Do it.
Extra 10% to rake would work?

Is the cashier down?

I hit the cashier button and it says it does not accept deposits from my jurisdiction. I am from Toronto and have made deposits and withdrawals before.

Bump Emre?

Let the man have a weekend off.

I def. had to cool off a little bit.

We'll absolutely do this soon.

We do not allow US players to access the cashier. Sometimes our system interprets a Canadian IP as a US IP. Can you please contact support about this?

We want to make sure we get it right. If you can send me a PM, we can talk about the details with you.

How would insurance work in a HU SNG? Would the final hand be the all important one?

We keep all the hands of the players in our DBs but not in a format that can be input into any poker analytics suite. Should not be difficult to write code that will calculate All-in Adjusted Standard Deviation from our data format.

Thanks. I'll contact you for help regarding the calculator.

We can assign a dollar value to a stack according to the stakes and insure every all-in hand the same way we insure cash game hands.

The last hand would definitely be an all-in hand but there can be multiple all-in hands before the last one in a HU SNG. All of them can be insured with the method I described.

Hi Emre

I've made a withdrawl and have been asked for my ID Documents... So I've sent them and it has been a week since I've done it and the verification hasn't been done yet... The big problem with this is that I have now almost all my bankroll locked in InsuredPlay and have no money left to play, that is how bad I'm running... Had to borrow some money, played with it but continued running bad and now don't even have the borrowed money, it is all in InsuredPlay... That being said, I cannot play anymore until you've completed my verification and withdrawl...

Could you please check this for me? My nick is MrCorreia

Thanks

Hi,

You'll hear from support in a couple of days.

Ah, ok I understand. Is that how HEM calculates your EV as well?
Sounds quite interesting. As king of losing the "same high card better kicker" match ups I could use something like that, especially with how much under EV I am life time in SNG's. I don't tend to play much HU though, would the principal be the same for 6 max (although I understand there would be concerns about collusion)?

LOL.

You sir epic fail doing PR for your company.

Atleast acknowledge that his documents have received and/or being expediated for his request....but you respond with: "a couple more days"

Just seriously!?

How is it different from 'policies' of US networks? (And all other rooms that have bad supports: FTP, Betsafe,...) Alas it's the normal way many gambling-related companies operate nowadays...

Don't throw that word "epic" around so lightly or you'll wish you still had it in your vocabulary when you really do see an epic fail.

Having said that, I thought the same thing reading that reply, but chalked it up to his just wanting to underpromise and overdeliver. So if this takes longer than exactly 48 hours, this truly WAS an epic fail of an answer.

Guys,

The customer was notified that his documents arrived and that they are under review instantly upon sending his documents.

There has never been a support inquiry that we left unanswered for 24 hours, let alone for a week.

There is no problem here. The case is one I'm aware of and I know it will be resolved today or tomorrow. Hence my choice of words, you will hear from support in a couple of days.

This is true. InsuredPlay support is really fast, no problem at all... Apart from this case, which I was warned about, that it might take up to 10 days, and since we are in the 8th day, it is in conformity with what I was told.

There isn't any problem here, just posted to see if Emre could somehow speed up the process.

Quick question - does Insuredplay work if you're also running HoldemManager and/or any of its apps, like notecaddy?
Thanks

Never mind, thanks, figured it out, problem wasn't caused by either IP or HM2.

^ Works with HEM and tableninja running, I can tell you that much.

I would have expected a more direct message so the public would know that information as well.. Like his response above.

So far [3 weeks or so], I've had 4 to 5 queries to the customer service department, all handled within 24 hours [and some within 2 hours depending on the time of day I raised the query].

I've also had one cash out so far, also sucessfully completed within 24 hours.

One of our players has a concern.

Our initial analysis of the matter shows that the situation described above occurs once in every 2500 hands in PLO on average and once in every 5K hands for NLHE.

Please note that the change request here is about a critical component of our system and we will need to make detailed technical analysis of the matter and evaluate financial and fraud risks before we consider a change.

We will address this issue as soon as we can

It was so strange that your insurance is not in line with HEM All-in EV, which is counted at the moment when everyone is all-in or has folded, and that removes player strategy influence completely; that's the only situation when the hand should be insured; if any of the players yet has strategic options, insurance is necessarily biased. In particular, if a short stack goes all-in but big stacks just call and check it through, leaving some money behind, the hand shouldn't be insured at all.

