Unibet Community

Ask questions, get help and enjoy Unibet
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
MoreTBC Rank 23
Rank 23

@Andrew-Unibet wrote:

The reason we don't roll everything over is that it costs more.  We already spend more on loyalty than most sites, and we can't spend another 1% of revenue or whatever.  If we allowed everything to roll over, we need to save that money somewhere else.  

It may well be that that's a good idea, but it's a risky thing to trial as it's a relatively large change.  Having a smaller step (1m to 500k) would let us look at some of the advantages without much of the cost.


Did we not discuss the possibility of getting a % of your points in between levels rolled over on 2+2? (100% at 1m+, 50% between 500k-1m, 25% between 100k-500k etc.)

Have you read my blog HERE... It's long isn't it Smile
0 Likes
Reply
CVMCVMCVM Rank 3
Rank 3

Hi,

Can you modify this rule "Reach flop with at least three other players still in the pot" into a "Reach flop with at least two other players still in the pot or Reach flop with at least two other players still in the pot and win the pot ". Im playing Texas holdem 50nl and up and the pots with 4 players involved are very very very few. This rule seams to be made for 4NL or omaha. Why quads didnt get in this promotion any points?

Reply
Andrew Rank 16
Rank 16

@MoreTBC wrote:


Did we not discuss the possibility of getting a % of your points in between levels rolled over on 2+2? (100% at 1m+, 50% between 500k-1m, 25% between 100k-500k etc.)


I prefer not doing that because the system is already so complicated.  Adding layers of complexity makes it harder for everyone else to understand.

Reply
Unibet Employee Chris-Unibet
Unibet Employee

@CVMCVMCVM wrote:

Hi,

Can you modify this rule "Reach flop with at least three other players still in the pot" into a "Reach flop with at least two other players still in the pot or Reach flop with at least two other players still in the pot and win the pot ". Im playing Texas holdem 50nl and up and the pots with 4 players involved are very very very few. This rule seams to be made for 4NL or omaha. Why quads didnt get in this promotion any points?


Hi,

I've replied about it earlier in the thread:

@Chris-Unibet wrote:


Yes, this challenge is indeed easier to complete at lower stakes and at peak times. That compensates for some other challenges that work the other way around:

Have everyone fold to you when you are in the big blind 

Have everyone fold to you preflop when you are in the small blind

Win a hand at showdown

Win a hand postflop when you have any hand worse than one pair

These ones are easier when tables are short handed (and some are easier at higher stakes where players are tighter). So indeed, Win a pot where at least 3 players have seen the flop is not the best challenge for you when you're playing short-handed tables but it's quite hard to find a good balance without making it boring. We could choose challenges that takes the exact same amount of hands to complete for everyone, no matter what you do and what your opponents do and we have some of them already but if we go 100% in that direction, it's not gonna be very fun.


 But I agree 3 players is probably too high. I believe we'll change it for Q4 to "2 players" instead of 3 then. 

 

0 Likes
Reply
Sweeedeeen Rank 13
Rank 13

You can limp preflop and it will be 3+ way pot Smile

I agree that sometimes this challenge may be not easy, but sometimes it is no problem.

As well as fold everyone to sb, sometimes it very easy, but sometimes players openraise 100% button Smile

I think that challenges is ~good. Maybe will be better to pay attention to the achievements

Reply
finamala Rank 10
Rank 10

I still think it would be better if challenges overall had less variance. As for the fun factor, I actually more enjoy the feeling of completion (and reward) than having "fun" trying to complete the challenge, I just play as I always do and wait for it complete anyway.

So in other words I vote for more easier challenges which complete faster and have more steps, even if they will award less points that way.

I'd just remove all majors that have 5 steps or less and minors with 10 steps or less and replace them with some that have more steps and seem easy, like "have suited HC" x100  or "have a pocket pair" x20  etc.

0 Likes
Reply
MoreTBC Rank 23
Rank 23

"Flop an ace high straight using an ace from your hand (PLO Major)"

What's the average completion for this? I feel like I've been trying to complete this since day 1 of Q3 Sad 

Have you read my blog HERE... It's long isn't it Smile
0 Likes
Reply
LCW Rank 10
Rank 10

^lol same here, really don't like this one. probably because it's avoiding me like the plague.

 

another one i dislike is 20x "have a full house on the river that includes the river card". advocates for some really strange and non-action-friendly play with sets for a pretty long time imo. I've always discarded that one straight away.

As with the aforementioned challenge, I find the purpose of all challenges that reduce action hard to understand (such as challenges that advocate folding a hand preflop, e.g. 4 cards of the same suit). The ones that push players to do out-of-the-box stuff to increase action, are easily the most fun, to all parts involved imo.

0 Likes
Reply
LCW Rank 10
Rank 10

@finamala wrote:

I still think it would be better if challenges overall had less variance. As for the fun factor, I actually more enjoy the feeling of completion (and reward) than having "fun" trying to complete the challenge, I just play as I always do and wait for it complete anyway.

So in other words I vote for more easier challenges which complete faster and have more steps, even if they will award less points that way.

I'd just remove all majors that have 5 steps or less and minors with 10 steps or less and replace them with some that have more steps and seem easy, like "have suited HC" x100  or "have a pocket pair" x20  etc.


I very much agree with this. The challenges that have more steps provide much more incentive to keep on playing imo, when you know that you will almost certainly hit a couple of more steps if you keep on playing a little bit longer. I'd especially like to see high frequency, action-increasing challenges (such as "play a double-suited hand"), that change players' behaviour towards being more loose. Kinda like how a live hold'em table might agree to play the deuce-seven game (win a hand with 27 and receive whatever extra amount has been agreed upon by the table from all the players). Makes for a more interesting and fun game. 

The high variance,  one-step challenges start feeling like a burden, and you're less inclined to play (I feel I'm slowly starting to lose the motivation of chasing a challenge, more so than when I've had majors that include more steps, and I can "see the horizon") after missing over and over again (Yours sincerely, cleared 13 minors so far trying to flop that A-high straight that includes A in the hole. The quest goes on. Very Happy) Well, at least this challenge has made me looser, as I was calling for the challenges to do. Definitely played (and lost) more AJTx- type hands than I normally would have. But it's a sort of desperate looseness, where you keep playing and missing hand after hand since the odds are so slim, whereas I feel that challenges like "play a double-suited hand" are more of a positive element, where even if you lose a hand that you normally wouldn't have played, you can still get that little bit of feelgood from seeing one more step cleared.

0 Likes
Reply
Andrew Rank 16
Rank 16

@LCW wrote:

I'd especially like to see high frequency, action-increasing challenges (such as "play a double-suited hand"), that change players' behaviour towards being more loose. Kinda like how a live hold'em table might agree to play the deuce-seven game (win a hand with 27 and receive whatever extra amount has been agreed upon by the table from all the players). Makes for a more interesting and fun game. 

We don't have many of this kind of Challenge because I think it'll harm weak players too much.  They're already making mistakes, and now they'll make more.  Someone who plays normally and just waits for the points to come will also end up making more money.

Reply