Jump to content

UBO London Seat Only Sats


pirahn

Recommended Posts

I find it a good idea @pirahn, just to make sure that you don't shoot me :p

but:

1. Unibet is famous for the hospitality, which is (I guess) partially included in the package that you win... And I find it a bit contradictory that they then should exclude some players from this :) 

2. What exchange rate should be taken for the buy-in (actually this goes for any UBO event outside the euro zone, so has nothing to do with direct buy-ins, but I was just wondering). Is it the moment the qualifiers start, or the moment they guess the exchange rate will be when UBO happens?

3. What tickets do we want to be used? As we saw with yesterdays UK tour seat-only sat... Taking a ticket that isn't part of the tree doesn't go well. (Or it had to do with the fact that not many knew about the sat yet.)

Also keep in mind that I don't know how many tickets a UBO grinder has behind, so maybe the following 2 are really good, since the Regs have many of these tickets to spare.

I think 250 -> 1.1k is a nice jump, but more attractive for recs than for the good regs that know how to do satellites. And the things is that a full package is more nice for a rec than just a seat :) (Just my opinion)

50->1.1k. Is maybe a bit over the top. 20x is good for regs, but I'm really not sure if there are enough of them on this site to fill it up weekly :) (Counting R/A)

100->1.1k would maybe fill... I'm really not sure... But as I said, I don't know that a BI outside the structure would work :)

Tough it's really good for:

1. Any player that can get there really cheap and knows where to stay for a decent price. (and doesn't mind staying in a 3x3m room :p)

2. More buy-ins... more players... bigger GTD's

3. If UBO would start accepting Re-entries this could really work aswell ofcourse.

So just to repeat. I find it a good idea, but for London I think it will be a bit too soon :) (Ofcourse, Unibet could think otherwise :) )

I see now that the circumstances of ones birth are irrelevant... It is what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@VikingsAF Its always a good idea to have seat only options for most live events. Locals may not want a hotel and they would not be able to get a refund on their package for hotel. Seat only is very good for unibet as its non transferable to next event so you are gtd xtra player & prizepool. Deal with your points:

1. You get what you pay for. If you want the lot then play for package. There will be a huge amount of players in London who will just want to play poker and go home.

2.You play in euros on site and the buy in is in euros. Think your a little confused on this.

3. Dont get me started on the Uk Tour. Its like a cat getting stuck in a tree and they called rspca, police and fire brigade to get it down when all you needed was a bowl and catfood.

Either sat tree of 250 or,  25 to 125 and ticket is fine. Not much tinkering needed. 

The 1 re entry should have happened from the start. There are several advantages to unibet, the re entry can only be from a seat only final. This means existing players can continue playing after winning package. More likely players playing day 1a, which is always a problem. Players who get knocked out early have another shot. Players who get to day 2 know they have won some money as xtra bullet returned as cash. Finally, less likely the guarantee will not be met and any increase in prizepool becomes a major boost to any live event marketing.

Negative consideration are, if too many players play for seat then unibet will have overbooked rooms. This is extremely unlikely. Liquidity taken away from Sunday finals. More likely xtra players and xtra turnover for business. More opportunity to market to uk clients.

Why too soon for London, there were seat only sats for Romania.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because I didn't know Bucharest already had it, and thought it would maybe cost some time to figure out a good structure :D

The buy in is in pounds in London. No? Or I am confused, because im 100% sure the pay out was in pounds :) 

I see now that the circumstances of ones birth are irrelevant... It is what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats not a worry for you as its a standard of €1100 and your account is in €.Unibet will probably have an agreed exchange rate with casino. It would be of interest to know that exchange rate. At the moment your €1100 equates to £973. How is the casino running tournament. Is it £885 + £88 ? @JeppeL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Last year I went to The Vic, and entered a Live Satellite to the UO London.

If I remember, it cost about £100 to enter and it was run by The Vic Casino, so it's best to check out their website for more information.

I'll be entering their satellite this year as a last resort if I can't bink a package on Unibet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just checked out the Hendon Mob Database website

For the Unibet Open London, there's three dates for seat only satillites for the UO.

Mon 19th Feburary 8.00pm £150 + £15, 1 x re-entry

Weds 21st Feburary 7.00pm £150 + £15 , 1 x re-entry

Thurs 22nd Feburary 8.00pm  £150 + £15, 1 x re-entry

If I don't bink a package on Unibet, then I'll most likely be at The Vic for the 21st Feb at 7pm for their satillite for the UO main event.

See you guys there...lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I think there should be "Seat only Sats" for all Live Events and players should be allowed to win as many of them as they like.  The reason for the great flexibility in wiining them is the flexibility in using them.  I propose that all Seat only sats can be used in any UO and used in nearly anyway the player chooses.

Example a player wins a UO package to London and then wins 3 seat only sats he can use a Seat Only ticket as a re-entry (I think UO's are re-entry??) and if not he can combine two "seat only" tickets to play in the High Roller.  Or he can just pocket the seat only tickets for any future event.  As long as the player uses each ticket won within a callendar year of winning them. 

