Hi Andrew, Just logged into play 50uo and there are no tournaments for that level showing at all. Presume there is a glitch.

Are there any rakeback affiliates for Unibet?

Since Unibet doesn't offer any flat Rakeback anyways, the obvious answer is no.

How do I change the colour of the call button? Light Orange with white text and using f.lux I can't see the amount super clearly.

I'll take the over on 5k viewers. Wayy over! Already other twitch streamers talking about it, defo lots of excitement. Crazy because being sponsored by ps but talking about a unibet promo haha

well you simply cannot. the client is as simplistic and minimalistic as possible

hi andrew, are you able to help me turn a $1 SNG, $10 SNG, and a $4nl ticket into 3 $5 Banzai tickets, thank you!

alias is THUNDERgod

There are a few RakeRaces.

Rake Races and Rakeback are two different things though. One offers prizes depending on your activity at the tables whereas the other guarantees a flat percentage of the rake paid back.

True, but others already said there is no rakeback so i thought it's better than nothing.

There is rakeback, and it's high for recreationals and kinda meh for regs. Like it should be.

Its high rewards if you rake <70 euros/month

meh if you rake >3300 euros/month

and anything in between that it is rake suicide.

edit: compared to Stars pricing and rewards

Hey Andrew, for some reason the DT ticket which you credited me expires today.

I went back and saw your earlier post with the graph and I must say I'm a bit surprised but I like the general idea that Unibet has here, for once a poker site should cater to something else than the minimum wage(and higher) grinders. The appreciation for recreationals on PokerStars is absolutely 0.

If I fit into this category, should I treat it as a brag or a beat?

Ok I,ve done some more analysis on the Unibet reward model and not only does it stack up really badly against Stars from the top end, but I believe the high rewards to low volume player model Unibets model boasts actually makes very little difference in cost and certainly doesn't warrant such a big drop in rewards from the middle volume players.

I'm afraid I undervalued Stars' rewards in my previous graph, apologies, here is a more accurate graph of unibet rewards against stars, and also a proposed alternative rake model that mirrors Stars model except that instead gives the same benefits to low volume players as Unibet's model.


*

I was curious to see how each model faired with different distributions of players raking various amounts. I skewed the players to mostly rake 10-50 euros (Penny rakers), then 30-100 euros (low rakers), then 50-150 euros (Medium rakers), then around 250 euros (Good rakers), over a 3 month period. These were the results: (Test-RB-Paid = Alternative Rake Method)



These rough tests show Unibet's rewards are around 65% of Pokerstars in all 4 samples. This is compounded as I did not include Pokerstars big freerolls in the value, and also a big part of Unibets high volume rewards is a single live tournament ticket. The alternative model of rewarding low volume players highly is barely any different in cost compared to Stars' current model.
The profit clearly goes up a lot as players play more and move up stakes, maybe Unibet could benefit pretty quickly from making a change towards this alternative model.

I conclude therefore sites can't use this 'beginner-friendly model' as an excuse to slash value for mid-volume players because its pretty obvious where that cash is ending up.



* Graphs data taken from Unibet Poker Client Software, Pokerstars.com and Unibet support. There may be small errors but is accurate to the best of my abilities, so should be viewed as a rough guide.

Hey POW, great work!

What i'd like to know: did you factor in that on stars you have to pay more rake at NL10- and lower rake at NL25+ ?

yeah, please exchange my two €1k cash tickets for a Cannes package. thanks!

after looking at the numbers POW posted, I feel that rakeback is in fact too high on unibet. I think Ideally the rakeback would be MUCH lower than on stars, making life much harder for rakeback pros

LOL

I think you need to add missions into rake back.

If I average out 215000 at 40e rake per person I get 5375 players.
If I say missions are worth 15e a month, I get 3x15e = 45e.
If I say on average a low raker will get a third of the mission bonus I get 15e per player per quarter.

So I make it that the penny rakers should have an additional 5375x15e per quarter. This equals 80625e.

This would make a big difference to your figures if you add it in.

Might of gone wrong somewhere but think you should at least count some part of the missions in your figures as they are quite easy to do and penny rakers will go for these bonuses.

I have no idea if your graphs or stats are accurate, but I appreciate the work you've put into them. If you're a pro, then it makes sense to do such a thing so you can find out which site is best for you.
That said...
I don't want to play on a site that mirrors Stars' model. The whole point of playing on Unibet is that it's an alternative. If the site wanted to "mirror" Stars, it would do so. But what would be the point?

*REVISED VALUE REWARDS COMPARISON INCLUDING UNIBET MISSIONS



*REVISED PLAYER DISTRIBUTION MODEL



The revised model shows that even with unibets massive %rewards increase after including missions for low volume grinders, it still costs them very little extra, they still pay out around 65% of what Stars do in total rewards.

I haven't factored the rake differences in yet, but by looking at these models it seems adding large rewards% to low volume grinders makes little difference to over-all payouts, I therefore don't really think an extra 1/3 off rake at NL4+NL10 will cost Unibet that much. However their rake of NL25 @5%, NL50 @5.5% and NL100+ @ 6% is a huge flow of revenue, and when you consider most serious NL25-N200 players will pay 500e-2000e/3months, Unibet just aren't paying much of this back at all.

I will try factor rake into the model if i have time but I can't see it favouring unibet players at all.

Unibet are doing a fantastic job NOT being like stars when it comes to rules of the game, but pricing is a separate issue and affects player pools and ultimately online poker alot. Unibet seem to be pricing using a 'Robin Hood' model and over-charging players on the pretense that the money needs to come from somewhere and that over-pricing keeps the games softer, and alot of this money is going into their pockets. I'm suggesting they could easily give the same rewards and benefits to beginner players and it wouldn't cost them much more than stars' rake model at all.

Unibets software is the future of poker, but currently it's needlessly a rake trap for anyone beginning to take shots or play more.

I make money from playing poker and everything that comes extra like the rakeback from missions and challenges are a bonus. Players that need these high rakebackschemes to survive are the problem with poker at the moment and pokerstars cant do anything about it because they have alot of the rakebackgrinders that only can survive by rakebackgrinding so lowering their rewards would hurt the bottomline.

As i said i am not a big volume player so i might not see the real problem but all these rakeback discussions make me sad if poker has evolved to "need more rakeback" while the goal of poker should be to make money from playing the game not raking a ton of money and getting x % back.

+1

I've played about 100k hands NL25 on Stars and payed about 2,4k$ in rake. Let's assume a winrate of 2bb/100 or 500$ profit. the difference between getting 10% rakeback and paying more rake and getting 25%+ rakeback and paying less rake is huge.