I intended to create this thread right after Unibet Online Series as the raised topics have been naturally influanced by that and directly related to the tournament offer. First of all, as a tournament poker fan, I would like to thank for such a possibility. The series turned out to be a great success and met with a huge interest of players. It can certainly become even more prosperous in future, and @MoreTBC has done a good job with his "UOS feedback" thread, collecting Community thoughts on how it could be improved. From my part, I would like to make two suggestions on the regular tournament schedule,
closely linked to my UOS observations.
1. Overall qualifiers system needs to be simplified:
There are sats in the current offer dedicated to particular tournaments like Supernova, Milky Way etc. The problem with these is that they rarely run or hardly ever cover gtds. Some of the tournaments that can be considered daily majors, like Deep Impact or Abyss don't have any sats whatsover. Others like Odyssey have "one-single" sat a week, which is ridiculous, cause next to the Nova it aspires to be a Sunday Major, r/a in addition. Milky Way is a Saturday Major, but patience of players trying to qualify is definitely put to the test as it's hard to start a sat even. Others like daily Sputnik sats are always overlayed, cause the sat/target buy-in ratio is too big, and fun players rarely come back to play disappointed after a single unsuccessful try. Altogether these consequence in limiting the target fields, and then even less interest in playing qualifiers. Dead End!
Thus, the qualifiers system needs to be simplified, and the positive UOS experience should be a base to that. During the series 5€=>25€ sats were running massively on afternoons with covered gtds. Together with the abililty of using the won tickets for any event of your choice it's a pattern for a perfect sat. Why not follow this and standardize all the sats now, 3x25€ for 5€, and let people play whatever they want with the tickets: Deep Impact, Abyss, Dwarf Star, Gargle Blaster, Ice Giant etc. The same for 50€s, as the 1=>5 multiplier works perfectly with "Unibet fields", why not to set 10€=>50€ sats and give players the opportunity to choose again from Milky Way, Odyssey, Sputnik. The qualifiers to 100€ events might be 25€=>100€, which would definitely help to get rid of overlays, and give all the players opportunity to qualify in steps: 0.20€=>1€=>5€=>25€=>100€, with the demand of running sats at all particular levels.
I think one sat of each level could start every hour after 4PM. Apart from that there should be one main daily sat of each level with 10tx gtd, which is definitely possible to cover with 50 players field.
Alternative to this would be a 5man SNG rakefree sat, with a ticket for the winner, for instance 5x5€ with one 25€ ticket. These would be quick and fun,
perfectly suited for recreationals not having much time to play, and/or frustrated with another cancelled qualifier. It's easy to imagine that these would generate plenty of additional entries to the target tournaments.
Overall, rakefree sats as a starting point, would help to cover the target gtds, generating more entries and encouraging even more players to play sats.
The covered gtds means more daily sats => more tickets => bigger target fields and prizepools => more rake. It's a snowball effect. The most important idea is to unify the field of players willing to play all the sats and "let them run" finally. I'm absolutely confident it's possible to get the system healthy, but the only way to do this is to apply changes.
2. Demand for a daily major 50€ tournament:
There were only a few 50€ events during UOS, but they were certainly successful with their good structures and attractive prizepools. It only proves that with Unibet growing fields, players' needs have become diverse, and there is a growing demand for a daily tournament with a slighly bigger buy-in.
Especially if the sat system would get to work somehow it makes a lot of sense, cause many players should find their chances to fight for bigger prizes.
You will say that we have Sputnik but with "all the likes" it cannot be called a daily major. First of all, it runs decidedly too late to draw attention of more players. And...with its "r/a bubble rush structure" it's in fact 150-200€ average buy-in, a bit too much to think its field is going to grow significantly with the limited sats. I like Sputnik and I try to play it as often as I can, but I think 50€ daily major should be a freezout/reentry to equalize funplayers chances and thus encourage them to play. Personally, I consider the Abyss structure perfect, and I would just copy/paiste it to set the new tournament to 7-8PM CET. It could be scheduled as a trial period twice a week to start, Tuesday and Friday for instance. Maybe if all interested players shared their thoughs on that, it would result in having a perfect tourney in the schedule?
I think both suggestions are worth mentioning and consideration. Thanks for your time and reading it! Please leave your feedback, write whatever you agree or disagree on above. Make your suggestions. Especially resolving the sat issue would help a lot in my opinion. Together, you can do more than alone. Best Regards, GL!
Totally agree with unifying sats, its been mentioned a few times but no one has ever really responded to the posts.
Simplfying is always better, one set of sats for live events in there different formats and one set of sats for online events.
