Jump to content

Ticket Exchange is ending 4th November


penguin50

Recommended Posts

Last week, the Friday and Saturday games had 24 and 25 players. This week:

UO2501.thumb.PNG.d028789caa01b9bc7b217a554d65dc63.PNG

 

uo2601.thumb.PNG.22a99b1d1ebd99099d9b58507802196e.PNG

 

Call me crazy, but I don't see a positive trend here. Back in October, those numbers were in the 30s...

 

 

  • Like 1
We're gonna win on so many levels! We're gonna win, win, win. You're gonna get so tired of winning, you're gonna say: "Mr. President please, we don't wanna win anymore, it's too much!" And I'm gonna say: "I'm sorry, we're gonna keep winning because we're gonna make America great again!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 228
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


@Stubbe-Unibet wrote:

- Overlay pretty steady with a slightly negative trend (see first graph), and there're a few outliers affecting the trend. See graph below. The € 50 tournaments do indeed have a bigger overlay now than before the exchanges stopped. The € 250 are doing really great (see last graph) - overlay just twice since the change.


The Uo50s are trending up, they said. The Uo50s just need a little more time, they said:

uo50.thumb.PNG.4a9e89c52235fe2e8838e024cfac9b63.PNG

 

However what made me think a little bit is the statement that the "UO250s are doing really great".

So as we all know, the Uo250 on Wednesday has been scrapped. Of course that debunks the statement that the "UO250s are doing really great", but at this point, who cares? What`s really interesting is what happened to the guaranteed live package?

thinkning

 You used to guarantee 6 packages a week (5 on Sunday and 1 on Wednesday). The Wednesday qualifier is gone now, meaning everybody wanting to qualify online has to play the UO250 on Sunday. But despite the influx of new players on Sunday, you still guarantee just 5 packages. Why haven't you added the 6th package on Sunday, yet?

200

 1 package a week, 13 packages for every Unibet Open, that adds up. A cynical person might believe that this is Unibet's attempt at a PR friendly way of downsizing the Unibet Open through the backdoor, because the qualifiers don't generate enough revenue anymore since the ticket exchange has been stopped...

jTz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
We're gonna win on so many levels! We're gonna win, win, win. You're gonna get so tired of winning, you're gonna say: "Mr. President please, we don't wanna win anymore, it's too much!" And I'm gonna say: "I'm sorry, we're gonna keep winning because we're gonna make America great again!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

unibetopen.PNG.dd153b8a1dc3d44d1c4609250d0bed9d.PNG

ouch!

giphy

 I'm already looking forward to using my tickets in 3 weeks or so, the overlays look juicy. Unibet is doing a lot of things totally right, but there are also aspects, where you guys completely self-sabotage. Getting rid of tickets exchanges for the UOs was one of those aspects...

 

 

  • Like 2
We're gonna win on so many levels! We're gonna win, win, win. You're gonna get so tired of winning, you're gonna say: "Mr. President please, we don't wanna win anymore, it's too much!" And I'm gonna say: "I'm sorry, we're gonna keep winning because we're gonna make America great again!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites


@Brocky wrote:

Overlays are great for us players, surely?


Pretty shortsighted view.

Instead of offering a situation 30+ players like to take part in, where Unibet is also making money, Unibet is now heavily subsidizing a much smaller amount of players. Not really a great deal for the players who left the games as well as for Unibet.

We're gonna win on so many levels! We're gonna win, win, win. You're gonna get so tired of winning, you're gonna say: "Mr. President please, we don't wanna win anymore, it's too much!" And I'm gonna say: "I'm sorry, we're gonna keep winning because we're gonna make America great again!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not great for the players that left the games? What does that even mean?

 

With the ticket exchange you've got players who are just constantly exchanging tickets to not move up to the higher levels in the satellite process, hoarding hundreds or thousands of euros worth of tickets. The whole principle of satellites is to win a package or seat to a tournament, not to build a bankroll playing the satellites.