Edit: strictly speaking, HEM AIEV is biased too because it doesn't account opponents' folding ranges. If a player is good at hand reading, he consistently runs above AIEV on average (and therefore pays more premia than he deserves ). Because of that, PT has refrained from EV-adjusting in multiway pots at all, therefore PT EV is slightly less biased, but it removes a smaller prtion of the luck factor. Whether IP should take multiway pots into account is up to you; due the above reason, it's better to adopt the HEM AIEV model because hardly any clients understand that HEM AIEV is biased in favour of IP (well, 2+2'ers will realise that after my post but will anyway be willing to pay a little extra to insure multiway pots as they bear more variance than HU ones).

What do you mean if a player is good at hand reading he will run above AIEV?

To count the real all-in equity depending only on pure luck, i.e. on board runouts, one needs to know all the hole cards dealt, which is impossible by the nature of poker. When AIEV is calculated by software like HEM, folded hole cards are treated as shuffled back into the deck. Poker sites don't mix folded cards back.

Imagine the following situation. A flop with two non-ace spades is dealt in a 3-max game, Hero (SB) checks a king-high flushdraw, BB checks, BTN bets. Hero has a read that BB would have bet out with a flushdraw. Thus, when the action returns to Hero, he knows that BB lacks a flushdraw, so there are a bit more more spades left in the deck on average than it would have been if BB's hand was random. Hence Hero realises that if he shoves and BB folds, Hero's equity will be a bit bigger than HEM predicts, and there will be situations (roughly speaking, when the effective stack is 1.5x the pot) when Hero will correctly shove despite HEM telling him to fold due to underestimation of his equity.

Of course such spots (where card removal effects matter) will occur very seldom and the skew is too small to be accounted seriously, PT AIEV doesn't get rid of them completely either (it can't assess PF folding ranges), so I was just nitpicking. Now we know why poker is rigged: it doesn't allow to use hand reading skills to run above AIEV!

Hi c00n74,

Since my name + blog has been quoted in this thread, I wanted to have the chance to respond. If you read closely, you will see that I state,

"If my interpretation is correct, you are asserting that these pots amount to 34% of the money won/lost during a given session and by extension that is the degree of variance."

The correction I make in his calculating the amount of money won/lost in a session. That does not by extension mean that I agree that that number tells you how much variance is due to those all-in pots.

All my calculation tells you is the answer to the questions, "What percentage of money wagered in this sample is due to all-in spots?"


Your criticism of the methodology stands:

The simplest way to calculate the variance of the sample would of course be to include the 'mean of the squares' of all the individual pot sizes, just the all-in pots, and just the non-all-in played pots. You could then make a legitimate variance calculation of the sample. However this would still not achieve the aim detailed in the title of that blog post. Your other posts in this thread represent a sterling attempt to do so, although I am still not sure how to resolve the variance1 v variance 2 debate (see below).

Please note that I said in my reply:

"I am little troubled by your methodology for calculating variance."


The intention at the time I posted was to correct an obvious scaling error that I saw when first scanning the article out of curiosity. I did not mean for my post to be interpreted as an endorsement of the overall method. As it stands, I am pretty confident that he has significantly underestimated the amount of 'variance' due to all-in pots through this approach.

The implication in your post was that I did not understand variance. That is simply not the case. If that was not your intention, and you merely meant that it was a shame I did not go so far as to correct the methodology also, then I apologize in advance for my failure in interpretation.

The actual debate


The problem is that this throws you in the deep end with regards what poker players mean when they read the word 'variance'. The calculated variance of the samples is not the same as the 'luck factor' which poker players mean when they talk about "variance". We can consider two categories, I will term variance 1 and variance 2.

Variance 1
The mathematical definition of variance, which can be calculated from a sample, given sufficient data, or otherwise estimated given assumptions about the distribution of that data.

Variance 2
What poker players/readers/potential customers of the insuredplay site mean. This includes relatively simple coolers like getting set-over-set and more subtle 'running into the top-of-his-range' all month. It is not immediately clear to me how to measure this concept.

I hope you will understand my difficulty when I initially responded. If I had said outright, "here, just do this calculation and you will find how much variance is due to all-in spots" that would have been misleading. I would have been correcting the 'variance 1' calculation, but would have been understood by many poker players to have stated outright, "This is how much of variance 2 is due to all-in luck". Rather than open that particular can of worms, I chose to make the minor correction under his own terms.

Regards to all,

Quad