cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Argevolen
Rank 16
Rank 16

@Stubbe-Unibet wrote:

@Argevolen wrote:

@Andy-Unibet wrote:

Hi @FreedoM,

How we would deal with players that ignore any warnings we give them would obviously be on a case by case basis and I hope we don't have to do it with any of the players that received this email or any other we send in future. Having said that, we also have to consider whether it is worth allowing a single player back when they've made the playing experience of many other customer worse in the past. We don't take account blocking/closure lightly and it is considered a last resort. 

As far as I'm concerned, if a player received a one month block and then came back and continued to persistently rathole then a 3 month, 6 month or 1 year block is not going to change their behaviour. The email sent out should be the trigger for these players to reflect on their behavior and decide if they want to change it or not.

Automatic ratholing prevention is on the development roadmap and will hopefully eliminate this issue in the future.


Slowroll is also unethical behaviour. Etiquette and poker are not compatible at all! We are not in an English club for aristocrats.
Many annoying things are part of the players' strategy.  Constant use of timebank on the bubble in a tournament is also unethical behaviour.
Banning player accounts for one thing and turning a blind eye to everything else is also unethical behaviour.


Use of timebank isn't unethical, unless we'd have unlimited timebank, which we don't. Stalling is part of the game, and the timebank is configured in such a way that there's a balance. However, if you were to use max time in every single hand across thousands of hands and tournaments (for no reason other than to try and piss off the other players), we'd probably take action as well and send you a warning. The two things just can't be compared; primarily because there're already measures in place against one and not the other Smile

I wrote about the excessive use of timebanking on the tournament bubble. Ask your colleagues what it is and why players do it.
You can also ask their opinion on the ethics of these actions.

That we shouldn't enforce one rule, because you deem other aspects equally important or annoying, that's just silly, especially when the comparison doesn't make any sense. 

The comparison really makes no sense because you are not comparing what I wrote, but what you want to compare!

If you rathole to an extreme extent, you're a real annoyance to the other players. This is what's key and why we take action. To call any preventive measures unethical, well, I think that speaks for itself really Smile

It's not what you do that matters, but how you do it!

As Andy said, we're also working on the technical solution to prevent it.

 


 

0 Likes
Reply
Pionrj
Rank 10
Rank 10

@Argevolen I play a lot of MTTs on many sites. On Unibet only a few every now and then. But I really don't get what is this exsessive time banking? Could you please explain me. It has to be something that happens only on Unibet. On other sites about 90% of short stack players stall close to bubble or a money jump. Basically this means that no one gets a real advantage of it. So it's just part of tournament poker. You have to deal with it. 

0 Likes
Reply
Stubbe-Unibet
Unibet Poker Expert
Unibet Poker Expert

@Argevolen wrote:

@Stubbe-Unibet wrote:
Use of timebank isn't unethical, unless we'd have unlimited timebank, which we don't. Stalling is part of the game, and the timebank is configured in such a way that there's a balance. However, if you were to use max time in every single hand across thousands of hands and tournaments (for no reason other than to try and piss off the other players), we'd probably take action as well and send you a warning. The two things just can't be compared; primarily because there're already measures in place against one and not the other Smile

I wrote about the excessive use of timebanking on the tournament bubble. Ask your colleagues what it is and why players do it.
You can also ask their opinion on the ethics of these actions.

That we shouldn't enforce one rule, because you deem other aspects equally important or annoying, that's just silly, especially when the comparison doesn't make any sense. 

The comparison really makes no sense because you are not comparing what I wrote, but what you want to compare!

If you rathole to an extreme extent, you're a real annoyance to the other players. This is what's key and why we take action. To call any preventive measures unethical, well, I think that speaks for itself really Smile

It's not what you do that matters, but how you do it!

As Andy said, we're also working on the technical solution to prevent it.



Now you lost me Smile

Don't understand what you mean with the first comment, as it doesn't relate to anything I said; or you're just confirming what I said.