 

If Unibet want to pay overlay that is not bad for us and that is not shortsighted of me to say so. They're not going to go busto because of it so there is literally no downside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


@Brocky wrote:

 

If Unibet want to pay overlay that is not bad for us and that is not shortsighted of me to say so. They're not going to go busto because of it so there is literally no downside.


 

GiftedUncommonIvorybilledwoodpecker-size_restricted

 

 

 

We're gonna win on so many levels! We're gonna win, win, win. You're gonna get so tired of winning, you're gonna say: "Mr. President please, we don't wanna win anymore, it's too much!" And I'm gonna say: "I'm sorry, we're gonna keep winning because we're gonna make America great again!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Brocky Actually a bunch of very low and micro stakes players were regularly playing tournaments much higher than their current stakes (and much higher than their current skill) because of this system, so they were moving up, but it took time, also some were very very nitty with moving up *cough guy above me *cough while others were moving up with a few tickets. 

Also yeah overlays are great, if they continue I wouldn't mind at all in the position I'm in right now (other players, you know the ones I talked about in the previous paragraph, just wouldn't have let's say 700€ per quarter to qualify with a massive ROI due to the overlays, but fvk em, I'm too baller to care about some low stakes above average skill level recs 🆒 .  ) , but, even from a completely selfish position, what happens if something overlays constantly for a long time? The site will stop donating that money at some point, and the game shrinks, and that's bad for everyone. 

Now this causing them to go busto, or even be in any way impactful to their business is obviously silly, so I'll agree with you on that one. Also, for now, they are generating more final packages than last year (the biggest factor being stuff actually being announced), so they're probably somewhat okay with subsidizing the finals a bit, so might even be seen as a success. For now. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really sure what you're trying to say, a 2$ rec can't afford to play qualifiers but they can afford to play qualifiers? I agree on the first part, it's a money sink that they're likely to never see again, and will decrease their normal playing budget.

With the old system 2$ 5$ 10$ recs, even freerollers were qualifying without having to endanger their budget and without having to get a lottery like amount of lucky streak. Of course a 2$ rec can still play a few 2$ satties a week and get the UO experience on average once every 3-4 years 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still dont understand this change and probably never will. Im pretty sure leaving only 10e exchangers would solve the problem. I just dont see any upside of this other than eliminate micro and low players from UO qualis since they mostly will not bother to make new tickets (0.20-1-4-25-250) or pay for them. We clearly dont know what the real purpose of this is. Instead of changing the path to UO to an easier one (4-25-100-250 2-10-25-100-250), make the players to pay for everything (no Gtds!) make this a ongoing economic perpetuum mobile :cash:  something that every poker entity would envy we have this. Its just strange above all :wow: 


the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@jerry I very much disagree that 4-25-100-250 would be an easier path, that would be a raketrap where very few people if any would manage to profit, and very little money would come into the system because who even cares to pay 100$ to qualify to a 250$, they'll just play the 250 directly. 

Just cause you win a 100 to a 250 more often than a 50 to a 250, doesn't mean that it's more profitable, cause you pay twice the money, and twice the rake, for less edge.

And guarantees attract people, you need to attract people to have a selfsustaining ecosystem, you can't have one where the same 4 players play against each other and nobody else cause there's no worthwhile prize to be won. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


@FeelsBadMan wrote:

Not really sure what you're trying to say, a 2$ rec can't afford to play qualifiers but they can afford to play qualifiers? I agree on the first part, it's a money sink that they're likely to never see again, and will decrease their normal playing budget.

With the old system 2$ 5$ 10$ recs, even freerollers were qualifying without having to endanger their budget and without having to get a lottery like amount of lucky streak. Of course a 2$ rec can still play a few 2$ satties a week and get the UO experience on average once every 3-4 years 


My point was that a 2e rec purely by definitely should mostly be splashing around in 2e games, some of which may be 2e qualifiers but not solely those games due to the sink that you mention.  If everyone that joins Unibet is only pumping money into a UO ringfenced pool of money then you've got thousands of 2e entries being shared by just a handful of players that are lucky enough to win the package, with the majority seeing 0 return on their outlay.  Furthermore, I believe that allowing players to hoard a load of tickets hurts the liquidity of normal tournaments because the focus for these players, many of whom will not be playing lots of tables simultaneously, is just on the UO sats.  

