He means that HU cashgames are mostly a bumhunting paradise, this is a big reason why unibet probably won't introduce them and have random assignment to games for cash games and sng's with no way to see the lobby. It's not a perfect solution to bumhunting, but it's a big step in the right direction.

@ David
Now I received an e-mail from the Belgian UO representative and he asked me why I haven't registered yet. I answered that I would like to postpone to an event after bucharest etc. however he told me that it even ain't possible anymore to postpone at all.

@ShaoKahn you can't pospone anymore indeed
But why did you play the final if you didn't know you could play the live event?

I didn't, I received the package through the loyalty program

Hi David, i just won a UK tour package and would it be possible to transfer my buy in to the the next Brighton event in Sept instead of Glasgow in June?

Account name is: blainetoms

Cheers

Yep can you please specify this? For example on sunday if i have 15+ tables in the peak hours and there is one or two tables from unibet without the use of any help with folding or betting, it´s just hard. It works for now but would be obviously amazing if you could clarify the situation about third party software

so that "software interaction" including automated mousemovement/clicks (hotkeys) for folding etc?

Had a minor disconnection today and was really impressed with the Live Support. The gentleman Andrew adressed the issue quickly and gave fair compensation in about 5 minutes.

I can't see why PlaceMint would be a problem. All it does is position some 'windows' on a specific area of the screen. Some sites offer poor functionality for table layouts. Some resolutions/monitors make some overlap or give undesired tiling across multiple monitors. This is inconvenient without a save layout solution, having to setup tables every session.

PlaceMint doesn't give an advantage over other players. It doesn't directly interact with software. You could say it might even speed up the games in some cases (no regs laying out tables, better positioning, etc).

Cant find anything about that in the T&C/Rules:
https://www.unibet.com/general-info/terms#section-14
http://a1.unicdn.net/polopoly_fs/1.8...ules1.8_EN.pdf

also not sure if "15." includes things like Hotkey-Scripts (mousemovement/clicks) to fold or check/call

Hi all,

Warning a long post, but definitely worth a read. The original writer (Psycho79) would like some more insights of you, and I think Unibet too.

Original post:

I intended to create this thread right after Unibet Online Series as the raised topics have been naturally influanced by that and directly related to the tournament offer. First of all, as a tournament poker fan, I would like to thank for such a possibility. The series turned out to be a great success and met with a huge interest of players. It can certainly become even more prosperous in future, and @MoreTBC has done a good job with his "UOS feedback" thread, collecting Community thoughts on how it could be improved. From my part, I would like to make two suggestions on the regular tournament schedule,
closely linked to my UOS observations.
1. Overall qualifiers system needs to be simplified:
There are sats in the current offer dedicated to particular tournaments like Supernova, Milky Way etc. The problem with these is that they rarely run or hardly ever cover gtds. Some of the tournaments that can be considered daily majors, like Deep Impact or Abyss don't have any sats whatsover. Others like Odyssey have "one-single" sat a week, which is ridiculous, cause next to the Nova it aspires to be a Sunday Major, r/a in addition. Milky Way is a Saturday Major, but patience of players trying to qualify is definitely put to the test as it's hard to start a sat even. Others like daily Sputnik sats are always overlayed, cause the sat/target buy-in ratio is too big, and fun players rarely come back to play disappointed after a single unsuccessful try. Altogether these consequence in limiting the target fields, and then even less interest in playing qualifiers. Dead End!
Thus, the qualifiers system needs to be simplified, and the positive UOS experience should be a base to that. During the series 5€=>25€ sats were running massively on afternoons with covered gtds. Together with the abililty of using the won tickets for any event of your choice it's a pattern for a perfect sat. Why not follow this and standardize all the sats now, 3x25€ for 5€, and let people play whatever they want with the tickets: Deep Impact, Abyss, Dwarf Star, Gargle Blaster, Ice Giant etc. The same for 50€s, as the 1=>5 multiplier works perfectly with "Unibet fields", why not to set 10€=>50€ sats and give players the opportunity to choose again from Milky Way, Odyssey, Sputnik. The qualifiers to 100€ events might be 25€=>100€, which would definitely help to get rid of overlays, and give all the players opportunity to qualify in steps: 0.20€=>1€=>5€=>25€=>100€, with the demand of running sats at all particular levels.
I think one sat of each level could start every hour after 4PM. Apart from that there should be one main daily sat of each level with 10tx gtd, which is definitely possible to cover with 50 players field.
Alternative to this would be a 5man SNG rakefree sat, with a ticket for the winner, for instance 5x5€ with one 25€ ticket. These would be quick and fun,
perfectly suited for recreationals not having much time to play, and/or frustrated with another cancelled qualifier. It's easy to imagine that these would generate plenty of additional entries to the target tournaments.
Overall, rakefree sats as a starting point, would help to cover the target gtds, generating more entries and encouraging even more players to play sats.
The covered gtds means more daily sats => more tickets => bigger target fields and prizepools => more rake. It's a snowball effect. The most important idea is to unify the field of players willing to play all the sats and "let them run" finally. I'm absolutely confident it's possible to get the system healthy, but the only way to do this is to apply changes.

