Jump to content

Ticket Exchange is ending 4th November


penguin50

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 228
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 


@jerry wrote:

@Stubbe-Unibet Can we know when (if it happen) this will start?

Lets say i have 9x10e tickets can i exchange one of 50e for 5x10e or only after i will be left with 5x10e? Nevermind this question i saw the answer higher up. 👍


Can't say yet :)

Yes, if you have 9 * €10 tickets, you can exchange a €50 ticket without a problem :) 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites


@psrquack wrote:


@Stubbe-Unibet wrote:


Why do you need 100 tickets at each level? Present some proper arguments if you want to change anything :) 


https://www.cardschat.com/f59/mtt-brm-how-many-buy-ins-275565/

The majority says 100 buyin is optimal.


I don't think that math works for sats because you chance of cashing is so much higher. You need to look at it as, for example, a €2 to €10 sat pays 1 in 5 players so on average you're going to get one of those tickets 1 in 5 times. That means you need 5 tickets minimum for BRM.

  • Like 1
Have you read my blog HERE... It's long isn't it :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


@psrquack wrote:

@Stubbe-Unibet wrote:

Why do you need 100 tickets at each level? Present some proper arguments if you want to change anything :) 


https://www.cardschat.com/f59/mtt-brm-how-many-buy-ins-275565/

The majority says 100 buyin is optimal.


The UO sats are small field tournaments and the steps are only 5x (2>10>50>250), so that doesn't apply here. Furthermore, please note that we're not attempting to cater for someone with a really conservative brm; the excessive hoarding is not in our interest :) 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites


@MoreTBC wrote:


@psrquack wrote:


@Stubbe-Unibet wrote:


Why do you need 100 tickets at each level? Present some proper arguments if you want to change anything :) 


https://www.cardschat.com/f59/mtt-brm-how-many-buy-ins-275565/

The majority says 100 buyin is optimal.


I don't think that math works for sats because you chance of cashing is so much higher. You need to look at it as, for example, a €2 to €10 sat pays 1 in 5 players so on average you're going to get one of those tickets 1 in 5 times. That means you need 5 tickets minimum for BRM.


Unfortunately that's not correct, because that presumes you will be able to cash in every 5 games, which is due to the variance impossible. The other factor is that you can't win more than 5 of your buyin which means you can't cover your bad run with one or two top places like in regular MTT's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


@Stubbe-Unibet wrote:

 


@psrquack wrote:


@Stubbe-Unibet wrote:


Why do you need 100 tickets at each level? Present some proper arguments if you want to change anything :) 


https://www.cardschat.com/f59/mtt-brm-how-many-buy-ins-275565/

The majority says 100 buyin is optimal.


The UO sats are small field tournaments and the steps are only 5x (2>10>50>250), so that doesn't apply here. Furthermore, please note that we're not attempting to cater for someone with a really conservative brm; the excessive hoarding is not in our interest :) 


Please don't do this. You have written previously that you need an argument. Now you just want to skip it, beacuse that doesn't fit to your preconception. You also said that you doesn't want excessive hoarders. If so then why do you want to see arguments which supports the 100 tickets/level option?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


@psrquack wrote:



Unfortunately that's not correct, because that presumes you will be able to cash in every 5 games, which is due to the variance impossible. The other factor is that you can't win more than 5 of your buyin which means you can't cover your bad run with one or two top places like in regular MTT's.


 

Your arguments are unfair, as you don't consider all options the proposed system gives.

If for example you have 10 €10 tickets, and don't cash 8 sats in a row, you can exchange your last ones to 10x€2 and keep playing the lower level to rebuild your 'ticket roll'. If you keep on not cashing, you'll eventually end up without tickets off course - as is the case within any sort of bankroll management system. 

The cap on amount of tickets you can hold per level, just forces people to go up or down in satellite levels more swiftly. You can still handle the variance by dropping down levels as I explained above. However, you'll just be forced to go up in levels quicker when you go on an upswing. 

I don't see any problems with this. After all the point of the sats is to reach the final, hopefully win it, and attend a Unibet Open event. Not to hoard heaps of tickets so you can keep playing the same level of poker satellites over and over again without an eventual goal of reaching the event in a near future. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


@psrquack wrote:

@Stubbe-Unibet wrote:

 


@psrquack wrote:

@Stubbe-Unibet wrote:

Why do you need 100 tickets at each level? Present some proper arguments if you want to change anything :) 


https://www.cardschat.com/f59/mtt-brm-how-many-buy-ins-275565/

The majority says 100 buyin is optimal.


The UO sats are small field tournaments and the steps are only 5x (2>10>50>250), so that doesn't apply here. Furthermore, please note that we're not attempting to cater for someone with a really conservative brm; the excessive hoarding is not in our interest :) 


Please don't do this. You have written previously that you need an argument. Now you just want to skip it, beacuse that doesn't fit to your preconception. You also said that you doesn't want excessive hoarders. If so then why do you want to see arguments which supports the 100 tickets/level option?


