Jump to content

New MTT Payout Distribution


Leo-Unibet

Recommended Posts

@triceraatopp Yes that's true. But that's not what has been said up to this point. All complaints here are in a way of "the possibility of big scores disappearing", which simply isn't the case. I'm just saying that we should base ourselves on facts and frame everything correctly 😃 The money has to come from somewhere off course, as I said before as well. So yes, it obv comes from the places below the top places. 

Honestly my general thoughts are as NMPfan stated: not a fan of it, but not the end of the world either.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


@Caladrias wrote:

@Leo-Unibet, great job on the new spans for the payout slots. Played a few small field MTTs last night, and it was great to see 4 or 5 people ITM where previously that was never possible, only 3 or 6 was an option with resulting big % gaps in amount of players paid out. This was a long needed change, and even though I still bubbled everywhere I really like how it is now. Props Leo for this aspect :laugh:

I also kept an eye on the deep impact again yesterday, and it had a high top prize of €1262 (!!) with a prizepool of €5569. So yes, a rather high amount of entries, but not extraordinary either. This makes me believe the top heaviness of the payouts didn't get affected that much as I think we all assumed here first, which I think we all like to see. The image Leo posted from the bounty tournament, also seems to confirm this.

 

Off course the money for the extra payouts has to come from somewhere, and it's easy to see this comes from lower mincashes in the new distribution. I can't say I like being paid out less than a buyin as a mincash in bounty MTTs at all... But yeah, I guess it's one or the other if more people have to be in the money. And I prefer a bigger top prize then above a bigger mincash, if I really have to choose. I would also have liked it to be a lower percentage than 17% ITM for sure, but as I said before I don't think it can be as big of a surprise as it's gotta be better for recreational players... Thus, not surprising that Unibet chooses to do this.

EDIT: haven't played a R/A mtt yet. It would be interesting to see how mincashes relate to the buyins there. Gonna keep an eye on that in the next days. 


Thanks @Caladrias I really appriciated your post 😃

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


@triceraatopp wrote:

@Caladrias you are only looking at the top 3 and yes they are kept the same, but compare the top 9 or 12 places and you will se a massive difference. And thats why this is a structure that is made to lower edges/ROI.


Hey @triceraatopp , I hope you are fine !

If we're adding like 20% more prizes in each tournament it's a given that some of the payouts will be changed and the money has to come from somewhere.

I don't agree that the distribution is built to take away away good players edge, I'm raher sure you will increase your ROI with these changes.

I'm willing to take a bet on that 😃  check your stats 6 weeks from now and compare it with 6 weeks before teh change, it's a beer on the line  🆒             

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't understand all this discussions about something that will be apply for sure,and I am sure decision will not be changed.

I understand "regular grinders" and their dissatisfactions,but poker at Unibet was never meant to be for players that takes game "professionaly",or/and live from that.Schedule and games are setup for recreational players,you can see that by buy-ins.
Overall buy-in per day is under 500€...
Does someone who takes games professionaly,or want to, can live from such a schedule?
How much of you,"regulars",plays only on Unibet?

I expected this change as copy/paste continues,but think this decision is something that is pleasent for majority,over minority.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites


@XY wrote:

Don't understand all this discussions about something that will be apply for sure,and I am sure decision will not be changed.

I understand "regular grinders" and their dissatisfactions,but poker at Unibet was never meant to be for players that takes game "professionaly",or/and live from that.Schedule and games are setup for recreational players,you can see that by buy-ins.

Overall buy-in per day is under 500€...

Does someone who takes games professionaly,or want to, can live from such a schedule?

How much of you,"regulars",plays only on Unibet?

I expected this change as copy/paste continues,but think this decision is something that is pleasent for majority,over minority.


Hey @XY I can ensure you that this payout distribution isn't any copy/past, it took me a good Christmas holiday to have it finalized as I wanted it, quite a of blood sweat and tears.  I think it will benefite all player types, now we're giving the not so lucky players a chance to survive a bit longer before churning, that's good for all player types.              

