I understand that you don't believe running worse than $10K per year is possible. But it actually is. That's why I put a link to a variance simulator before and I'll do it again:

http://www.evplusplus.com/poker_tool...nce_simulator/

If you replace the 10K number in your example with a higher number, that graph will look very different.

Someone wrote in another thread about us: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...iance-1188384/

We can't put these facts to numbers and compare it to the price of insurance. But that does not make them any less real.

How did you calculate this number? You don't need to keep half your roll on InsuredPlay. To cover an EV difference of $2000, a $750 deposit will probably be enough playing NL200. It can be less, depending how good/bad you run at first.

We are working on a calculator for this purpose.

I really have a hard time to understand the overall negative attitude towards IP. They are offering a unique service with probably fair fees. IP is still a new company and as the time goes by and if the player base increases, they can start lowering their fees also.

I also believe a service like this is good for overall health of the game, winners are gonna play regardless and if the fish plays longer we are better off. So less negative, more positive imo...

No, you don't understand. Just like you don't understand the difference between general variance (irrelevant to your product) and EV-variance.

My graph above is based on someone running a total of $50k over/under EV for a period of five years at small stakes. The likelihood of that is very, very small. And even if it wasn't less than 1%, then we could increase that number to, say, $100k over/under EV (virtually 0% chance) and it wouldn't make the graph look any more favourable to IP:

How do you calculate the fees? For someone to pay 25.000K in fees he would need to play (25.000/0.37)*100 = 6.756.756 hands of NL100 per year. I don't think this number is realistic.

Assuming the player plays that many hands, then yes. He probably does not need insurance. Given that, like you said, he cannot justify to himself the cost by possible increase in winrate.

There is something which was notified to me by Alex and here it goes:

We are probably going to do something to prevent this flaw. My first instinct was to cap the monthly/yearly fees for very high volume players. But this is something I need to work on.

If you can keep a running tab on your customer's standard deviation as part of your software, you could charge a percent of that instead of a percent of each pot.

Some how the fees seem less reasonable because they're on top of the astronomical rake which already absorbs most of most people's profit. I think the fees aren't too bad and nobody's saying you have to use it all the time, maybe if you're moving up a level you could use it for a week or so until you settle in or if your account is a bit low or you mind set is a bit fragile. Or maybe you've had a good day and are sitting 800bb deep with someone who covers you and you don't really want to get coolered in a 16 BI pot. And the analysis graphs don't really allow for those players who lose AA v KK at NL100, move up to NL200 to chase it back and end up tilting off 4 BI.

If you play 24 tables 8 hours a day with hundreds of BI in your account then insurance perhaps isn't for you, granted. That doesn't mean it isn't for everyone.

Emre, have you considered some kind of rake back type program for the higher spenders?

For most players, our fee model which reduces by the number of hands you play does the same thing with having a flat fee model and giving back to high volume players.

We chose to implement the former when we were beginning.

I realise that, it's just I've noticed that poker players would rather pay for something and get (part of) it back later than just pay less for it in the first place.

(My earlier post #39 explains the fees. It is based on a 200NL player averaging 0.32 VPPs/hand, which is 3,125,000 hands.)

Emre, this is what I have been pointing out to you all along. You are promoting it as ideal for SNE volume players (as well as more casual players) through the SNE interview/blog/testimonial and through highlighting the fact that several SNE players use the service. I have been demonstrating to you that this is not the case. At least now you finally recognise this, and if you can introduce a far more reasonable rate for those players then it may prove to be a useful service to them. GL.

You might be right. The reasoning behind making the lowest fee level available to everyone for the first 30 days is actually the same.

You sir hit it right on the head on who I think will be the people who really pay for this insurance.

Everyone who doesnt want to put in the hard work on and off the tables with their game. The people who are always looking for that one book, that one video which is going to just transform their game overnight. The player looking to be the next Dwan.

The people looking for that quick fix and the ones who will just look at this insurance, look at IPs website and never question anything about it. They will not bother on doing the research and if they look at this thread, they will not really read/listen to the pros/cons for using this sight.

The player who does feel the urge to " move up stakes to chase " with some crappy bankroll management and the illusion that one days play, one weeks play or even a months play is of any real significance when talking about the long term.

I have zero clue why any SNE would use this service but again that isnt my business. I am not even a SNE, so kudos to them for making that feat, I applaud their efforts there. A player with that mindset and discipline though and the understanding of how variance and the game works, I am a little surprised that they would use it.

I really enjoyed BOTH the graphs that MeleaB presented in this thread and it seems to make sense to me and totally back up what has been said by the people who are on the side of not supporting the concept of taking insurance.

One thing I also noticed, also in two back to back posts, is the word PROBABLY....How about just playing poker and relying more on the concept of Probability?

I'm sorry.

That is not what I was trying to do. I've always accepted the fact that our service will not be for everyone. And paid attention to saying some players might benefit from our service in this and that way.

I first mentioned SNEs using InsuredPlay when you said:

Has this point of view changed?

rom I really dont understand why you're arguing this to death man. I mean, while you're at it you might as well go into the staking forum and kick up a storm in every single thread there b/c these guys (IP) take like 0.xx bb/100 from players whereas stakers take 30-60% of their winnings AND rakeback

No, of course not. Why on earth would it have!? I don't believe the service is of value to anyone given the very expensive fees. I have been highlighting the issue for SNE, but I can focus now on why the more casual user should stay away if you like.

My last post was an attempt at "closure" in order for you to recognise your mistakes and make some amends. I felt you finally understood what I have been trying to show you and we could move on. Instead, you choose to mis-interpret what I'm saying as "well actually, it might be good for non-SNE players." I wasn't, and it isn't.