5 to 1 SNGs dont seem that appealing to me, would prefer a 9 seater oferring 1x25 2x10MTTs as prizes and 1x5MTT if a rake free model. No 4th prize if a rake free model isnt possible.
@MoreTBC I didn't mean to change the Sputnik this tournament has certainly its fans and it's still worth to have it in the schedule. Although I'm in the same shoes I play only with tickets and don't have much room with rebuys, I think Sputnik has some potential if the sat system would get changed. 50€ Daily Major should be a new tourney magifying the offer, as there is a true demand for that. Nevertheless, the first idea is much more important and I would like to have this suggestion considered seriously
as a regular player I totally agree with @Psycho79. It would be pretty nice to see in schedule €50 daily freezeout or maybe with 1 optional re-entry on 19.30 CET, it also would be great to see one more €25 Turbo freezeout on 18.15 or 18.45 CET and then give these tournaments e.g. a monthly probationary period and then decide whether they are profitable or not for Unibet.
My opinions / observations inc :P
Agree with a lot of the stuff mentioned, but one thing I don't like about super large posts that include many separate different suggestions is that people will support one or another idea and something like the thing @MoreTBC misunderstood will get implemented cause "that's what the people wanted" cause they said they agree. Leaves room for a lot of miscommunication.
But back to the points, yes a daily 50€ would be great, please don't take out the Sputnik, it's a great tournament that has it's dedicated fans, many of them won't stick around for 5€ tournaments. Also we had a daily 50€ FO before, but its GTD was way too low for it to make anyone log in to unibet for it, it was essentially a worse SNG, no point to play it, also just slapping a big gtd on it probably wouldn't work (they tried stuff like that before). For it to work it needs daily traffic, more on this on my next point.
@Psycho79 uses the example of the UOS satties, and that's a very good example, but the important thing about it is why it worked. Let's not forget that the UOS satties overlayed heavily for quite a while, so I don't think their success later on was completely due to their structure. The multi seat ones were good but it took a while for them to pick up until people knew about it and again I don't think it's the only factor. Later on in the series it was as psycho points it out, the satties were incredibly popular and exceeded gtds most of the time, as did the UOS events. There are 2 major factors that contributed to the sattie success (among other factors).
1. A lot of people were interested in playing the UOS events, both the loyal customers and people that came by just for the series, there was large demand, and that can't always translate well to stuff that might have less demand, like a small tournament in the UK. A generic sattie system might solve the liquidity issue at least in the lower levels for the people that actually want to qualify to those events. Idk how it would affect the finals though, it could go either way, it could dry up some finals, or it could make them super popular due to randomly having excess tickets from another sattie, or oh you qualified for a UO, you can't play any more finals for a while and have 2x 250€ tickets, why not split it and just play a uk tour or a dso or whatever. There would probably be other factors that would push it either way as well.
2. This is a big reason IMO, and many people mentioned stuff of the sorts unrelated to the uso and sattie subject. During the UOS tons of people had a reason to log into unibet every single day of the week, not just Sunday. Every day they were here, and if they were here they got to see other games and ended up playing those games as well, including the satties. This also happened when the new MTT schedule got released, all the tournaments and satties got a boost in those first weeks because people were on the site every day to try out the schedule. Why doesn't this happen all the time? Because outside of Sunday there is very little reason for people to log into unibet (for mtt's), has been mentions many times, by many people. The current schedule is very Sunday centric, and don't get me wrong Sunday is great I love it. Also most of the new schedule tournaments are really nicely structured, way better than the old ones. But outside of Sunday there's very little to play (per stake), even less than what we had on the old schedule. If the daily schedule would be as strong as the Sunday schedule then people would have reasons to log in / to play every day and that would boost all the games, obviously with smaller gtds, less players but still a large attractive offering. IDK how that could be achieved, I trust Leo to come up with ways to make the schedule better over time, but it clearly worked magnificently for the UOS.