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a serious MTT grinder, so you can skip my opinion, but currently I feel like a man, who has a coupon valid for a double burger if he can pass the opening hours on Wednesday. When I want to redeem my price then I realize that a "free burger" was turned to free sausage but the owner tells me that he moved one station closer to my place so I have to travel 5 stations instead of 6 for having a free sausage to my burger instead of doubling it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha I do think so to @Leo-Unibet but thats kinda been the thing every six weeks last year ;)

Anyway, Im not blaming you in any way, Im very sure you tryed to make it as good as possible with the road the company want to take. Hopefully we will see more freezeouts mtts to accompany the changes since that is known to be the most rec friendly format, especially together with flat payouts. :)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites


@psrquack wrote:

I'm not a serious MTT grinder, so you can skip my opinion, but currently I feel like a man, who has a coupon valid for a double burger if he can pass the opening hours on Wednesday. When I want to redeem my price then I realize that a "free burger" was turned to free sausage but the owner tells me that he moved one station closer to my place so I have to travel 5 stations instead of 6 for having a free sausage to my burger instead of doubling it.

This analogy made me hungry!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


@triceraatopp wrote:

Haha I do think so to @Leo-Unibet but thats kinda been the thing every six weeks last year ;)

Anyway, Im not blaming you in any way, Im very sure you tryed to make it as good as possible with the road the company want to take. Hopefully we will see more freezeouts mtts to accompany the changes since that is known to be the most rec friendly format, especially together with flat payouts. :)


@triceraatopp So....the good thing is that we already run more freezeouts than rebuy/reenter, on the top of my head it's somewhere  in the range of 62-38 percent :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


@Leo-Unibet wrote:


@triceraatopp wrote:

Haha I do think so to @Leo-Unibet but thats kinda been the thing every six weeks last year ;)

Anyway, Im not blaming you in any way, Im very sure you tryed to make it as good as possible with the road the company want to take. Hopefully we will see more freezeouts mtts to accompany the changes since that is known to be the most rec friendly format, especially together with flat payouts. :)


@triceraatopp So....the good thing is that we already run more freezeouts than rebuy/reenter, on the top of my head it's somewhere  in the range of 62-38 percent :-)


Really? That are not bountys? Thats good :) Would be awsome if it was even more :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


@triceraatopp wrote:

@Leo-Unibet wrote:

@triceraatopp wrote:

Haha I do think so to @Leo-Unibet but thats kinda been the thing every six weeks last year ;)

Anyway, Im not blaming you in any way, Im very sure you tryed to make it as good as possible with the road the company want to take. Hopefully we will see more freezeouts mtts to accompany the changes since that is known to be the most rec friendly format, especially together with flat payouts. :)


@triceraatopp So....the good thing is that we already run more freezeouts than rebuy/reenter, on the top of my head it's somewhere  in the range of 62-38 percent :-)


Really? That are not bountys? Thats good :) Would be awsome if it was even more :)



@triceraatopp wrote:

@Leo-Unibet wrote:

@triceraatopp wrote:

Haha I do think so to @Leo-Unibet but thats kinda been the thing every six weeks last year ;)

Anyway, Im not blaming you in any way, Im very sure you tryed to make it as good as possible with the road the company want to take. Hopefully we will see more freezeouts mtts to accompany the changes since that is known to be the most rec friendly format, especially together with flat payouts. :)


@triceraatopp So....the good thing is that we already run more freezeouts than rebuy/reenter, on the top of my head it's somewhere  in the range of 62-38 percent :-)


Really? That are not bountys? Thats good :) Would be awsome if it was even more :)


@triceraatopp With bounties 😞

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

As a few highligted their concerns with the change and the effect it might have on the regs/winning players, I've looked into this aspect and can share a few numbers on it.

As we don't have a lot of data with the new structure, I decided to look at the full last year and simply apply the new structure to last years tournaments. I've excluded freerolls, flips, bounty tournaments and any tournament that didn't have a pure cash payout.

I looked at the players with the highest win for the full year (with a minimum no of tournaments being required) as well as some of the highest volume players (winning only) and few of you who expressed your concerns with the change. In total I looked at 27,548 tournaments from which the players managed to cash a total of 6,960 times.

With the old structure, the players managed to win (pure payouts, buyin not subtracted): € 608,405
Had the new structure been in place, they'd have won: € 608,998

Yes, this might seem like I almost tried to make the numbers match up, but I can assure you it's not the case :) the difference is just 0,097 %, or € 593, and the best performing players of 2019 actually did slightly better with the new structure. 

