The interval of insured equities should be symmetric around 50% because the variance of winnings in an all-in with equity x% is
potsize*potsize*x%*(100%-x%), independently of the number of contestants. So if you choose to get insured as a 70% favourite, you should also get insured as a 30% underdog, and vice versa. According to the above formula, insurance of 50/50 flips is the most lucrative, but the variance of a 15/85 flip is only about twice lower than that of a 50/50 flip, so being insured in 15/85 flips is often worthwhile too. All-ins with the least variance are those where you're either drawing almost dead or smashing opponents. So I think a good strategy is to insure most all-ins, e.g. those where you have 10%-90% equity (it depends on your game, winrate and fee level).
As for pot sizes, thanks for the idea, of course insurance should be taken for pots above a certain size (because the fee is proportional to the potsize but the removed variance is proportional to its square). I haven't investigated into the minimum pot size yet
, I guess even 70-80 bb pots (typical when clashing with shortstacks) should be insured by 100 bb players with reasonable winrates.
A good approximate strategy would be getting insurance in pots for which size*equity*(100%-equity) > C, where the constant C is to be determined individually, but afaik it's technically impossible with the current software version.
Last edited by coon74; 01-20-2013 at 05:03 PM.