E132 and E133 yesterday. Eventually I blinded out waiting for the add on period which never came. It seems there was an error in the configuration of these tournaments allowing players to register after the add-on period. See picture below. Can I get a refund for this?
-
New MTT Schedule - Feedback and Discussion
in General Poker
Posted
I agree, it is not a fair comparison, but I did it anyway š mostly because you compared to the bigger sites in other aspects. If you think adding tournaments will hurt the existing schedule don't do it. Do you know that it is 50x or is that a guess? I thought it was somewhere between 10-20x.
Yes, I was talking about 50/50Ā (bounty/prizepool) buy-in split with 75/25 (bounty payout/progressive) which is what Ice Giant and Shooting Star used to be.
If you want to do 50/50Ā (bounty/prizepool) buy-in split with 70/30 (bounty payout/progressive) instead I don't mind. I've seen Stars have this option (30% Progressive Knockout).
Just any ratios that make bounties have a slightly less relevance late game basically. And at the same time make 1st vs 2nd payouts slightly closer. You choose.
Examples that would accomplish about the same thing:
50/50Ā (bounty/prizepool) buy-in split with 62/38 (bounty payout/progressive)
40/60Ā (bounty/prizepool) buy-in split with 60/40 (bounty payout/progressive)
40/60 (bounty/prizepool) buy-in split with 50/50 (bounty payout/progressive)
30/70 (bounty/prizepool) buy-in split with 50/50 (bounty payout/progressive)
My guess is that to only increase the bounty payout would be the most attractive option to players, however that is just a guess.
Ā
Ā
Ā
Ā