2. Demand for a daily major 50€ tournament:
There were only a few 50€ events during UOS, but they were certainly successful with their good structures and attractive prizepools. It only proves that with Unibet growing fields, players' needs have become diverse, and there is a growing demand for a daily tournament with a slighly bigger buy-in.
Especially if the sat system would get to work somehow it makes a lot of sense, cause many players should find their chances to fight for bigger prizes.
You will say that we have Sputnik but with "all the likes" it cannot be called a daily major. First of all, it runs decidedly too late to draw attention of more players. And...with its "r/a bubble rush structure" it's in fact 150-200€ average buy-in, a bit too much to think its field is going to grow significantly with the limited sats. I like Sputnik and I try to play it as often as I can, but I think 50€ daily major should be a freezout/reentry to equalize funplayers chances and thus encourage them to play. Personally, I consider the Abyss structure perfect, and I would just copy/paiste it to set the new tournament to 7-8PM CET. It could be scheduled as a trial period twice a week to start, Tuesday and Friday for instance. Maybe if all interested players shared their thoughs on that, it would result in having a perfect tourney in the schedule?

I think both suggestions are worth mentioning and consideration. Thanks for your time and reading it! Please leave your feedback, write whatever you agree or disagree on above. Make your suggestions. Especially resolving the sat issue would help a lot in my opinion. Together, you can do more than alone. Best Regards, GL!

@Psycho79

I'm opposed to rake free sats unless Unibet can predict with near certainty what their MTT offerings are going to look like in the long run. If they had to change back to raking sats players would show no mercy. The fact that they used to be raked, then rake free, then raked would not change players perspective of a rake hike.
On a side note I think nearly all rake based promotons are used to cover up a fundamental flaw in the product being offered. A good example on Unibet was the never ending rake races for 800nl when those games were offered... the underlining problem was the reg to rec ratio. Regs needed the promo to justify playing and the few recs were slaughtered so quickly because of their being so few of them and they were being targeted by the sharps.

Flip satellites really should be rake-free, and in my opinion regular satellites should have more lenient rake than 10+%. 1,8+0,2 -> 9+1 -> 45+5 -> 225+25 -> 2k package for instance for Unibet Open satellites is borderline highland robbery especially with very low rb% for MTT players... effectively from original 2$ buy-in you only receive about 1,3$ worth of equity to package if you are an average player. And far less if you are losing.

Cut that rake at half and it's far more reasonable and rec-friendly.

Hello,

I recently noticed the addition of the Unibet Open EXCHANGER tournaments giving us the option to downgrade tickets. Would it be possible to add EXCHANGER options to upgrade tickets? For example 5x50 into one 250 UO ticket? And even better an option to upgrade 8x250UO into a 2000 full package? That would be a great option!

Thanks

You do have that, they're called normal satellites

There are 2 problems with your suggestions. 1. They probably can't do this type of exchanger tournaments with a multibuy option, it messes stuff up. I'm assuming they would have to code something completely new which is not worth it. 2. They want people to actually play the satellites at some point. If people would just grind the idk 1€ levels cause they're super soft and never play the finals cause they're a bit harder they would probably have big overlays in them.

I think the problem nr.2 could apply as well by downgrading the tickets and if you ask me, it makes more sense that by downgrading tickets, the overlays will be more possible to appear. However I think this is mostly a demand & supply mathematical problem. If for example 4 players want to downgrade a 50 ticket into 5x10 tickets and at the same time 4 players want to upgrade 5x10 tickets into 1x50 ticket, then no harm is done. But by only downgrading tickets there can be a problem for the same reasons you mentioned about upgrading them.

About the problem nr.1, I assure you that it is super easy to achieve an upgrading system in the client. Just put a placeholder tournament and have buyins 5x10e tickets for example. No endless hours of coding needed.

I agree with rake free flips as they can be removed at any time.

And I do agree that there should be some rake scaling at the higher buyins. For UO's Unibet should consider 46+4 and 230+20. Lower sats don't need to be adjusted as overlays give enough value back to the players... and if there's overlays in the 50+ UO sats then that's just poor sub sat offering and that blame is on Unibet.