If you'd like to see how your own results of 2018 would look with the new structure, just drop me a PM and I'll be happy to send you the results :)

  • Like 1

Check the latest poker release notes. Have a look at our poker promotions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I get some clarification on what exactly the changes are? My initial understanding was 16/17% paid instead of 12% with 5th/6th onwards winning significantly less but top prizes staying similar?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


@Brocky wrote:

Can I get some clarification on what exactly the changes are? My initial understanding was 16/17% paid instead of 12% with 5th/6th onwards winning significantly less but top prizes staying similar?

 


That's a pretty accurate summary :)

- More places paid

- Top prizes almost the same

- Below 5th/6th paid less

Check the latest poker release notes. Have a look at our poker promotions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Stubbe-Unibet One major issue with this comparison is that for it to be correct you have to assume that tournament strategy doesn't change in the various stages of the tournament with a different payoutstructure and finishing places would be exactly the same, which they wouldn't. That being said it's still an interesting statistic. Just intuitively I would have expected maybe a few % less profits (not even from total winnings) with more people paid, might be completely wrong tho, and the fact that the winner actually gets a bit more in the current format coupled with the small field sizes in the past might actually counter that (especially when filtering for the biggest winners).

One other thing that seems a bit off is the huge ITM rate with the old structure, 28.5% for a 12.5% structure that actually paid out less than 12% on many occasions. The number seems huge, quite a bit higher than I would expect the cash rate of most winning players to be. Not really sure why that number is so big, maybe my expectation is just way off, or maybe there's something off with the data sample although it does seem like you did put some decent thought into it being relevant by the way you filtered it. Of course with a huge % of busting really late paying more people would be more profitable / compensate.  Later Edit: oh yeah, re-entries and rebuys probably are added to the same 1 tournament in the statistic therefore making the ITM huge but also the effective buyin. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@FeelsBadMan   the number of payouts in my previous post is not for the old structure but for both structures combined. I basically looked at all tournaments, excluded the ones mentioned earlier and then I applied both the new and old sturcute to them and if the player cashed with either of these two structures, the winnings would be included. As the new structure is roughly 17 %, it's not a crazy number, considering we're looking at some of the very best players :)

  • Like 1

Check the latest poker release notes. Have a look at our poker promotions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record I do not fancy the new structure , for players like me its tough to make profit considering that im not at the level to battle with the top players ( at least that s what I think) . Most of the times i will bust before the prizes or mincash ( 1.5x ish for freezouts/ 2.3x ish for re entries/  3x/4x for R/A these being close numbers from what i noticed in mtts) , sometimes bust in the middle ish of the payouts , which dont matter that much anymore, and once in a blue moon get a final table. Considering that most of the 5-10 euro mtts which are my main stake , mostly re entries , re buy /add ons In the best case im probably going to break even or most likely downswing . I am not really a math guy , I dont know how much can these new payouts affect my ROI but im not willing to test it for ridiculous mincashes and a final table once in 2 months , that s just not fun .  I usually play a mtt if I enjoy it not necessarily for how profitable it is and now im not really enjoying playing anything anymore . Im sure you could ve done a proper 17% by taking money from all the positions instead of only from the middle part  to add new payouts or make it 15% as NMPfan once suggested . I do not understand why this idea wasn t announced few months before you implemented it so people can give you ideas on how to improve it , make it work for everyone , instead of mentioning it a few weeks before you implement it and wait for people to complain or stop playing in order to change something .I did noticed though that recently the payouts got changed a little bit  in a good way and I hope you guys improve it even more and make it fair enough for everyone and maybe take into consideration making it 13%- 14% . I would like to get the my results since the new structure got implemented until now, for mtts , satellites excluded and maybe if you can apply the new structure to my 2018 mtts only results . I m really curious how it is going to affect them .  @Stubbe-Unibet 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


@Hotzonicu wrote:

For the record I do not fancy the new structure , for players like me its tough to make profit considering that im not at the level to battle with the top players ( at least that s what I think) . Most of the times i will bust before the prizes or mincash ( 1.5x ish for freezouts/ 2.3x ish for re entries/  3x/4x for R/A these being close numbers from what i noticed in mtts) , sometimes bust in the middle ish of the payouts , which dont matter that much anymore, and once in a blue moon get a final table. Considering that most of the 5-10 euro mtts which are my main stake , mostly re entries , re buy /add ons In the best case im probably going to break even or most likely downswing . I am not really a math guy , I dont know how much can these new payouts affect my ROI but im not willing to test it for ridiculous mincashes and a final table once in 2 months , that s just not fun .  I usually play a mtt if I enjoy it not necessarily for how profitable it is and now im not really enjoying playing anything anymore . Im sure you could ve done a proper 17% by taking money from all the positions instead of only from the middle part  to add new payouts or make it 15% as NMPfan once suggested . I do not understand why this idea wasn t announced few months before you implemented it so people can give you ideas on how to improve it , make it work for everyone , instead of mentioning it a few weeks before you implement it and wait for people to complain or stop playing in order to change something .I did noticed though that recently the payouts got changed a little bit  in a good way and I hope you guys improve it even more and make it fair enough for everyone and maybe take into consideration making it 13%- 14% . I would like to get the my results since the new structure got implemented until now, for mtts , satellites excluded and maybe if you can apply the new structure to my 2018 mtts only results . I m really curious how it is going to affect them .  @Stubbe-Unibet 

 

 


@Hotzonicu  appreciate the feedback! I've sent you your results by email and I'm sure you won't be too upset with the new structure after checking it ;)

Personally, I'm a fan of a 14,5-15 % structure, and I will prepare a proposal for such, but ultimately it's not my area of responsibility, and I can't say if or when anything will change. We do of course listen to all feedback posted here, so please keep it coming! :)

In terms of customer involvement, I agree 100 % with you, and more customer involvement in things like this is something we've recently discussed in the team. We will be using the private UAT group to get feedback on these things in the future :)

  • Like 2

Check the latest poker release notes. Have a look at our poker promotions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry for being sceptic but i dont think my results will get any close to those you presented me . Simply adding more flat payouts by taking money only from the middle ish payouts will generate so much more varience which doesn t really work hand in hand with rough estimations . I don t think the new 17% structure takes into consideration the extra varience which is not something a weaker player can easely overcome , the top 25 players you mentioned being the ones who know to deal with it in most of the situations , that s why they have better ish results . When it comes to customer involvement it s not the easiest thing to achieve , especially in a game driven by egos and money like poker . Poker players aren t really used to work toghether towards a goal , and the ones that can give you the best advices are those who have better things to do or wont do it for free ( which is not always the case here in the community ). It is going to be tough but it can be achieved on Unibet i believe , IF the idea gets promoted enough . Also i hope Unibet employees and the costumers still know what " By players for players " means. 😉 @Stubbe-Unibet 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


@Hotzonicu wrote:

I am sorry for being sceptic but i dont think my results will get any close to those you presented me . Simply adding more flat payouts by taking money only from the middle ish payouts will generate so much more varience which doesn t really work hand in hand with rough estimations . I don t think the new 17% structure takes into consideration the extra varience which is not something a weaker player can easely overcome , the top 25 players you mentioned being the ones who know to deal with it in most of the situations , that s why they have better ish results . When it comes to customer involvement it s not the easiest thing to achieve , especially in a game driven by egos and money like poker . Poker players aren t really used to work toghether towards a goal , and the ones that can give you the best advices are those who have better things to do or wont do it for free ( which is not always the case here in the community ). It is going to be tough but it can be achieved on Unibet i believe , IF the idea gets promoted enough . Also i hope Unibet employees and the costumers still know what " By players for players " means. 😉 @Stubbe-Unibet 


@Hotzonicu , the numbers in the email are exact calculations on how you'd have performed in 2018, if you had finished in exactly the same spots with the new structure (this is obviously a big if :)). That being said, you do have a point :)

Customer involvement certainly is a difficult one, and I think the Unibet poker product is a good example. Had we listened to the players back in 2013-2014, we'd never have gone standalone but probably still be with Microgaming today. The same will sometimes be the case on here. The most active and vocal players will generally belong to certain segments and have common characteristics. Segments and characteristics that are a minority of the players (putting in a significant share of the volume though). I'm not trying to say we always know what's best and shouldn't listen to the customers - hopefully my engagement on here already makes this obvious - and I think we could benefit greatly from more customer involvement :)

  • Like 2

Check the latest poker release notes. Have a look at our poker promotions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...