@psrquack exactly what @@Caladrias said. I did say to present proper arguments, not any argument. You can have 100 buyins at the lowest level - even several hundred - if you look at the total ticket value.

The main purpose of the ticket exchange - from my perspective - is to allow someone to get a real shot at qualifying with very little investment and risk. 100 buyins isn't needed :) 

  • Like 2

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites


@Caladrias wrote:



 

Your arguments are unfair, as you don't consider all options the proposed system gives.

If for example you have 10 €10 tickets, and don't cash 8 sats in a row, you can exchange your last ones to 10x€2 and keep playing the lower level to rebuild your 'ticket roll'. If you keep on not cashing, you'll eventually end up without tickets off course - as is the case within any sort of bankroll management system. 

The cap on amount of tickets you can hold per level, just forces people to go up or down in satellite levels more swiftly. You can still handle the variance by dropping down levels as I explained above. However, you'll just be forced to go up in levels quicker when you go on an upswing. 

 


Sorry, I can't accept this. Let's skip the fact that your example doesn't work on the lowest limit and put in the  focus the fact, that you have to run incedible good if you want to play at your starting level again. You have to win 3 qualifiers in a row to get 5/8 of your starting tickets back which means you have be in the best 20% three in a row (if we accept that you will earn 1 ticket from 5 games in the long term), that's case is similar to beat pocket aces with random hands after preflop allin. I don't think the majority of players are good enough to do this and that's just 5/8 part of your original tickets at your starting level. Don't forget that you don't have 20% chance in every game due to the number of players and added tickets so i'm not sure hoarding is evil and not the suitable behaviour if you don't want to put more pressure on your shoulders with the insufficient number of your starting tickets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


@Stubbe-Unibet wrote:


The main purpose of the ticket exchange - from my perspective - is to allow someone to get a real shot at qualifying with very little investment and risk. 100 buyins isn't needed :) 


Thanks for saying my argument wasn't proper. I'm really appreciate that behaviour and I always enjoy the friendly air of the community. Glad to be here.

Little investment and risk never will met. You generally won't be able to win your 20% chance 3-4 times in a row. The dynamincs, the players, the structure are diverse at the various levels. You can't adapt it if you are a hobby  player. With other words you have to change your bet sizes/ your playing style/your playing hands/steal cards when you sit at the €2 and at the €50 qualifier. You can do it, if you are the one of the million guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the sattie BRM 

@MoreTBC  your idea of BRM makes no sense, that's not how BRM works 

@psrquack the whole point of having a contained ticket exchanger for the Unibet opens is that you will not need to have 100 buyins anymore to ensure that you won't go broke IRL, to ensure that you don't damage your monthly earnings or monthly budget or whatever. If you were to follow strict BRM in playing satties then you wouldn't only need 100 buyins for that level of satties, but 100 buyins for the target event so like 100k to even start playing the satties. But of course you can still take shots with a much smaller bankroll, and the exchanger system allows you to take shots way way more aggressively than you could while constantly pumping money into it, cause there's almost no risk involved, you can not cash out the UO bankroll, playing higher from those tickets does not affect your real life roll, it's pretty great. I would a agree that slightly more bankroll  would probably be better, as people having to drop down often and be stuck at that level for a couple of weeks until they can get back, then drop down again doesn't benefit anyone (hensie is a prime example of this, where he used to play all the 50's and 250's but because he was too aggro he torched it all in the finals and got stuck at the <5€ level) , but with the fact that we could exchange daily now that risk is minimized cause you can make your moves between levels much faster than when we had a weekly exchanger, and being aggro with your bankroll benefits you too in this case.

 

@ people not playing higher / not playing finals ... first of all who are these people not playing the finals, I keep seeing people that went though this system and getting to the live events quite regularly, how are they getting there if they don't play the finals ... the ones that don't are probably exceptions or overly cautious, or have a small amount anyway. Of course I might be wrong, and there might be 100 players that have 5k+ in tickets and refuse to play a final which would be pretty silly, mainly silly for them. But if some person is playing a low level (that maybe is their normal level or even higher because of this system) and they will never reach the final step for whatever reason, why is that a problem? They can't take out money out of the system, they are generating liquidity, turnover, rake, decrease overlay, start games (some don't, do your job :haha: ), they are getting some amount of enjoyment out of playing online tournaments (particularly in an interesting format that is usually a massive money sink), why are we demonizing them? The point is to get to the live event, sure, if they don't then someone else will get there in their place, what's the problem? That being said I do agree that some limitations to encourage people to move up faster is good for everyone including themselves. 