It's not a problem to stall on the bubble, and I obviously understand the reasons for doing so Smile

Your second comment. You wrote "Banning player accounts for one thing and turning a blind eye to everything else is also unethical behaviour.". Not sure how to understand that in a different way, the context taken into consideration Smile

Third comment doesn't make sense to me either, unless you actually have some contructive feedback or anything in particular about the process you don't like? - as mentioned in the previous comment, your theories are off.  So far your feedback has been that you don't like warnings, unless I've missed something between the lines Smile

Reply
Argevolen
Rank 16
Rank 16

@Stubbe-Unibet wrote:

 

Your conclusion is your own opinion, and I know for a fact, based on actual data (survey and poker transaction), that it's simply wrong :


You seem annoyed by the fact that I have an opinion. Tongue

That's what's most important! You have the information and understand how it will work.
Players don't have that information!
They are just concerned about the possibility of losing their account.
You could just clarify some points and announce the introduction of the technical side of this issue.
But it's not your style. It's much more interesting to pounce on players' posts and explain them what it is:

- stupid.

-wrong

- doesn't make sense

- you can not compare
and others....

Be gentle with people, not everyone is as smart as you are!Smile

0 Likes
Reply
Stubbe-Unibet
Unibet Poker Expert
Unibet Poker Expert
I'm not annoyed at all, and in principle I can of course understand the concern. However, it's not like you're new to the site, and you know by now that we don't just block poker without a reason. Making up theories that contradicts what's written earlier in the thread, the entire history of Unibet poker etc., when you know the product as well as you do, that's not very constructive, but I don't mind decisions being questioned or discussed Smile

Andy clarified in the very first post that the funds would never be at risk and we'd never block someone without a warning first (when we're talking ratholing). He also made it clear that it's quite significant "abuse". I clarified later on both of these points, mentioning that we'd handle it case-by-case and we'd likely issue a 2nd warning in some cases.

The technical implementation will be announced in due course (at least 2 weeks prior to it being released). It'll basically be limited how often you can return with less than you left, so casual "ratholing" will be possible, but what I'd consider "abuse" won't be possible.

I didn't say anything you said is stupid, but I stand by that majority of your comments don't make any sense to me, and you approach the subject in a very strange fashion, considering how well you know the product, our approach and how long you've been active on here. If we had a history of blocking poker left and right and never being transparent, I'd get where you're coming from, but that isn't exactly the case Smile
Reply
Livertool
Rank 25
Rank 25

@Argevolen wrote:

@Stubbe-Unibet wrote:

 

Your conclusion is your own opinion, and I know for a fact, based on actual data (survey and poker transaction), that it's simply wrong :


You seem annoyed by the fact that I have an opinion. Tongue

That's what's most important! You have the information and understand how it will work.
Players don't have that information!
They are just concerned about the possibility of losing their account.
You could just clarify some points and announce the introduction of the technical side of this issue.
But it's not your style. It's much more interesting to pounce on players' posts and explain them what it is:

- stupid.

-wrong

- doesn't make sense

- you can not compare
and others....

Be gentle with people, not everyone is as smart as you are!Smile


You don't go to football field with ice hockey stick, don't you. It is up to players to know the rules, if you don't follow them ref gives yellow and then red card and you cry in shower Waterfall

About timebanking, anything unibet wants to do with disconnecting? I am 100% sure it just don't happen randomly when you see it pretty much every tourny and same players in that tourny. Don't know how they do it but it is even more annoying yhan timebanking

To bet or not to bet, that is the question.
0 Likes
Reply
Stubbe-Unibet
Unibet Poker Expert
Unibet Poker Expert

@Livertool, yes, disconnection time is on the backlog as well. Will need to get an update on it, in regards to timeline Smile

If someone is seriously abusing it today, please do report it and Andy or I will have a look and issue a warning if we deem it necessary Smile

Reply
Argevolen
Rank 16
Rank 16

@Stubbe-Unibet wrote:

@Argevolen wrote:

@Stubbe-Unibet wrote:
Use of timebank isn't unethical, unless we'd have unlimited timebank, which we don't. Stalling is part of the game, and the timebank is configured in such a way that there's a balance. However, if you were to use max time in every single hand across thousands of hands and tournaments (for no reason other than to try and piss off the other players), we'd probably take action as well and send you a warning. The two things just can't be compared; primarily because there're already measures in place against one and not the other Smile

I wrote about the excessive use of timebanking on the tournament bubble. Ask your colleagues what it is and why players do it.
You can also ask their opinion on the ethics of these actions.