As for the steps structure of the satties I'm being a massive broken record but here I go again:
1. I think the 25 to 100 step is very unattractive for anyone wanting to flick in a buy-in to qualify for "cheap" and those players are essential for the game, partly due to the ratio being too small to actually feel that you got in for cheap, and possibly a psychological effect to where 25€ already seems like a lot of money and a 20 or even better something like an 18€ a la 9.99 store prices, could give the illusion of being much cheaper therefore being more attractive. This step only amassed so many fans here because of the large profits people made (me included) purely due to overlays, cause a smaller ratio offers you the opportunity to scoop more of the overlay faster, especially cause it keeps a portion of the people that would see it as unattractive out therefore perpetuating the overlays. This gives the illusion that they're a good format. But this can't go on forever and it usually leads to satties turning into my point #2
2. A 4-5-6 man sattelite with 1 ticket GTD is no longer a proper sattelite, it's just a much much worse SNG (not to be confused with Psychos sng idea, that's good). There is very little reason for anyone to flick in a buy-in into these scheduled worse SNG's unless they have tickets for them and have no other option to used them on. Not only are they overraked (leo has lowered the rake in some of them) and inconvenient due to being scheduled compared to the sng's , people also don't know about many of them cause they pop up way too late for people that aren't on the site 24/7 to know about them, and they're also less satisfying for many players. In a sng even for 2'nd you still won some money 80 1'st 40 2'nd so there is some amount of satisfaction, but in a 5man sattie, the winner get's 100 and the runner up get's 12.5, less than the buy-in. Many players instead of feeling good that they recovered a part of their money they feel bad, even taunted that they get told that they won half of their buy-in (this even happens with Ian sometimes and he's a pro). They get less feel good so even less reason to play one of these silly sat sng's rather than a regular sng. If all the satties turn into this we end up with the Milky Way satties, literally none start outside of the Sunday multi-seat, NONE. ... Some people will disagree and say getting a part of the prize back is great they love games like that, but they are in the minority, mostly ticket people, and they also dislike getting a 4€ rebate for 12€ invested in a r/a, and their like for them also comes from overlay boosted results. Also some rebates are perfectly fine when there are many target tickets, but when they are half or more of the game it gets silly.
3. In general I think there should be diversity in the offering, but even more so with a generic sattie structure because at that point there is no other option on the entire site to play what someone enjoys if everything is the same so they just leave. And it risks eventually having an entire schedule of what I mentioned at point #2 which would take the road of the Milky Way sats. Also adds the risk of having an unavoidable raketrap somewhere in there, although unibet is quick enough to fix that when the community complains . Some people enjoy going though many steps (mostly ticket grinders but other people as well), some like getting to play a tournament they can't afford, for cheap, in 1-2 steps. Some people enjoy turbos, some normals, some slow (for the slow it kinda depends if it's worth the time). Some prefer 10 tix satties some 3 tix. It's good to have stuff for everyone spread throughout the schedule. And the unpopular ones will cull themselves out, like the milky ways have.
The rakefree sng satties is obviously a suggestion I can get behind of for stimulating the games (it removes a part of the being worse satties from point #2, and makes 2'nd place more juicy, and you don't have to play it at a certain time) , and that I would very much like, the issue as always being development time, I don't think they can just flip a switch and have them there. Also splitting the sng player pool.
What a generic sattie system would mean for me... It would probably be kinda good, and solve the liquidity issue that makes some satties not start (a lot of the ones I'm playing start anyway nowadays thanks to the other regs, but there have been issues in the past). Also overlays can't be a thing forever. One thing worries me, I have a strong suspicion that a generic system would severely decrease the number of satties (that already have been decreased the past months) and as someone that doesn't have 50 other options like a British person, to multi site or move, less games don't look good for me. Also again it gives less reasons for the person with options to log in every day. That being said if the games were to cancel all the time again, might as well do it. And @Psycho79 suggestions for a schedule would make a great starting point. But I still think the other contributing factors are as important.
lol tl;dr ... ain't nobody got time to read a book, cliffnotes then
LOL, just LOL at anybody here suggesting to change the Sputnik. Really, some of you would go broke running a chippy in front of a football stadium! That tournament crushed its GTD from day one and today it exceeded its 1500 GTD by more than 600 Euros.There are 2 Sputnik satellites that run daily that are well received, but yeah...
Honestly, I don't know whether you need to change the qualifier system due to the changes regarding the ticket exchanges. Let's see how many players play the qualifiers once they run out of tickets and have to buy in with cash. Obviously, Unibet wants to control a little bit more where the money finally ends up so I doubt they'll follow @Psycho79's first suggestion. However, I find it a little funny that there is no 5-1 ratio qualifier for the Supernova here and there's practically no running qualifier for the Milky Way. That needs to change. I haven't played any SN/MW qualifier for over two months now and not for a lack of tickets, funds or interest.