@Stubbe-Unibet "With the ticket exchanges" in conjunction with other factors like not announcing destinations mid way though the qualifying period, changing destinations from something really popular to something much less popular, having repeat destinations even 6 months apart, reducing the number of feeder tournaments and the turnover in them, removing a final and then reintroducing it after a few months of people being used to it not existing anymore and not the best lobby to keep track of them, and reducing the turnover of people that did exchange because of weekly restrictions "we consistently had overlay in the finals (significant overlay)"

Fixed that for you 😏 . I know everyone likes to create a narrative that fits their story, and I'm not saying exchanges didn't play a part, but context is important. And yes I know you're on our side this time, it just triggers me okay :laugh: .

 

 

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites


@psrquack wrote:

@Stubbe-Unibet wrote:

The main purpose of the ticket exchange - from my perspective - is to allow someone to get a real shot at qualifying with very little investment and risk. 100 buyins isn't needed :) 


Thanks for saying my argument wasn't proper. I'm really appreciate that behaviour and I always enjoy the friendly air of the community. Glad to be here.

Little investment and risk never will met. You generally won't be able to win your 20% chance 3-4 times in a row. The dynamincs, the players, the structure are diverse at the various levels. You can't adapt it if you are a hobby  player. With other words you have to change your bet sizes/ your playing style/your playing hands/steal cards when you sit at the €2 and at the €50 qualifier. You can do it, if you are the one of the million guy.


I meant no disrespect, but you should know by now that I don't sugarcoat things for you :)

@FeelsBadMan responded to most of the things in your posts, so if there's something you'd like me to address, let me know :)

  • Like 1

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites


@FeelsBadMan wrote:

But if some person is playing a low level (that maybe is their normal level or even higher because of this system) and they will never reach the final step for whatever reason, why is that a problem? They can't take out money out of the system, they are generating liquidity, turnover, rake, decrease overlay, start games (some don't, do your job :haha: ), they are getting some amount of enjoyment out of playing online tournaments (particularly in an interesting format that is usually a massive money sink), why are we demonizing them? The point is to get to the live event, sure, if they don't then someone else will get there in their place, what's the problem? That being said I do agree that some limitations to encourage people to move up faster is good for everyone including themselves. 


Yeah I definitely agree @FeelsBadMan , I didn't phrase things too well in my previous post regarding that. Obviously there will still be players who keep playing the same level 'infinitely' even with a cap on the exchanges, which isn't bad at all for the reasons you mentioned. 

Was just trying to explain why the lower cap than 100 buyins made sense and has benefits for people :laugh:

I also do not have an idea on how many people went with an extremely conservative brm with their tickets, but as people are already complaining about the exchange cap here, it seems like there must have been at least some 😏

Link to comment
Share on other sites


@FeelsBadMan wrote:

@ people not playing higher / not playing finals ... first of all who are these people not playing the finals, I keep seeing people that went though this system and getting to the live events quite regularly, how are they getting there if they don't play the finals ... the ones that don't are probably exceptions or overly cautious, or have a small amount anyway. Of course I might be wrong, and there might be 100 players that have 5k+ in tickets and refuse to play a final which would be pretty silly, mainly silly for them. But if some person is playing a low level (that maybe is their normal level or even higher because of this system) and they will never reach the final step for whatever reason, why is that a problem? They can't take out money out of the system, they are generating liquidity, turnover, rake, decrease overlay, start games (some don't, do your job :haha: ), they are getting some amount of enjoyment out of playing online tournaments (particularly in an interesting format that is usually a massive money sink), why are we demonizing them? The point is to get to the live event, sure, if they don't then someone else will get there in their place, what's the problem? That being said I do agree that some limitations to encourage people to move up faster is good for everyone including themselves. 

@Stubbe-Unibet "With the ticket exchanges" in conjunction with other factors like not announcing destinations mid way though the qualifying period, changing destinations from something really popular to something much less popular, having repeat destinations even 6 months apart, reducing the number of feeder tournaments and the turnover in them, removing a final and then reintroducing it after a few months of people being used to it not existing anymore and not the best lobby to keep track of them, and reducing the turnover of people that did exchange because of weekly restrictions "we consistently had overlay in the finals (significant overlay)"

Fixed that for you 😏 . I know everyone likes to create a narrative that fits their story, and I'm not saying exchanges didn't play a part, but context is important. And yes I know you're on our side this time, it just triggers me okay :laugh: .


Other factors influencing the overlay. Definitely! We can't - and don't think the guys were back then - solely blame the exchangers for the final overlay. However, it did have an impact. You're totally right that if we had a set number of guys exchanging and we never had new customers starting to do this, the impact on the final wouldn't really be there. The guys winning would eventually (for some it'd take way too long, not because of a lack of skill but a very concervative approach) move up and play the finals, and the ones who were struggling to move up would help with liquidity, rake etc. (cash buyin still an issue here though, and that is the main factor). BUT, we did have new customers starting to exchange, and some of these were hoarding A LOT of tickets. It really doesn't take more than a few of these players to make things difficult, if there're no limitations, and they do hoard an excessive amount.