I had a chat with the support couple of days ago and asked them about softwares like tableninja/tamer etc...placemint i´m not sure. They told me that is not allowed officially.
Just wanted to get a clarification on this thread maybe.

Tickets are not currency, exchanging up is just madness IMO.

@fireshield

Have you been here at all in the past few years, anything that requires coding takes months or years and has to be prioritized behind actual big issues.

A multibuy option has been suggested for the down exchanges and it was a no-no. Although maybe with restricted options like can bi just multibuy x5 and it gives just this prize maybe it could work, but if they don't have that option in the backend it's impossible for them.


As for the traffic in satties, if people go down they eventually have to play the higher tiers as well, the difference is that they will end up playing more of the higher tier ones eventually instead of just 1 and done-ing it, so long term it adds a player to the higher tiers. If there would be up exchangers then people might just skip the higher tiers, especially if they're not profitable there. And would offer no long term benefit to the sattie tree.

If there was a level where there is a raketrap or a rebuy between freezeout tiers, or a level that never starts, or generally something that is bad design then I can see the demand for this, but currently there isn't much of this at all (except for the 25-100 levels that I don't think are that good, but still okay). For the game that never starts eg. 5€ Milky Way I'm sure they'll make exceptions anyway.

nr 2.
We have been downgrading tickets for years its not a new thing just a different way of doing it. For me at least and a few I know off, if it wasnt for the downgrades we would do as nmpfan said get as far as we can and if we lose never play again.

With the downgrades its kept me playing to UO for years and I have only directly won a package once and another indirectly with the 100k freeroll which i managed to get to by playing all the sats. UK same thing I started off badly and couldnt win a final but kept trying as I had plenty of tixs, in the end I got better and have managed to attend a lot of the UK tours and even given seats away.

nr 1. Again nmpfan is correct anything that requires dev time takes forever even if its just changing the colour of the text
We are lucky that tix exchanges are even staying around because it would have been the end of the year minimum before a solution to relieve the manual work could have been made but David had a conversation with some of the reg ticket changers and a solution was found that would work within the current system.

Sorry to say that, but I believe that you guys are defending something that suits you because you benefit from it

To be honest I myself have benefit from ticket exchanges in the past and I mention it because I don't want to be a hypocrite.

But to put it straight, your arguments didn't convince me to change my views about this topic. You just told me a story of how the ticket exchanges helped you. In the end it is your speculation which is just different from mine. I really like it that Unibet made this ticket exchange tournaments and I just suggested to have the option for upgrade as well. I don't understand why that would bother you...

You guys act like you care about the poker eco system of Unibet. If you really do care, just be realistic, ANY ticket exchanges (regardless if they are downgrade or upgrade) are not positive for the poker eco system.

Lastly about this "developer time" issue, it really sounds like a joke to me the way you guys put it. This is clearly showing to me that you have no idea about programming. Developing something like this is a simple task, the programming logic has already been found out. Coding vise versa the ticket exchange is not such a big issue.

@fireshield

Well duh, obviously, shocker, reveal of the century. Yes were defending it because it suits us. I've played these games for a long time. Without the influx of players from the lower levels some of my games would have died out, or at least would have been way smaller in volume and gtd. If you take that influx of players and take them out of the system by giving them packages directly my games die out. I like my games, I would like for them to remain, that is the reason ecology is important to me, no players no games. That being said there are other issues with these games that would make them better regardless of any this, been discussed on the community forum a lot so not gonna start it again here.

Also yes I am a programmer, I know I could code the general logic of these things in less than an hour. That is not including making sure security is air tight which is super important for a site circulating a ton of money, and all the testing and thinking of any way to exploit it / bug it out which again is really important. But I've also seen how Relax operates. Everything takes ages, they have multiple projects with a small team and stuff gets prioritized in order of importance (probably by management) , which ends up with less important stuff rarely reaching the top of the queue. Also their systems seem incredibly inflexible to small easy changes, which imo is really bad design, but this is what they have to work with. The backend for the staff also seems very inflexible and inefficient, but as always, making the jobs of employees easier rarely gets prioritized.

I dont think there is a high demand for upgrade service and its something unibet have never been keen on. If you have a very large tix balance or too many at a particular level, ask as a one off, you want to exchange up. Just message someone in community and make a request. Great thing about unibet is common sense applies. As to coding, if its an undesirable service then matters not how long it will take not to do it.

chipdumping can't get in touch with live support
https://gyazo.com/85b5a8cb177de242d6789c07200ac502