anything bigger than 0% is the cutoff obviously, why would you want to give your money away for no reason? Pros left in today's online poker landscape can handle variance

Btw my first post should say "pros" rather than "winning players", there are likely some recreational winners at lower stakes who probably wouldnt mind paying a bit to have more pleasant experience

obviously I take at 0.01%, there is clearly an amount where it is worth paying small to decrease variance, decrease stress, increase volume if you are not a robot.

I think lots about this feature is not obvious

Naive pros want to reduce variance.

So wrong. Be thankful for variance. It's the only reason you get action. Fish aren't lining up to gamble in chess.

I hate this.

So I guess every all-in situation you get the choice.

I'm guessing most people will refuse the insurance when they have low equity and take it when they have high equity.

If I have 100$ and the other player has 100$, we get it all-in and I am 20%. I don't take the insurance and he does. He gets 80$. 20% of the time I win the pot, I get 200$. So now there is 280$ on the table instead of 200$.

but 80% of the time I lose the pot, I get 0$, he has 80$, so 120$ gets removed from the table.

That sounds pretty bad, no?

*

Edit/MH: See https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...2&postcount=37

This is going to lead to even more "the site is cheating me" conspiracy thoughts. Every time the insured player wins the pot, the other player is going to wonder if the site didn't rig it for him to win. If the insured player wins, the site is the real winner, as it got it's fee but did not have to pay him for the beat. Now the site is directly winning or losing each pot depending upon who won. This is a big difference from them just getting the rake regardless of who actually wins the pot. The downside of this kind of creeping suspicion from many players, who then quit the site, will cost them more than they make in the 1% insurance fee, IMO.

Cheers, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

anyone with any bankroll constraints whatsoever should be willing to pay something greater than zero. This should be obvious.

I think the option is specific to the player, so I think in a hand between two players one player can take his equity (-1%) and the other can run it, I'm not sure how it will work in practice if other players are made aware that one of the players has taken his equity, no reason why they would need to made aware (although can see if being so) so it defo could be possible to stack someone, and not realise they've bought out of the hand.

All in all I think the idea is a bit late to the party, would have been a great thing for the ecology in 2010~ time when people were shot taking a lot more aggressively in general and much bigger games ran. In todays online poker landscape bigger games running much less frequently and shot taking a lot less attractive. If you're a winner playing at your bread and butter stakes then it seems very silly to pay 1%, over the course of the year could add up to a relatively significant amount.

Obviously the main aim of anything like this is to maintain recreational players balances with them for as long as possible, so i guess it's big advantage to the ecology is that essentially it's RIT but you dont need both players to agree. Do they really need to charge 1% though? I guess there theory is Recreational players who want to reduce variance wont give a **** about the 1% they'll either do it or they wont, and they dont really mind if the winning players do it or not.

1 question I do have, at what point do you make the decision? Do you get to see the other players cards before you decide if you want to sell or not?

Does this make a difference ?

Did you watch the video?

Ya cards and equity of the hands. These guys don't understand gambling at all lol.

More thoughts to come but for now just wanted to correct the above. If I understand the rules correctly it means if you and I are the only players and we both put $100 into the pot and I, as an 80% shot take the insurance, while you don't, it means:


1. I end the hand with $58.40 more than I started with no matter what.

2. You end the hand with either a $100 more or a hundred less than what you started with.

3. The table will usually have $41.60 less than it stated with but sometimes (20% of the time.) $158.40 more.

This is just wrong. Assuming there is a non zero amount of collusion going on the amount taken is effectively gonna go down. I would love to see this feature on Party.

Horrible analogy. Maybe you could say something like crushing a ball, but it's right at a fielder.

Bankroll requirements should be considered before you even sit down at the table, so there's virtually no scenario where a reg should ever pay a premium for an EV deal.

Or you could stop being a pussy and run it once
Learn to deal with variance and let other players tilt from running bad


It's bad enough regs and pros are trying to suck every ounce of fun out of poker they can now let's get rid of variance too yay!


If it wasn't for variance poker rooms and casinos wouldn't exist

Embrace it

So you're finally gonna start shoving pairs+draws?

WHAT ARE YOU SERIOUS? You see their cards before you choose cashout or not? So you jam, both see eachothers cards and then both decide independently? This is insane.

How long do you have to decide? Games are slow enough as is. Money getting taken off the table also seems very bad.

I imagine it will just be like the RIT feature where it’s either turned on or turned off. I doubt they’re going to offer you the option every hand.

This please.

Can we get Josem's take on this?

Why is it insane? How else it would work?

I think they'll have to for this reason:

I'm in favor of anything that helps the OMCs open up their game and be more aggressive. Good for PokerStars.

it actually may be a good thing , sure stars will take a cut and your not really concerned with regs taking insurance hopefully most self respecting ones wont. but if may incentivize fish to feel more comfortable jamming flops and turns. saying **** it in close spots that they may have felt pressure to fold in before but now feel a false since of security. it may be interesting.

also this is such a sign that hold em is so dead , lets just change the game up and actually make some money again. all the life is all but sucked out of the game....... online that is.