I don't think it's a secret I've always liked the exchangers, but I've also seen the issues.

We can definitely discuss where exactly the limits should be, but there has to be limits, and 100 buyins at every level is not the answer :)

 

  • Like 4

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites


@Stubbe-Unibet wrote:



That's a fair summary, but we didn't "lose many players". We're talking a low number of players with a high volume. I believe  10 and 20 buyins respectively is reasonable.

With the ticket exchanges we consistently had overlay in the finals (significant overlay) and we have to prevent the excessive ticket hoarding and force the € 50 tickets to be used when it's reasonable. We do Not benefit from the excessive hoarding. At the end of the day, what matters is that we get cash buyins into the system equal to the value of the final GTD. 

Why do you need 100 tickets at each level? Present some proper arguments if you want to change anything :) 


 

Ticket hoarders were willing to pay 11 % in rake over and over again, actively decreasing overlays, giving you the chance to offer higher guarantees at every level below the 250s. They also didn't take money out of the system as long as they were exchanging. To me, that sounds very beneficial to you guys. It's like a bank customer who doesn't withdraw.

I don't see the correlation between ticket exchanges and overlays in the finals. Let's not forget one thing: During the ticket exchange era, you were offering 6 packages a week. You decreased that number to 5 now (through the backdoor). If things don't change, you'll have to reduce the number of packages to 4 in the near future, as you barely break even right now in the 250s. Hitting the GTD was much more difficult during the exchange era. 

As I said before, you don't understand the reasoning behind exchanging tickets at all. At the lower levels, you do it in order to build up a bankroll for the next level. You might argue that no one needs 100 UO10 tickets as you can only play 5 a day. That's correct, however the goal is to have enough tickets to play on the next level. 100 UO10s have the same value as 20*UO50s. And to me that's the minimum amount I'd like to have in order to play at a certain level in order to protect my bankroll and to minimize my risk. The changes you proposed don't go far enough and will not help you get back any of the players you lost.

You said that you want to "force" people to act in a certain way (here: to use their Uo50s). Seriously, what's wrong with you guys? :Speechless: Unibet is not running a monopoly, you have to give people an incentive to act in a certain way. Again, ticket hoarders are a positive thing for Unibet, not a negative. Collecting tickets takes discipline and assuming you're a winning player, it's only a matter of time until playing at a certain level becomes stale and you're looking to move up. In the end, playing the qualifiers over and over again doesn't generate any profit for you unless you make it to the live tournament. The idea that you can impose certain rules and force people to act in a certain way led to the collapse of the UO satellite system in the first place.

You want to give people a reason to play the finals? Find ways to make the live tournament more attractive. You want to protect players at the lower levels of the satellite tree? Make sure Uo250s/UO50s can only be exchanged to Uo50s/UO10s and not further down the tree.  

 

 

  • 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


@Stubbe-Unibet wrote:


@psrquack wrote:


@Stubbe-Unibet wrote:


The main purpose of the ticket exchange - from my perspective - is to allow someone to get a real shot at qualifying with very little investment and risk. 100 buyins isn't needed :) 


Thanks for saying my argument wasn't proper. I'm really appreciate that behaviour and I always enjoy the friendly air of the community. Glad to be here.

Little investment and risk never will met. You generally won't be able to win your 20% chance 3-4 times in a row. The dynamincs, the players, the structure are diverse at the various levels. You can't adapt it if you are a hobby  player. With other words you have to change your bet sizes/ your playing style/your playing hands/steal cards when you sit at the €2 and at the €50 qualifier. You can do it, if you are the one of the million guy.


I meant no disrespect, but you should know by now that I don't sugarcoat things for you :)

@FeelsBadMan responded to most of the things in your posts, so if there's something you'd like me to address, let me know :)


Thanks, that's enough for me. Gl to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


@WuDu wrote:

@Stubbe-Unibet wrote:


That's a fair summary, but we didn't "lose many players". We're talking a low number of players with a high volume. I believe  10 and 20 buyins respectively is reasonable.

With the ticket exchanges we consistently had overlay in the finals (significant overlay) and we have to prevent the excessive ticket hoarding and force the € 50 tickets to be used when it's reasonable. We do Not benefit from the excessive hoarding. At the end of the day, what matters is that we get cash buyins into the system equal to the value of the final GTD. 

Why do you need 100 tickets at each level? Present some proper arguments if you want to change anything :) 


 

Ticket hoarders were willing to pay 11 % in rake over and over again, actively decreasing overlays, giving you the chance to offer higher guarantees at every level below the 250s. They also didn't take money out of the system as long as they were exchanging. To me, that sounds very beneficial to you guys. It's like a bank customer who doesn't withdraw.

I don't see the correlation between ticket exchanges and overlays in the finals. Let's not forget one thing: During the ticket exchange era, you were offering 6 packages a week. You decreased that number to 5 now (through the backdoor). If things don't change, you'll have to reduce the number of packages to 4 in the near future, as you barely break even right now in the 250s. Hitting the GTD was much more difficult during the exchange era. 

