I didn't follow the entire discussion. But I find the decision good in a way. I've seen how I could play from 1 euro to 500+euro tickets (without exchange possibility) and that just seemed impossible on Unibet... Just because nobody values their tickets. People who can exchange their 50 to 5*10 only need to win 1 to be back at 50. If you try flipping a lot in the beginning and get 3x starting stack, you can be pretty safe for the remainder of the sat on Unibet.
In my opinion the entire UO satellite tree just needs a revision.
The entire flow from 1 to 2000 takes far too many steps (you need to win 4 times). I think the system would benefit from steeper steps; 2-25-250-2000 or even 2-20-200-2000. I keep the steps at around 10x to find some balance between recreationals and the fact that Unibets player base isn't that big. This way you have a similar ITM% as in any normal MTT aswell.
I think there can also be an even steeper route with (unlimited) re-entry/re-buy structure which has something like 50c-10-200/250-2000, but the two should go side to side (only re-entry/re-buy will scare)
Reducing the tree with one step can even make you to keep the exchange system, as there would still be (almost) the same amount of players but for one less level.
Then there is a problem with rake. I think rake should be far lower in tournaments which don't have a direct money payout (so satellites )
Now you take 10% from each step, so in a theoretical 1 or 2 - 2000 you take 4x 10% let's say there is this break even player who qualifies for UO by investing 1000x2 euro (200 he wins and plays in 10. 40 of those he wins and plays in 50 euro. 8 of those he wins and plays in 250 euro and finally he wins 1 of his 8 finals.), spending 2000 euro in each step. Then he will have paid 800 euro rake on his 2000 euro package, which contains only a 1100 euro seat, on which he pays 100 euro rake again resulting in paying 900 euro rake for an effective 1000 euro tournament.
Reducing satellite rake to 5% would result in that same player having 400 euro left (which he will use in his next journey for UO)
Combining the two proposals would indeed result in far less profit per package for Unibet (5% rake and one step less result in 400 euro rake on the 1000 euro tournament effectively), but more players will ultimately keep playing.
Okay but then it's up to Unibet to make sure we can't exchange from the short route to the long route Also 4-25-250-2000 is a bit strange of a set-up (as it is x6, x10, x and therefore different to play (In my opinion). I would understand that the multipliers get constantly higher (since a higher multiplier is more difficult for recreationals). Altough I disregard my own statement with the proposal of the re-entry route partially. (Still, if you re-enter at least once in each of the games, and the final you can't because it would be mutual, then the multipliers would also be x10 all the times or even less.)
Also there are just far too many different ticket values (1, 2, 4, 10, 25, 50, 250) all for their own specific tournament. With my suggestion there would be 3 (2, 20, 200) for the freezeout route alone or 5 (.5, 2, 10, 20, 200) if both freezeout and re-entry route would be available.
If after this Unibet wants to re-introduce the exchanges, then it's up to them to keep fast-trackers in their own lane and don't exchange e.g. a 10 euro ticket into 5x2, but only in 10x 1.
@VikingsAF Just hope there a route left to play. Almost 3 years on and off I have played the sats because of the exchanges.
Considering i would never have played for a live event if it wasnt for reading a 2+2 thread many ages ago,thats a lot of games/rake from a minisclue investment.
As you can see I'm supporting the exchange still I just think the combination of all circumstances at this moment is not healthy for the system. (It is a long time ago that I played sats on Unibet tough, because they never really felt that rewarding)
Ofcourse a lot of sats will overlay if you have 10 million different game types.
So I'm just suggesting a complete makeover rather than some half-assed measures. It worked for the normal MTT's... why won't it work for the qualifiers?
I am sure that i am not the only one that wants it to stay.
@penguin50 You also know a few people I have got to play Unibet because of the tix exchanges and @NeriPoker I am sure you remember the days of me converting players to Unibet because of the exchanges on ace high in the not so long ago past.
@WuDu I agree with you completely. You have expressed my thought in more detail. the only time where they lose money is until the evening (a couple of tournaments with a prize pool of 100 euros) and maybe in the finals (but this is very rare), because the necessary number of players is not gained. As for the rest of the tournaments, it is very good everywhere. I think everything will come back after everyone sees the result. so you can not be particularly upset. But even if I do not return, I will concentrate my efforts on mtt, than sattelites with a multi-level structure, which you can never pass without a bankroll of a few thousand.
@Merenitsu: We have guarantees and it sums a lot. An overlay of x here, an overlay of x there. Each final ticket gets built from a lot of smaller GTD tickets and it ends in quite a high amount of cost for us.
Of course, this goes both ways:
Without me playing on one of my tickets tonight, your deficit would have been 45+5 Euro higher. You're welcome.
I sort of see Unibet's point of view as in my case since starting an attempt to qualify for the Manchester leg of the UK Tour I have not added to the poker economy. I bought my first few attempts, spending 18.30 quite a few weeks ago and have not used cash in any satellite since, now holding 3x25 and 18x4 tickets, getting up to 1x100 and splitting down, not really wanting to only have one shot at the final. Once the exchanger goes, that's it, use them or lose them. I don't know if players will buy more attempts or not, but there must be 100s if not 1000s of euros in tickets never coming back into play. I'll be sorry to see them go, it has been a unique feature on Unibet, and I don't know whether I'll continue trying to qualify once it's gone. Time will tell if this is a good decision or not, the general player's thoughts seem to be not, mine as well. It's a pity but Unibet is a business after all.