Should Pokerstars Offer All-In Equity Insurance? - Page 2 - Poker News

I honestly fell that for better or worse there are players who simply would pay a premium to not have to deal with variance as much, as for the regs who can put in 100k hands a month obv they are not gonna want to pay, but I don't think that this service really could be intended for them in the first place, but rather the casual player who says no more bad beats for me I'll just take my All In Equity -A Small Percent that's it I had enough . . . . . .

Last edited by D1G1TALFOX; 10-28-2014 at 10:03 PM.

Quote

10-28-2014 , 10:00 PM

#27

PartyScout

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,764

They would make a killing offering this. HU Zoom runouts are beyond brutal at times. Unless you think online is rigged though surley your ******ed for choosing this service at a mark up cost. Play your volume and stop bitching

Quote

10-28-2014 , 10:08 PM

#28

Mjolner

newbie

Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 16

Yes they should if their licences covers it (think this is probably classed as betting rather than poker?) It will suck for regs because money will leave the economy but it makes pretty good business sense to offer losing bets to idiots all day.

Quote

10-28-2014 , 10:20 PM

#29

sqwerty12

banned

Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 5,561

Quote:

Originally Posted by VP$IP

They should offer hand holding and grief counseling.

if they offered this there'd be no market for all-in equity insurance

Quote

10-29-2014 , 12:08 AM

#30

basstrapsz

centurion

Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 142

If they offered this in omaha i could see it being worth it for sure.

Quote

10-29-2014 , 12:30 AM

#31

chinagambler

veteran

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 2,572

Unless they use the remaining cards in the deck it would make them vulnerable to colluders who share hole cards. This is probably why insuredplay went busto and wasn't replaced.

Quote

10-29-2014 , 01:26 AM

#32

solequinox

enthusiast

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 80

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinagambler

Unless they use the remaining cards in the deck it would make them vulnerable to colluders who share hole cards. This is probably why insuredplay went busto and wasn't replaced.

Yes, and I think Pokerstars should offer this if they are willing to stand behind their product as a fair game.

Here is a graph of Omaha 6max cash tables where I suspected collusion @6.5k hands (not on Pokerstars):
http://picpaste.com/pics/cash-RUjESnuc.1414560233.png

Quote

10-29-2014 , 01:49 AM

#33

paletokio

old hand

Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 1,237

+2 players with same bankroll
1 player with insurance
all in against him until running greatly below ev
claim insurance
profit...

I believe this happened to insurance play

Quote

10-29-2014 , 02:11 AM

#34

Karcsi

centurion

Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 132

Deffinitely not,,its BS!! Its horrible and reaction is - F*CK YOU PS AND YOUR INCREASED RAKE and also it would completely change dynamics and ruin the game!

Maybe if they give special pussy mark to everybody who opts in so we know that and could adjust...

But its still a BS idea and should it ever come to pass we hold you personally accountable for that D1G1!

Quote

10-29-2014 , 04:10 AM

#35

scroosko

adept

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,176

doubt they would have insurance if the rng is designed for the worst cards to win more often than they should. bad business sense

Quote

10-29-2014 , 04:28 AM

#36

NerdSuperfly

veteran

Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 2,172

Quote:

Originally Posted by The4thFilm

More rake is exactly what poker needs.

this, for a safer environment for our kids

Quote

10-29-2014 , 07:25 AM

#37

Dos

old hand

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 1,271

Imagine they d take only 1% vig on the insurance. the masses would eat it up every single hand, thats a ****load of money for stars. Amaya is probably working on it as we speak, lol

Quote

10-29-2014 , 07:59 AM

#38

NerdSuperfly

veteran

Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 2,172

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dos

Amaya is probably working on it as we speak, lol

in b4 punters, who can wager if red or black (for 49/50) dominates the flop, are on the table ^^

Quote

10-29-2014 , 10:24 AM

#39

onemoretimes

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 3,535

Quote:

Originally Posted by paletokio

+2 players with same bankroll
1 player with insurance
all in against him until running greatly below ev
claim insurance
profit...

I believe this happened to insurance play

And what happens if you never get below EV? Your just as likely to run above EV as you are below it.

I'm betting what happened to insured play was they didn't have a solid integrated tracking system.

Also about the colluders. You just need to set it where you claim insurance before the hand starts. You could also have an option where you only take it when you have a certain % of winning the hand. Like who the **** wants to buy insurance if you have a 1% chance of winning.

It would def make games worse as people would tilt less and cash would be sucked from game. Would be a pretty good money maker for the sites.

Quote

10-29-2014 , 10:42 AM

#40

djle2

old hand

Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 1,921

oh man. never thought of this. If the decision was yes or no. YES. You just done ****ed up. If Amaya ganna Amaya. They def should imo unless im missing something.

unless there is something shady going on, Amaya should def do this on a business point of view.

Last edited by djle2; 10-29-2014 at 10:44 AM. Reason: def goes with Amaya's way of thinking.

Quote

10-29-2014 , 11:03 AM

#41

freewilly12

journeyman

Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 301

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinagambler

Unless they use the remaining cards in the deck it would make them vulnerable to colluders who share hole cards. This is probably why insuredplay went busto and wasn't replaced.

+1

They could offer run it 4 times or equity chops with extra rake.

Quote

12-02-2016 , 12:48 AM

#42

D1G1TALFOX

old hand

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 1,202

Quote:

Originally Posted by TooCuriousso1

got some real tough guy sharks itt

LoL, TC . . .

The more I think about It, People would Pay and also play more if they Knew they would actually realize there Equity, without having to play Millions of Hands . . .

Quote

12-02-2016 , 12:58 AM

#43

.isolated

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 21,495

Quote:

Originally Posted by ouinosino

cmon keep it simple. wtf is this ****? close thread ban op.

this. can't believe he hasn't been banned yet.

Quote

12-02-2016 , 04:36 AM

#44

elendil200

adept

Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,031

Could you imagine the vig?

Quote

12-02-2016 , 06:14 AM

#45

Maximus122

adept

Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 886

They should absolutely offer all in insurance.

Those who say no have obviously never run 30 buy ins under EV in a month.

Quote

12-02-2016 , 11:37 AM

#46

Coolstorybro.

centurion

Join Date: Apr 2016 Posts: 163

They're*

Quote

12-02-2016 , 11:54 AM

#47

restorativejustice

veteran

Join Date: Aug 2014 Posts: 2,753

Run it three times is the better solution that would also add a slot-machine feel to it that the recs would like.

Quote

12-02-2016 , 01:27 PM

#48

.isolated

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 21,495

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maximus122

Those who say no have obviously never run 30 buy ins under EV in a month.

or they aren't bitches and realize that running 30 buy-ins under ev is the kind of thing that might tilt their opponents so doing it the way it has always been done is more +ev for them.

Quote

12-02-2016 , 01:52 PM

#49

Lego05

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 24,904

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mubsy Bogues

I don't understand why people are hostile to this idea. If you don't want to buy insurance, fine, don't but it - but why would you care if others buy it?

Because Stars will charge a premium and that premium will be more money out of the game and in Stars's pocket.