As I said before, you don't understand the reasoning behind exchanging tickets at all. At the lower levels, you do it in order to build up a bankroll for the next level. You might argue that no one needs 100 UO10 tickets as you can only play 5 a day. That's correct, however the goal is to have enough tickets to play on the next level. 100 UO10s have the same value as 20*UO50s. And to me that's the minimum amount I'd like to have in order to play at a certain level in order to protect my bankroll and to minimize my risk. The changes you proposed don't go far enough and will not help you get back any of the players you lost.

You said that you want to "force" people to act in a certain way (here: to use their Uo50s). Seriously, what's wrong with you guys? :Speechless: Unibet is not running a monopoly, you have to give people an incentive to act in a certain way. Again, ticket hoarders are a positive thing for Unibet, not a negative. Collecting tickets takes discipline and assuming you're a winning player, it's only a matter of time until playing at a certain level becomes stale and you're looking to move up. In the end, playing the qualifiers over and over again doesn't generate any profit for you unless you make it to the live tournament. The idea that you can impose certain rules and force people to act in a certain way led to the collapse of the UO satellite system in the first place.

You want to give people a reason to play the finals? Find ways to make the live tournament more attractive. You want to protect players at the lower levels of the satellite tree? Make sure Uo250s/UO50s can only be exchanged to Uo50s/UO10s and not further down the tree.  


  • The weekly GTD last week was 28,7k. Week 15 of 2018 it was 29.8k. Just before the exchangers were stopped it was 30k.
  • Some guys exchanging did take money out of the system, and one thing the ticket hoarders have in common is close to 0 cash buyin. As I've mentioned before, it's ultimately about getting the same cash in the system as we have as GTD in the finals. There are other benefits, but the cash buyin is not directly positively impacted by the exchangers in their old format.
  • The overlay in the past couple of months has not been higher than just before the exchangers were stopped. We've simply moved the overlay from the 250's to the 50's. Looking at the same period of last year, this year has been really bad though, when looking at overlay. A long list of factors influence the overlay, so this number alone doesn't say a whole lot, but I have looked properly into the impact of the stop of the exchangers. 
  • The exchangers did impact the overlay in the finals.
  • You post is pretty much one big exaggeration, which doesn't help you. The trend is negative, and there's obviously a reason we're considering bringing back the exchanges, but it's far from being as bad as the picture you're painting.

Again, I am open to discussions around the limitations. I really don't think we can ever agree on bringing back the exchangers without limitations, even though I personally think it'd be an interesting experiment :)

  • Like 1

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@WuDu you really don't need as many buyins as you're suggesting, of course it's nice to have them, you can fire like a maniac no problem when you do, but take some shots man, you probably would have been way further along this quest if you would have taken more shots. That's the real beauty of this system, that it enables shottaking and moving up in stakes faster than any other promotion by removing the monetary risk.

As for the forcing, meh, I guess these kind of limitations are fine-ish. I really don't like expiration date based forcing tho, since tickets are essentially money, and being very aggro with removing said money leaves a sour taste in people's mouths, particularly the ones that aren't hardcore grinders. Party used to do that, and it got soooo much negative feedback.   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@FeelsBadMan 

Actually I think you're correct here. If you e.g. run up your 10s to 35-40 tickets, you could then start taking shots with any excess ticket at the next higher level. Definitely depends on your comfort level. To me, waiting just two months between the last game of the UO2s and the first game of the UO50s would have been a little too fast...


@Stubbe-Unibet wrote:


  • The weekly GTD last week was 28,7k. Week 15 of 2018 it was 29.8k. Just before the exchangers were stopped it was 30k.
  • Some guys exchanging did take money out of the system, and one thing the ticket hoarders have in common is close to 0 cash buyin. As I've mentioned before, it's ultimately about getting the same cash in the system as we have as GTD in the finals. There are other benefits, but the cash buyin is not directly positively impacted by the exchangers in their old format.
  • The overlay in the past couple of months has not been higher than just before the exchangers were stopped. We've simply moved the overlay from the 250's to the 50's. Looking at the same period of last year, this year has been really bad though, when looking at overlay. A long list of factors influence the overlay, so this number alone doesn't say a whole lot, but I have looked properly into the impact of the stop of the exchangers. 
  • The exchangers did impact the overlay in the finals.
  • You post is pretty much one big exaggeration, which doesn't help you. The trend is negative, and there's obviously a reason we're considering bringing back the exchanges, but it's far from being as bad as the picture you're painting.

Again, I am open to discussions around the limitations. I really don't think we can ever agree on bringing back the exchangers without limitations, even though I personally think it'd be an interesting experiment :)


 

Weekly amount of packages guaranteed one week before the exchanges stopped: 6---> 12.000 Euro GTD for the UO250s.

Weekly amount right now: 5---> 10.000 Euro GTD.