Now that you've got me started again: If you really want to improve your service, then probably the first thing you should do is have someone on your staff better educate yourself about the mathematics behind your business. It is a major error for you, as CEO, to fail to recognise the "flaw" in fees for a SNE using this service. There are multiple other examples in this thread, where you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of basic (and important) concepts- not least your inability to distinguish between variance in general and variance related solely to EV. You don't instill much confidence with your current level of comprehension.

Yes. Point taken. I initially got rattled by the spamming and poor ethics shown by one of their affiliates in another thread, but it wasn't my intention to argue it to death as you say.

As I mention in the post above, my previous posts had been an attempt at "closure", even signing off with a "GL."

I really don't understand why you're so hostile.

I thought you said the prices are too high when someone plays millions of hands. And I did accept that. And said there is a flaw that makes the service too expensive for players playing millions of hands.

There is a huge difference between saying

"The price becomes too expensive for very high volume players"

and saying "Only fish would use InsuredPlay"

If you want the entire world to agree on this then good luck to you.

For the record. We did not ask a single person to create a thread about us. The thread you mentioned was not our making. Not even indirectly.

We had already agreed on having an official InsuredPlay thread with 2+2 when that happened.

I never mentioned it other than that last post where I just explained what led me to this thread.

You, however, have quoted and linked to the website associated with the poster in question within this very thread. So you really shouldn't choose to distance yourself from him when it suits you, and then promote his "propaganda" when it suits you.

First please understand that I'm really not fighting with you. I'm doing my job here, representing my company.

I wasn't trying to distance our self from him in any way.Here I'll give a link to his site again:

http://www.whyplayinsured.com/

This person actually used our service and benefited from using it. And he put together the website himself.

The above is different from asking him to create a thread about us. Or creating an account and starting a thread like "Oh I saw this site called InsuredPlay...".

That was what I was trying to do.

It's probably frustration that you're interpreting as hostility.

Yes, he saw an opportunity for himself to make some money by becoming an affiliate. To be clear, I wasn't suggesting that his unethical thread and spamming was anything to do with you. I don't think that at all, and that isn't what I said. It was simply what made me notice this thread.

I think I have made my views clear, and you have responded with your opinion. Hopefully we don't need to go round in circles. GL.

MeleaB, I think you underestimate the value of this product. When you say that using it costs $X, you are not taking into account that nullifying AIEV variance can improve the quality of play, especially for heavy grinders.

Unless you are the perfect player with the perfect mindset, I think insurance can be helpful for most, and very helpful for some. It's by no means unreasonable to think that it can improve your winrate by 0.X bb/100, especially during downswings.

It's of course possible to work on your mental game instead, but that's a lot harder said than done. As Tim Stone said, this provides a quick fix

and i think it's useless to complain that fees are too high. businesses set their prices based on what the market will bear. if you don't think the fees are worth the piece of mind, you won't buy it. if you think it's going to benefit you, you will.

it's like complaining about prices at whole foods b/c you shop at wal mart.

it always is actually. it just become grossly obvious when you show the money hit IP does over millions of hands

Somebody should.

For me using IP and the subject of staking are totally different.

I was wondering though for the people who are in the business of staking horses, I wondered if they felt that using IP would be a good investment.

Backers are in the business of making money and also backing someone whom they feel is advantageous in helping them achieve this.

Are there any people who are in this business willing to comment in this thread on if they think it would be worth the fee to add this concept to their staking arrangement.

I am curious is all. I know where I stand on this but I am also not a backer so I have no idea when trying to apply this concept of insurance to other people if there would be benefits taking into account their mental toughness, approach to the game, winrate, etc etc.

Average AI pot sizes and average net winnings are insufficient for calculating variance, so collect data as follows:

1. Input all hands of your clients you have access to (not only insured ones; if you store only insured ones, ask clients to donate) into a HEM2/PT4 database.
2. Create an all-player report with stats 'Luck/All-in Adjusted Standard Deviation' (linked above) and 'Standard Deviation', filtered by the game type (it's way higher for PLO because people stack off much more often and equities run closer).
3. For every player, divide the former stat by the latter and take the square, and you'll get the percentage of their variance that isn't removed by insurance, e.g. if LASD/SD=0.8, then 64% of the variance is non-AI (0.64=0.8*0.8) and 36% of it is pre-river AI.

I don't have my old database at hand now, but it's only like 50K hands, some of your clients have logged much more, rather use their samples.

Good luck at working on it! I wonder why you haven't rolled it out long ago: the model is known in financial math and simple (my math specialisation is not financial but I still can check a math model for correctness and plausibility ).

Changes in IP balance (with quite many BIs) are well approximated by a Wiener process with std dev s equal to the AI std dev (of a single insured hand) and a negative drift v equal to the average fee. It can be manually simulated by EV++. E.g. if the avg std dev of an insured NLHE hand is 125 bb, the avg fee is 0.39 bb per ins. hand, then 15 BI in the IP account will suffice for 35 insured hands (i.e. ~6K hands overall - about a week; I input 3500 hands instead of 35 because EV++ processes hands in blocks of 100) with probability 95%:



As for building the calulator (boring math alert):


Re staking discussion: I'm yet to investigate into whether a 60/40 or 50/50 profit split is indeed a fair market equilibrium , but of course backers should take bigger fees because they insure people against total variance that's bigger and much more dependent on player styles, also they, unlike IP, give money to horses in advance, so they have to hedge against scam risks.

How bout "insure pots bigger than x bb´s", sometimes I play more than one limit and having a fixed $ amount just doesnt work.