Having his option a player now has incentive to play as many of the online satellites he chooses and that money will be going to a UO prizepool.  This will help online guarantees/get rid of overlays and build prizepools for all UO events.  tbh years ago I suggested the "Players Choice" generic sats on Stars and it worked really well.... until they missused them by allowing players to use them for EPT's which caused the fields to get too hard online. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


@Sect7G wrote:

I think there should be "Seat only Sats" for all Live Events and players should be allowed to win as many of them as they like.  The reason for the great flexibility in wiining them is the flexibility in using them.  I propose that all Seat only sats can be used in any UO and used in nearly anyway the player chooses.

Example a player wins a UO package to London and then wins 3 seat only sats he can use a Seat Only ticket as a re-entry (I think UO's are re-entry??) and if not he can combine two "seat only" tickets to play in the High Roller.  Or he can just pocket the seat only tickets for any future event.  As long as the player uses each ticket won within a callendar year of winning them. 

Having his option a player now has incentive to play as many of the online satellites he chooses and that money will be going to a UO prizepool.  This will help online guarantees/get rid of overlays and build prizepools for all UO events.  tbh years ago I suggested the "Players Choice" generic sats on Stars and it worked really well.... until they missused them by allowing players to use them for EPT's which caused the fields to get too hard online. 

 

 


UOs are single entry. UK Tour seat only sats run every Monday and I can see it being fine to win multiples of that as it's single re-entry per starting day. DSO seat only sats are running too now. With the UO I think there would need to be a cap to stop players just hoarding seats or no option to convert to bonus points or cash. 

Players are already allowed to postpone a winning package to the next event so I don't see why you would need to win that many seats in the first place. The other issue is what buy-in you have for the seat only sat. €25/50 Re-entry? You're looking at 1:20+ winnings which doesn't seem that attractive and when the biggest daily MTT is €50 finding 10+ people a week to fire €100 into a seat only sat for 4 stops a year might be tricky. If you create a €10 feeder to it then it's just another tree on an already busy sat structure.  

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

The biggest reasons in favour of my proposal is "perceived player value."

The foreign player:

As an example a player who wins a UO package to say Malta but lives in Finland is going to be putting out 300euro money in flights a few hundred Euro on food/entertainment and is playing in a 1100 euro MTT (1K actually).  The rake when put in those terms is very high... yet there is value in entertainment/fun etc.

That same player who wins 2 seat only packages is going to be able to play in 3k worth of tourneys at the exact same cost for attending.  (Should he run deep in the Main Event he won't cry that he can't use his "seat only" tickets for the H.R as he's already getting a cash. 

The local player

Why would a guy living in London want to win a package to UO London?  He doesn't.  There is no need.... and therefore he doesn't even try to qualify on Unibet.  To turn this player away is shameful and goes against everything any online operator strives to do.

The future

As Unibet expands and grows in more markets worldwide it's inevitable that there will be more one off type Live MTT's.  To get players to travel for these events from established markets will be very tough as Unibet discovered with the UO Las Vegas.  The threads were filled of people gripping about exactly what I'm talking about.  "Perceived Player Value"  By offering generic "Seat Only" sats Unibet is essentially lowering the perceived rake on their events.  A guy playing the 100k at the PCA isn't giving a crap that his room cost 4k... but a player playing a 5k event certainly is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should also add the friend aspect.

Every poker player has at least a few poker buddies.  Say a player wins an Package to a Live Event wouldn't it serve Unibet to have him bring a poker friend to this event instead of the wife.  Having seat only sats is a perfect way to have 2 entries under 1 hotel room.  I've shared rooms for Live events at least a dozen times with friends when I won a package and a buddy that just won a seat only or vice versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


@Sect7G wrote:

The biggest reasons in favour of my proposal is "perceived player value."

The foreign player:

As an example a player who wins a UO package to say Malta but lives in Finland is going to be putting out 300euro money in flights a few hundred Euro on food/entertainment and is playing in a 1100 euro MTT (1K actually).  The rake when put in those terms is very high... yet there is value in entertainment/fun etc.

That same player who wins 2 seat only packages is going to be able to play in 3k worth of tourneys at the exact same cost for attending.  (Should he run deep in the Main Event he won't cry that he can't use his "seat only" tickets for the H.R as he's already getting a cash. 

The local player

Why would a guy living in London want to win a package to UO London?  He doesn't.  There is no need.... and therefore he doesn't even try to qualify on Unibet.  To turn this player away is shameful and goes against everything any online operator strives to do.

The future

As Unibet expands and grows in more markets worldwide it's inevitable that there will be more one off type Live MTT's.  To get players to travel for these events from established markets will be very tough as Unibet discovered with the UO Las Vegas.  The threads were filled of people gripping about exactly what I'm talking about.  "Perceived Player Value"  By offering generic "Seat Only" sats Unibet is essentially lowering the perceived rake on their events.  A guy playing the 100k at the PCA isn't giving a crap that his room cost 4k... but a player playing a 5k event certainly is.