Of course, if you reduce the guarantee for the UO250s by 2.000 Euro, overlaying the UO250s is not as easy as it was before. Besides, there are still hoarded tickets in the system that were used last week, I should know...😃

Amount of cash buy-ins from ticket hoarders in the exchange era: 0.

Amount of cash buy-ins from ticket hoarders right now: 0 (or very close to that).

To me it looks like eliminating the exchanges didn't give you a net profit in this regard, yet a lot of additional problems.

"Your post is pretty much one big exaggeration, which doesn't help you"

Not looking for help in this regard, as I've already moved on to other poker games here at Unibet. I'm playing out my tickets and that's it. You guys make the rules and I adjust my strategy accordingly, similar to when I left the MTT games (including a few cash buy-ins) after you stopped the exchanges 12 months ago. Other players might leave the room completely, who knows? You guys are not operating in a vacuum...

 

 

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 wrote:

Again, I am open to discussions around the limitations. I really don't think we can ever agree on bringing back the exchangers without limitations, even though I personally think it'd be an interesting experiment :)


10 to 15 limit for 10e and 50e would do for me (maybe at least 10e? for example im sitting on 19x10e and probably there are people with many more). @WuDu is mostly right but what i like that Unibet is trying to meet us halfway. Maybe if i dont understand in the full the reasoning i can appreciate making the tickets last for 6months which was fantastic gesture and now those exchangers (make them work next week! 😉). Even with those limits (again 10 seem little too low) there is leeway to work with for everyone. 

 

The rumour of bringing back exchangers already made some impact

thisss.JPG.2305a0d0f8b5fcd8c9ad96db2827c3fa.JPG

10e sat from 19;25CET. The day before im pretty sure it was 6/7 people and there are times this doesnt even start. 19 people is like good old days👍

  • Like 1
the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist
Link to comment
Share on other sites


@jerry wrote:

@Stubbe-Unibet wrote:

Again, I am open to discussions around the limitations. I really don't think we can ever agree on bringing back the exchangers without limitations, even though I personally think it'd be an interesting experiment :)


10 to 15 limit for 10e and 50e would do for me (maybe at least 10e? for example im sitting on 19x10e and probably there are people with many more). @WuDu is mostly right but what i like that Unibet is trying to meet us halfway. Maybe if i dont understand in the full the reasoning i can appreciate making the tickets last for 6months which was fantastic gesture and now those exchangers (make them work next week! 😉). Even with those limits (again 10 seem little too low) there is leeway to work with for everyone. 

 

The rumour of bringing back exchangers already made some impact

thisss.JPG.56de29b886cf9de8b1e654fe4aae1e9d.JPG

10e sat from 19;25CET. The day before im pretty sure it was 6/7 people and there are times this doesnt even start. 19 people is like good old days👍


25 * of both € 10 and € 2 tickets will probably be okay, but need to discuss it with the team. In the initial proposal from me, there wasn't a limitation on the number of € 50 tickets you can have, as you can't exchange the € 250 tickets - will naturally be limited by the expiration date though.

  • Like 1

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites


@Stubbe-Unibet wrote:


@WuDu wrote:


@Stubbe-Unibet wrote:



With the ticket exchanges we consistently had overlay in the finals (significant overlay) and we have to prevent the excessive ticket hoarding and force the € 50 tickets to be used when it's reasonable. We do Not benefit from the excessive hoarding.


I don't see the correlation between ticket exchanges and overlays in the finals. Let's not forget one thing: During the ticket exchange era, you were offering 6 packages a week. You decreased that number to 5 now (through the backdoor). If things don't change, you'll have to reduce the number of packages to 4 in the near future, as you barely break even right now in the 250s. Hitting the GTD was much more difficult during the exchange era. 

 


  • The exchangers did impact the overlay in the finals.
  • You post is pretty much one big exaggeration, which doesn't help you. The trend is negative, and there's obviously a reason we're considering bringing back the exchanges, but it's far from being as bad as the picture you're painting.

 


 

I'm exaggerating, they said! Significant overlay was due to the ticket exchangers, they said!UO-London.thumb.PNG.6babc0793523c52e2cbaa95255945dac.PNG

 

34 entries in the UO250 yesterday for a 1500 Euro overlay after the first full week of not subsidizing the UO50s from Mon-Sat anymore. That was quick. But I guess this is also the hoarders' fault...

The funny thing is that with the new exchange rules being proposed here (no exchanges of UO250s, reduced "durability" for the UO50s, limit on UO10s and UO2s a player is allowed to keep to be eligible for exchanges) the liquidity will surely not improve at the 50s and the 250s, however the games are probably going to be tougher for the casual and recreational players at the lower levels of the tree.