@NMPfan thanks for your reply. I really intended to keep my two ideas as simple as possible, and found your considerations complicating things more than they are indeed I'm totally aware that UOS attracted much more players than the regular Unibet pool contains, but it's not the reason why we shouldn't try changing things using proven schemes. Still many players log in to Unibet poker client everyday to play tournaments. Some of them would like to play tournaments bigger than their bankrolls allow in hopes for a dream shot , others like just to save their money and want to get there cheaply. These players are present at every poker site, and qualifiers run just for them. Every site should adjust its goals to its possibilities. Unifying the sats system is nothing but gathering all the players willing to play a particular stake in one place and giving them such possibility. There are only 15 players needed to break even every 3tx gtd sat, and I'm certain that it can be done. The changes after all don't have to be introduced drastically. There might be scheduled a single daily sat of each level for a trial period. If these would cover gtds it's going to be a signal to add more and more. At the same time keeping eye on track, how it ifluances the target attendance. I just cannot imagine a single rational reason for why generic tickets would lead to decreasing number of games. Overlays? They just cannot last forever and things need to be looked at from a wider perpective, what is good for the site longterm is certainly good for its regular players. If liquidity issue disappears another players will start joining the sats soon, it's just like with regular games growing interest. Diversity? Like above, every site has its limited possibilities, if you offer ten different sat types here, the results are easily predictable Surely players should be given an alternative, but not as much to deconcentrate the games again. That's why I suggested SNG sats. Their format is another thing, fully negotiable and possible to determine by any means. The point that these would drag people from playing regular SNGs does not speak to me really. The difference between Milky Way sat that never runs and "the worse SNG" is that the first one is being cancelled as it doesn't get enough players at particular time, while the latter's registration stays open to welcome players willing to join Sputnik, Odyssey as well. Liquidity again. Rakefree? The same matter. Another idea to help with this. Most players don't have a clue how much rake they pay, but they will see another ticket to win This can be treated like a promotion, and Unibet should mark clearly for how long it would last. Steps? @NMPfan do you really think it's possible to run Supernova sats for 19.99€? I'm in! I suggested qualifying in steps using existing stakes. These would be another sats generating 100€ tickets possible to use also in UK Finals for instance. I know 1=> 4 multiplier is not as attractive as 1=>5, but as long as there's no 125€ events here, it's just another remedy for liguidity and overlays. Maybe the stakes scheme should be rebuilt first?
0.20€=>1€=>4€=>20€=>100€, and alternative 0.40€=>2€=>10€=>50€=>250€. Still there's 1=>4 in it, but it matters less at the lower stakes, does it? Make sats at all listed stakes run? Live Events Qualifiers and Tickets? Of course it would be perfect to entirely standardize Live and Online sats, but having two sets of qualifiers like @jonny2192 mentioned is certainly "less evil" than at present. Again, unifying tickets to play UO, UK, DSO, Belgian....any live tour would be perfect, but a chance of using generic tickets in these can only improve the target attendance. Sputnik? @WuDu? Anyone? Where did you exactly read the suggetion to remove Sputnik? I suggested enriching the schedule with a new 50€ tournament. I just pointed out how it should be different from Sputnik, cause despite I'm also its fan, I think there's a growing demand for such a tournament. It has to be different cause it's directed to another recipient type. It's closely linked to the proposed sat system. The old 50€ FO? @NMPfan, possibilities again. How Unibet from two years ago differs from Unibet now? Exactly!
I never said my suggestions are perfect, after all these are only suggestions. The drastical means are not constraint. Who said we cannot set sat SNGs and take them down in a while if they wouldn't work? Who said we cannot do the same with 50€ MTT and see if it becomes popular or not? Why cannot we just check if the unified sats do what they should? Trying changes is always better than leaving things as they are. Maybe instead of complaining that UOS players have gone after the series, let's try to keep them after another one! Peace All, GL!
I wanted to say my part on the sattellite structure aswell, since I posted many times on this topic already and I feel that when I try enough it will maybe get trough. I will mark out the most important bit's by bolding them, so you don't actually need to read everything.
What Psycho mentioned in his first post is exactly the structure which is needed on Unibet. x5 steps are really interesting for recreationals, more than a x10 .If you would break even, trying 10 times to qualify can hurt your soul. There need to be the feeling that you win enough times to keep playing a sattelite.
Why a 25 to 100 would be okay:
- 25 is the regular BI. Introducing a 20 would mess up the system. You wouldn't be able to play any other tournament with that ticket, and I think that's exactly what we want in this system. That we can use all our tickets in the tree at any time.
- There is, right now, only 1 100 MTT. If you can qualify for it with your regular limit (25 euro) it will feel as if you played a MTT for 25 euro but with way more value. (If there were more 100 euro MTT's I think this point will become more invalid since playing a 100 MTT will not be a once-a-week thing anymore).