The changes don't really affect me as I rarely play the UO sats but in theory there is nothing stopping people playing normal SNGs or MTTs as their own form of satellites.  You could play a 2e 5 man and say to yourself that if you win you will play a 4e & 2e with the winnings whereby if you win one of those you will register for the 10e step on the UO sats.  Not ideal I know but I think I remember Leo saying that the changes were due to people not actually attempting to qualify for the tournaments but to just continously recycle tickets for months and years.  Satellites should be for winning a seat, not winning hundreds of tickets/seats like Dara O'Kearney did back in the day, because the latter just makes games tougher.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


@Brocky wrote:



My point was that a 2e rec purely by definitely should mostly be splashing around in 2e games, some of which may be 2e qualifiers but not solely those games due to the sink that you mention.  If everyone that joins Unibet is only pumping money into a UO ringfenced pool of money then you've got thousands of 2e entries being shared by just a handful of players that are lucky enough to win the package, with the majority seeing 0 return on their outlay.  Furthermore, I believe that allowing players to hoard a load of tickets hurts the liquidity of normal tournaments because the focus for these players, many of whom will not be playing lots of tables simultaneously, is just on the UO sats.  

The changes don't really affect me as I rarely play the UO sats but in theory there is nothing stopping people playing normal SNGs or MTTs as their own form of satellites.  You could play a 2e 5 man and say to yourself that if you win you will play a 4e & 2e with the winnings whereby if you win one of those you will register for the 10e step on the UO sats.  Not ideal I know but I think I remember Leo saying that the changes were due to people not actually attempting to qualify for the tournaments but to just continously recycle tickets for months and years.  Satellites should be for winning a seat, not winning hundreds of tickets/seats like Dara O'Kearney did back in the day, because the latter just makes games tougher.  


 

1. point: Wrong! I assume that there are certain players that fit this description, however they probably are in the minority. The regular ticket hoarder is very likely a player that adds the UO qualifiers to his regular mix of games. Playing 4 or 5 SNGs/MTTs and adding a (UO) satellite along the way is something I did regularily.

2. point: Obviously, the Unibet player pool disagrees. After squeezing the hoarders out, the 50s saw a massive decline in participation and the Wednesday final had to be scrapped. You can condemn ticket hoarders as much as you like, fact is, they were the backbone of the UO satellite tree. Without them, Unibet now has to subsidize the 50s. And what's in for the casual recreational player? You said it pretty well: "You've got thousands of 2e entries being shared by just a handful of players that are lucky enough to win the package, with the majority seeing 0 return on their outlay"

  • Like 1
We're gonna win on so many levels! We're gonna win, win, win. You're gonna get so tired of winning, you're gonna say: "Mr. President please, we don't wanna win anymore, it's too much!" And I'm gonna say: "I'm sorry, we're gonna keep winning because we're gonna make America great again!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're mistaking the reasons why Unibet made changes for my opinion. @Leo-Unibet may be able to correct me but I have a vague memory of him saying somewhere (or maybe in person to me when I met him in Dublin) that these exchanges are being removed because of hoarders. I may well be corrected but I do remember reading/hearing something along those lines. If Unibet are overlaying, then it's their decision to either carry on offering those number of tickets guaranteed or to change the guarantee.

Of course numbers are going to decline if you remove the exchange but what you're not factoring in is while numbers at the 50s may have reduced, the 250s have increased because people cannot keep refusing to play their 250s tickets. If Unibet are raking 5 times as much at the 250s then they only need numbers to increase by 20% of the decrease at the 50s. You're looking at it very simplistically with your argument.