 

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


@WuDu wrote:

@Stubbe-Unibet wrote:

@WuDu wrote:

@Stubbe-Unibet wrote:


With the ticket exchanges we consistently had overlay in the finals (significant overlay) and we have to prevent the excessive ticket hoarding and force the € 50 tickets to be used when it's reasonable. We do Not benefit from the excessive hoarding.


I don't see the correlation between ticket exchanges and overlays in the finals. Let's not forget one thing: During the ticket exchange era, you were offering 6 packages a week. You decreased that number to 5 now (through the backdoor). If things don't change, you'll have to reduce the number of packages to 4 in the near future, as you barely break even right now in the 250s. Hitting the GTD was much more difficult during the exchange era. 

 


  • The exchangers did impact the overlay in the finals.
  • You post is pretty much one big exaggeration, which doesn't help you. The trend is negative, and there's obviously a reason we're considering bringing back the exchanges, but it's far from being as bad as the picture you're painting.

 


I'm exaggerating, they said! Significant overlay was due to the ticket exchangers, they said!UO-London.thumb.PNG.b597b76a6d2acadcb65a5039e7e980f0.PNG

 

34 entries in the UO250 yesterday for a 1500 Euro overlay after the first full week of not subsidizing the UO50s from Mon-Sat anymore. That was quick. But I guess this is also the hoarders' fault...


Let's not go around in circles :) We've already discussed this and you bring nothing new to the table. It's not simple and we never said it was solely due to the exchangers, but it is a factor as I've explained in the previous posts. 

Just 5 hoarders will win about 12 € 250 tickets a week (this is assuming they play all € 50 tournaments or there's overlay). It's not rocket science that this will have a significant impact if the players are conservative and don't play the finals but exchange to € 50 tickets. Then @FeelsBadMan is obviously right - again, we're going around in circles and already covered this - that this is a temporary situation, as these players will move on eventually, but we do have new players starting to exchange, and then it's a real issue and planning is more difficult.


@WuDu wrote:

@Stubbe-Unibet wrote:

The funny thing is that with the new exchange rules being proposed here (no exchanges of UO250s, reduced "durability" for the UO50s, limit on UO10s and UO2s a player is allowed to keep to be eligible for exchanges) the liquidity will surely not improve at the 50s and the 250s, however the games are probably going to be tougher for the casual and recreational players at the lower levels of the tree.


Don't think we'll touch the expiry date on the € 50 ones :)

I'm not sure why you think the liquidity won't improve at the higher levels? Sure, in the beginning it won't (it'll likely have a negative impact, but that's not because of the limitations we're proposing), but eventually players will move on and take shots at the higher levels, if they're winning at the lower levels and have accumulated the max allowed quantity of tickets.

Guess your assumption is that not a single player will see any benefit in the proposed setup/the ones making use of the exchangers last year won't start playing again/play more? I don't think this is a fair assumption, even though it might apply to you. We did have several players who did A LOT of exchanges but had a very aggressive BRM. Looking at the numbers for these players, I'm sure it'll have a positive impact, and even for some of the more conservative players I believe it'll have an impact, when comparing to todays situation.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites


@Stubbe-Unibet wrote:



@WuDu wrote:


@Stubbe-Unibet wrote:

The funny thing is that with the new exchange rules being proposed here (no exchanges of UO250s, reduced "durability" for the UO50s, limit on UO10s and UO2s a player is allowed to keep to be eligible for exchanges) the liquidity will surely not improve at the 50s and the 250s, however the games are probably going to be tougher for the casual and recreational players at the lower levels of the tree.


Don't think we'll touch the expiry date on the € 50 ones :)

I'm not sure why you think the liquidity won't improve at the higher levels? Sure, in the beginning it won't (it'll likely have a negative impact, but that's not because of the limitations we're proposing), but eventually players will move on and take shots at the higher levels, if they're winning at the lower levels and have accumulated the max allowed quantity of tickets.

Guess your assumption is that not a single player will see any benefit in the proposed setup/the ones making use of the exchangers last year won't start playing again/play more? I don't think this is a fair assumption, even though it might apply to you. We did have several players who did A LOT of exchanges but had a very aggressive BRM. Looking at the numbers for these players, I'm sure it'll have a positive impact, and even for some of the more conservative players I believe it'll have an impact, when comparing to todays situation.


 

Let's assume you're not allowed to exchange UO250s, Uo50s last for 6 months and there's a cap for UO10s (be it 10, 15 or 20 tickets) in order to be allowed to exchange tickets. What's about to happen now? Actually, it's pretty simple:

The goal of hoarding is to minimize your risk and to not go broke! Let's say you attract new and old players that play the satellites and exchange the tickets. The highest "basecamp" for these players will be the UO10s. These games will be the "motor" for the hoarders now as you give them no incentive to become a regular at the UO50s. Under your proposal, using a UO50 ticket automatically means that you either lose it or you have to go on, play the UO250s and win the live package.