That we shouldn't enforce one rule, because you deem other aspects equally important or annoying, that's just silly, especially when the comparison doesn't make any sense. 

The comparison really makes no sense because you are not comparing what I wrote, but what you want to compare!

If you rathole to an extreme extent, you're a real annoyance to the other players. This is what's key and why we take action. To call any preventive measures unethical, well, I think that speaks for itself really Smile

It's not what you do that matters, but how you do it!

As Andy said, we're also working on the technical solution to prevent it.



Now you lost me Smile

Don't understand what you mean with the first comment, as it doesn't relate to anything I said; or you're just confirming what I said.

It's not a problem to stall on the bubble, and I obviously understand the reasons for doing so Smile

Your second comment. You wrote "Banning player accounts for one thing and turning a blind eye to everything else is also unethical behaviour.". Not sure how to understand that in a different way, the context taken into consideration Smile

Third comment doesn't make sense to me either, unless you actually have some contructive feedback or anything in particular about the process you don't like? - as mentioned in the previous comment, your theories are off.  So far your feedback has been that you don't like warnings, unless I've missed something between the lines Smile


Let me explain quite simply.
- I am not against the technical limitation of ratholing
- I'm against any vague wording that can lead to warnings and subsequent account bans.
- This is my personal opinion. I'm not imposing it on anyone.
- I didn't ask for my opinion to be judged. I'm an adult, I'll figure it out on my own.
- I think stalling on the bubble is unethical.

I do not know English, and perhaps some of my words have not been translated correctly. But I hope you understand my position.
It probably does not coincide with yours. That's okay. People often see things differently.

0 Likes
Reply
Pionrj
Rank 10
Rank 10

@Livertool This is something that I've noticed too. I'm pretty sure that they just close the table for 20-30 seconds and then open it again. If this is what @Argevolen meant before, it's a real problem. Players stalling with out loosing their time bank should be against the rules too. But I hope, that Unibet will react to it if you just report these people. 

Reply
Argevolen
Rank 16
Rank 16

@Stubbe-Unibet wrote:
I'm not annoyed at all, and in principle I can of course understand the concern. However, it's not like you're new to the site, and you know by now that we don't just block poker without a reason. Making up theories that contradicts what's written earlier in the thread, the entire history of Unibet poker etc., when you know the product as well as you do, that's not very constructive, but I don't mind decisions being questioned or discussed Smile

Andy clarified in the very first post that the funds would never be at risk and we'd never block someone without a warning first (when we're talking ratholing). He also made it clear that it's quite significant "abuse". I clarified later on both of these points, mentioning that we'd handle it case-by-case and we'd likely issue a 2nd warning in some cases.

The technical implementation will be announced in due course (at least 2 weeks prior to it being released). It'll basically be limited how often you can return with less than you left, so casual "ratholing" will be possible, but what I'd consider "abuse" won't be possible.

I didn't say anything you said is stupid, but I stand by that majority of your comments don't make any sense to me, and you approach the subject in a very strange fashion, considering how well you know the product, our approach and how long you've been active on here. If we had a history of blocking poker left and right and never being transparent, I'd get where you're coming from, but that isn't exactly the case Smile

This is most likely due to the difficulty of translation.)
Unibet really has an honest approach to players.
But I'm sure you understand the reasons for the regulars' fears.
Thanks for the detailed explanation. I really hope that everyone will benefit from your innovations.

0 Likes
Reply