With regards to the first point, you have nothing to suggest that the regular ticket hoarder is very likely a player that adds them alongside regular games, nor do I have anything to prove the contrary. Both arguments are purely our opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


@Brocky wrote:

Of course numbers are going to decline if you remove the exchange but what you're not factoring in is while numbers at the 50s may have reduced, the 250s have increased because people cannot keep refusing to play their 250s tickets. If Unibet are raking 5 times as much at the 250s then they only need numbers to increase by 20% of the decrease at the 50s. You're looking at it very simplistically with your argument.

 

 


Point 1: The unibet guys were singing a much different tune a few months/weeks ago (Grow the series, trend is pointing upwards...).

Point 2: Well did the 250s really increase? 54 players this week is great. However during the UO weekend, only 41 players showed up. The week before it was 47 players. Again, the Wednesday 250 is gone and those player that cannot play on Wednesday anymore have to play on Sunday now. Also the amount of UO250 tickets that can be won during the week is steady. The fact that those tickets are in part subsidized doesn't change the fact that there are around 40 or even more (???, I don't know how many 25-->250 there are per week) tickets for the final still being distributed every week.

If your local football club gives away half of its tickets to the local schools for free during the week, celebrating a sold out stadium on Sunday seems a little bit dishonest.

 

We're gonna win on so many levels! We're gonna win, win, win. You're gonna get so tired of winning, you're gonna say: "Mr. President please, we don't wanna win anymore, it's too much!" And I'm gonna say: "I'm sorry, we're gonna keep winning because we're gonna make America great again!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Stubbe-Unibet

Pardon my confusion, I obviously wasn't up to date regarding the current narrative...

We're gonna win on so many levels! We're gonna win, win, win. You're gonna get so tired of winning, you're gonna say: "Mr. President please, we don't wanna win anymore, it's too much!" And I'm gonna say: "I'm sorry, we're gonna keep winning because we're gonna make America great again!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That 'math' doesn't even consider -all the tickets that gor forced into the sat tree...

The only more creative unibet math is the one which claims that a 3* UO package is worth, 2000 eur...

Unibet

After
-luring people into accumulating a lot of value in UO tickets then
-cancelling UO exchanger tournaments

You also promised that stop after Malta will be announced ''in February'' ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@tableNOpopZZ I think the "luring people into" comment gives it a very negative connotation and is unfair towards unibet. The whole ticket exchange thing started as an exception a long time ago, done manually by the head of poker himself, a favor for a few loyal users on 2+2, because some of the rakeback rewards were irrelevant for them (they were missing out), and somehow that exception ended up being made for more and more people, and ended up extending to sattie tickets, which increased churn and decreased some overlays purely as a side effect so whatevs, they kept the exchanges around. Over time, the exchanges got so big that it even became unmanageable for support, a service from which we benefited from but it wasn't something they had to provide. It wasn't even an official promotion, just a favor for a few users that snowballed into something huge. Then the exchanger tournaments came about as a compromise solution, only because Jonny came up with the idea otherwise they would have been removed a long time ago.  The more recent decision and the arguments to completely cancel them kinda puzzle me, but such is life, ultimately we did benefit from it while it was a thing, some with packages to live events, other just with a lot of poker played for a small initial investment, and some rakeback for free.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that's true, you're still here, another site scammed you, they should be removed as affiliates for that. If they weren't removed then that's a bit messed up. There still is between 10 and 60% rakeback by default, generally on the lower side for tournament players like me  and I assume you as well, still a lil bit of free moneyz. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which 'free moneyz' ? You understand that when a poker site rakes 11% turbo mtts or cgame rake of Unibet (highest in industry: https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28/internet-poker/unibet-official-thread-1452899/index1023.html#post54872644 -'over 10% cash rake', with 3eur cap)

-10% rb is not, 'free money' ?

Some overlays in UO sats, which do continually get Patched by lowering GTDs and extending rebuy periods ? -From as low as 1eur and 2eur sats ?

You understand that they are advertising that, only to mitigate this disaster until people  accept, however they flip it ?

edit: I was to Malta, i was to London, with poker events. UO, please for once keep your word and -announce the last stop...

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...