The probability for an average player to have a UO50 ticket and turn it into a live package is 1 in 49,42. Roughly speaking, you need 50 Uo50 tickets to secure a live package. Under your proposal, playing a UO50 leads to a significantly negative result in 49 out of 50 cases. And you expect people to line up to take a shot? Let's assume you're a profitable hoarder with 10 % ROI at the UO10s (which is pretty solid). In order to win one UO50 ticket, you need to play 50 UO10s. That's a lot of time and effort one needs to invest. It's one thing to take a shot at the UO50s, knowing that you can always trade back down but nobody is going to throw away these tickets like it's nothing for a 2 % chance.

Here's what's going to happen under your ill-fated proposal: Some people will start playing the UO10s and exchange their tickets until they reach the cap. Once they're capped out (doesn't matter whether it's at 10 or 20 tickets), the hoarders will then save their additional value in the form of UO50 tickets and exchange these UO50s back into Uo10s once they fall below the cap. Making sure they can constantly register for the UO10s with fresh tickets. For a savvy regular, it doesn't matter whether he has 45 UO10 tickets in his account or 20 UO10s AND 5 UO50s, it's both 450 Euro in UO tickets and only a question of experienced ticket management.The cap you proposed is actually totally useless....

The other big problem however is that due to your "reform proposal", you keep winning players in the UO10 and maybe even in the UO2 pool, making the games tougher for the casuals you want to protect. As I mentioned before, for winning hoarders, these two levels are now the "motor" for any satellite success. Is that really what you had in mind?

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


@WuDu wrote:


The goal of hoarding is to minimize your risk and to not go broke!


And with the proposed structure that definitely is possible; not to go broke. You can have several hundred buyins for the lowest level. Is there going to be more risk? Yes, when we "force" people to take shots at higher levels, there naturally will be, but in terms of going broke I don't really think so. You risk setbacks you wouldn't have before, but you don't really risk going broke, when you've got 500 buyins :)


@WuDu wrote:


Let's assume you're not allowed to exchange UO250s, Uo50s last for 6 months and there's a cap for UO10s (be it 10, 15 or 20 tickets) in order to be allowed to exchange tickets. What's about to happen now? Actually, it's pretty simple:

The goal of hoarding is to minimize your risk and to not go broke! Let's say you attract new and old players that play the satellites and exchange the tickets. The highest "basecamp" for these players will be the UO10s. These games will be the "motor" for the hoarders now as you give them no incentive to become a regular at the UO50s. Under your proposal, using a UO50 ticket automatically means that you either lose it or you have to go on, play the UO250s and win the live package.

The probability for an average player to have a UO50 ticket and turn it into a live package is 1 in 49,42. Roughly speaking, you need 50 Uo50 tickets to secure a live package. Under your proposal, playing a UO50 leads to a significantly negative result in 49 out of 50 cases. And you expect people to line up to take a shot? Let's assume you're a profitable hoarder with 10 % ROI at the UO10s (which is pretty solid). In order to win one UO50 ticket, you need to play 50 UO10s. That's a lot of time and effort one needs to invest. It's one thing to take a shot at the UO50s, knowing that you can always trade back down but nobody is going to throw away these tickets like it's nothing for a 2 % chance.

Here's what's going to happen under your ill-fated proposal: Some people will start playing the UO10s and exchange their tickets until they reach the cap. Once they're capped out (doesn't matter whether it's at 10 or 20 tickets), the hoarders will then save their additional value in the form of UO50 tickets and exchange these UO50s back into Uo10s once they fall below the cap. Making sure they can constantly register for the UO10s with fresh tickets. For a savvy regular, it doesn't matter whether he has 45 UO10 tickets in his account or 20 UO10s AND 5 UO50s, it's both 450 Euro in UO tickets and only a question of experienced ticket management.The cap you proposed is actually totally useless....

The other big problem however is that due to your "reform proposal", you keep winning players in the UO10 and maybe even in the UO2 pool, making the games tougher for the casuals you want to protect. As I mentioned before, for winning hoarders, these two levels are now the "motor" for any satellite success. Is that really what you had in mind?


You certainly have some valid points here, but it's all with a very conservative approach in mind, which I don't think is very applicable when speaking about the exchangers as a whole. Yes, the cap might not work, if the player stop playing the € 2 tournaments and only play € 10, but would you really stop playing the € 2 tournaments, if you're at the € 10 level? Guess some additional rules might be needed then :)

Let's say we will need limitations for the previously mentioned reasons, what would you suggest?


@WuDu wrote:

The other big problem however is that due to your "reform proposal", you keep winning players in the UO10 and maybe even in the UO2 pool, making the games tougher for the casuals you want to protect. As I mentioned before, for winning hoarders, these two levels are now the "motor" for any satellite success. Is that really what you had in mind?


This is always going to be the issue with the exchangers, no matter how we implement them, and it is the main reason they were removed. The impact will obviously depend on the actual implementation. In terms of this aspect, we should never have exchangers, but in a way they're a necessary evil that does have it benefits :)

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...