- To coincide with the first point. Players who come from a 5 (or even a 1) euro step and won a 25 euro ticket will feel there is actually a big step. For them it will be a x20 or even a x100, even tough they need to play 2 tourney's for it. I remember when I first played a 25 euro MTT which I qualified for from 1 euro (it were the 'daily steps in the past). This x25 step was huge for me, and in the end I made 250 euro from 1 euro.
I think the rake on the satellites should indeed be as low as possible, but on the other hand, I don't really know if it matters that much for a rec when the rake is 5% or 0%. But in the end, less rake will make for bigger prize pools which is way more attractive. In the end it earns way more to Unibet to have the end tournament reach it's guarantee.
I only play 25+ tournaments when I qualify, so I can't really talk about the need of a 50 euro daily MTT. But I think the shedule does miss one at prime time (between 7 and 8 PM CET). But the shedule misses a lot at primetime (A daily 25 bounty, the dwarf star is only a pseudo bounty imo, some lower stakes PLO games.)
Then I do follow NMP's point of only sunday being attractive to players. I think there is a need to add day specific majors. Starting with tuesday and thursday as those two seem to be the most active days already. A Tuesday Telescope (Deep with long levels) and a Thursday Terminator (Bounty semi-turbo 6min levels) (credits: http://planetfacts.org/space-terms/). With each having a 50 Major, 5 Minor and 0.5 micro/nano (Or 50/10/2). This could maybe take away the need of a regular daily 50 euro.
Hope my points make at least a bit of sense
btw @Psycho79 I wasn't attacking your suggestions just building on them, and I actually agreed mostly that a generic pool liquidity might be better.
Yes things are more complicated. These "proven schemes" worked due to multiple factors, just doing one of those factors won't bring the same results. Also pointed out the schemes that are proven to fail, the 1 seat 5 people sats that are most of the current schedule and almost nobody plays them, since it's likely that a new system would be built the same way despite your suggestions (mentioning again that this is different than your sng idea). Same for the 50€ FO, if they make a 250€ GTD it will fail again the same as it has in the past, if they make a 5k it will probably not cover it the same as it has in the past. The entire MTT schedule needs to be buffed up to even come close to the effects of the UOS on all the games, both in number of offers and in attractiveness of the games. The players that already log in every day, or just come back during the week from time to time is quite small in comparison to what was during the uos and there are reasons for that (a series going on is one of them, but not the only one), those reasons should also be tackeled. The sattie system is part of a greater whole, it can't be "fixed" on it's own.
The logical reason for having less satties. Well if you have let's say 5x 25€ satties during the same hour, 1dso 1uo 1belgian 1uk 1supernova, in a generic implementation it's very likely that they will just make one that will pool all the players. That's good for the liquidity of that tournament, but will leave us with 1 tournament per day to use to qualify to stuff. Similar for the lower levels. If they would implement something like your system, have 1 each hour and a big one during primetime that would be great, but you have to realize that they probabaly won't take your whole system and implement it, and will just take some points from it that would be easy to do, like the changing the Sputnik to a FO thing, that you didn't even say at all, but misunderstandings happen, all the factors that you've probably already ran though in your head, they won't be in the person that reads this's head. They will have their own opinions and see whatever they interpret of this. So I think it's important to think and point out the bad stuff that could happen as well, instead of let's just wait until it happens.
Also about the rakefree SNG idea, while I would like for it to happen, remember that an in client exchange system was also suggested by many and seemed super simple to do and people thought they were geniuses for suggesting it, just try it out. Turned out it's not simple enough to be prioritized and the only solution was to remove the exchange system, then the exchanger idea came up at the last moment. Hopefully I am wrong about this and it is super simple to implement and it wouldn't negatively affect the sng pool.
Also a more general statement not very related to the psycho posts, building a system catering only to ticket grinders is bad, we need people to join in at every level just cause the tournament is attractive enough for them to do so. The number people that play the 1's and go though all the steps gets exponentially lower the higher you go, they are not enough to sustain a thriving ecology. That being said, 5 to 1 / 6 to 1 is a very good format, and 11/1 and higher doesn't have enough liquidity to thrive atm, so they're bad in that sense. Improving traffic during the week in general would help with this, and with having multi seat gtds that crush it during sundays.
And yes I am aware that my suggestion to change the buy-in figures to 20€ or 18€ is also probably not something that will actually happen due to the current bi scheme, and probably isn't easy enough to just try it, see what happens, and even if it could be tried it would take time and it's just one factor of many, not enough to produce a result.