 


Just going to play devils advocate for the sake of even discussion..

For the foreign guy :-

Why are they qualifying for events they know will cost them money to attend? Accomodation/Breakfast/dinner is included in the package as well as €250 expenses so he might have to spend sub €100 to cover extra expenses if they are frugal about it. If they win two seats they then still have to cover the cost of their hotel stay for a few nights and all meals.  I'd like to see the UO package be increased to 2.2 or 2.5k to add extra travel expenses as I think it's a major deterrent for both casual and regular players but I can't see your logic in someone wanting to win two seats only and then have to pay for everything else when they can win a package and pay the minimum.

I think in order for seat only UO stuff and it to be usable for side events you have to create some sort of 'live balance' for each player that they could add to by winning seats/packages and then they just dip into it whenever they want to play a main or side event. This would give players an incentive to play the online sats more after they win a package. 

The other side of this is that you want as many unique players attend these events. Allowing multiple wins for a single player, while keeping the sats going to an extent, doesn't help the actual live event at all.

I think the idea of the UO package is to give players an entire experience. It's not aimed at the grinder but to give the casual player the chance to see what it's like playing live events like the UO including all the fun extra bits like merch/players party/activites etc. If you look at the package as a holiday with some poker over a pure money making venture then it's fine for any player from any country to make the trip. There are only 4 of them a year :)

For the local guy :-

There are live sats to most, if not all the UO mains at the hosting venue so they already have options to qualify for the events without a full package. Online, you can still just fire 250 at the final (or grind sats for less), win a seat, get your money back from the travel expenses and have a seat for basically nothing. If we take London as an example anyone that lives 30 minutes+ away from the casino may prefer to not have to travel, buy food for 4 days and get to attend the players party and all the other good stuff over going home every night. People are starting ticket rolls from €1 so even a guy that lives next door to the casino may want to just ham it up in a hotel for a few days and enjoy all the free stuff if they've only spend €20 to get there :)

The Future :-

I agree, Vegas didn't really work. The package was too expensive and it was too difficult from most players to get there with the limited travel expenses. There was also the issue with taxes paid in various countries putting players off. I don't think offering seat only for this would have made any difference though. The only players that could have really used it to make a saving would have been Canadians and I believe they get hit be pretty hefty taxes on winnings anyway so it might not have been worth it.

Maybe offering smaller 'side event packages' could increase player numbers at the events? €400 of buyins to cover a main event sat and two side events with/without the accomdation and travel extras to give the pure poker player the maximum. 

 

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

@MoreTBC while I agree with some things you say, I would like to mention that your perception of how money moves in poker is quite flawed and noticed this in many of your comments. 

Like the statement "Why are they qualifying for events they know will cost them money to attend? " you forget that qualifying to an event is most of the time a real money expenditure, some people get extremely lucky and qualify by spending a tiny amount, some grind tickets, but some spend a lot of their own money to get to events and they are probably the bigger part of players. And this is an important demographic (particularly since it has most of the losing players as well, which is where the profit of everyone else comes from) to consider for the increasing the package value (with more spending money) as well, or any other change. I qualify with tickets for me it would be amazing, for the guy that gets super lucky as well, but what about the guy that spends a few hundred, a thousand to try to qualify, will he be happy that the final instead of 5 packages will only have 3 or 4 therefore less chances that he will actually get the experience for his money? Of course the reverse situation is also true, if the gap between the final sattie buy-in and the package is too small then they might feel it's not worth playing the sattie. Also the fact that it's just a 1k event, making the package significantly bigger could make someone think what's the point to even play, I'll just buy-in to another 1k event directly. However it might be more attractive for someone willing to spend idk 50€ per week in satties, don't really know. Kinda went on a tangent, the point is that it's not that simple and that black and white.

As for live satties, what if someone just doesn't like to play a 50€ comp every night at the casino to qualify but would enjoy playing a 1k live event and still wants to qualify. You're comparing 2 very different products, a small live sattie with an small online sattie. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Why are they qualifying for events they know will cost them money to attend? should have had some context, my bad. I meant if you know you're going to need to spend x amount of time/money a week/month to qualify for an event and then spend €y more because that event is hundreds of miles away then why try to qualify in the first place from an EV standpoint. I'm not going to try and win a package for an LAPT event to make money, but I would for a holiday :) I'm not saying people don't or shouldn't do it, I was just asking for the reasons why for my own understanding.

Adding an extra €200 to the package would just require an extra players entry per package awarded right? That doesn't seem like a massive amount to get but I don't know what the entrant size is for finals and if they already overlay. If it doesn't affect the GTDs I would think all players would be happy winning a little more :)

I agree that for every player I described there is an opposite player and vice versa and somebody in the middle. You're never going to please everyone. 

Going back to the original point of the thread, Seat only sats good. Multiple wins bad IMO. My understanding of the Unibet way of doing things is that they'd rather have 4 unique players attend one UO over 1 player attending 4 even if it costs them some sat overlay.

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

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...