* PokerStars has rolled out All-In Cashout to select Play-Money tables on a trial-basis
* There's a 1% Premium on Cashout pots
* PokerStars acts as the 'house' here and can win/lose depending on how the pot goes
* To be available across all tables including 6+ Hold'em
* Everyone gets the choice and works multi-way pots too

More details here: https://pokerfuse.com/news/poker-roo...re-coming-all/

lol

I guess that's kind of forced - doesn't really make sense to have this insurance feature as well as run it twice.


Can any winning NL players estimate how much they would pay if they insured all their all in hands for a fee of 1% of their equity? What proportion of winnings come from all-in pots before the river?

reduces the luck element for sure, pokerstars will prob be legal in america now

phil hellmuth becomes a stars reg this week.

So effectively another rake increase or alternatively increase in variance. Im glad I abandoned Pokerstars already

Bad for winrates

- 1% fee
- Rec players now have a clearer idea of how bad they are getting $ in
- Rec players lose the 'satisfaction' of taking stacks off regulars
- Insurance = reduced tilt = reduced edges

if you don't pick the insurance, you don't increase the variance, since you hadn't the option in the first place

and in what poker room you don't have to pay a fee (rake) for an insurance?

i don't like this feature, but i guess many recs love this. maybe regs, who take a shot, will use this too .. idk.

I don't neccessarily disagree with the conclusion (bad for winrates), but a couple of counterpoints.

- If the 1% fee is too high, regulars won't take it, so that alone doesn't impact their winrate.

- If the 1% fee is too high, regulars won't take it, so will rec players actually "lose satisfaction" of taking stacks off regulars? because even if rec player takes cashout option, reg *still* loses out, because unlike RIT this doesn't not require consensus between all-in players to trigger.

- "Rec players now have a clearer idea of how bad they are getting $ in" - already it shows your all-in equity as a % by default, so I don't think this aspect changes.

I think there's 2 separate debates here, both i think interesting

a) If this was offered with zero fee, is it a "good thing"? I see arguments on both sides for this. I think it could change the "feel" of the game a lot. But being that the "all in luck" graph is one of the most shared things on reg forums everywhere, let's not pretend variance does not massively impact regs.

b) Is the 1% fee of your equity too high? I don't have a good feel for modern 6-max NL games to know. How often are hands resolved with an all-in before the river? If a reg were to take this in every scenario, would it turn a solid winrate into a losing one? Can anyone run a filter on their HM3 to work this out?

So, essentially just a way to increase rake.

More rake is better!

**** that 1% fee. Lol if they get rid of the option to RIT and force this instead. I just deposited on stars again a week ago and one main reason was the ability to RIT (seriously), which to me partly justifies paying stars's slightly higher rake compared to my old site. This would negate that entirely.

1% is robbery

In my last 10k hands, I've had 15 preflop allins where the end pot was 150bb+. This is probably between 25-30 buyins subject to 1% rake, so basically 1/4-1/3 of a buyin per 10k hands.

I'm not sure how to filter for post flop allins, but this should give a rough idea.

To massively reduce allin EV it might be worth while for some or be useful for shot taking, but using it to replace RIT would be abhorrent.

I believe that charging 0% fee would still increase revenue for PokerStars. Because there would be less variance in the results of poker hands, they'd derive increased rake anyway.

tbh ... if the insurance would be free, it would change the game dynamics a lot (since after a few weeks almost everyone would always insure their AIs). i would prefer no insurance at all, but don't care if those, who opt in, pay for it.

the only valid question for regs is, how much money will be drained from the table via the insurance and will those recs shove much lighter (which might be even good for regs [i doubt it]).

Whether people admit it or not, part of the allure of competitive events is variance.

Things that try to eliminate variance are horrible for the long term of competitive games (e.g. Computerized umpires in baseball, this cashout feature in PokerStars)

Really interesting concept. Could lead to more shot takers at higher stakes as well, knowing they can avoid losing a major part of their BR in one bad beat

Not a fan at all. I hate variance as much as the next guy, but its part of what makes poker interesting.

Also if both players cashout, do they still get regular rake from the pot PLUS 1% of each players equity?

Showing equity on the table shows you how dumb and out of touch with poker Amaya is.

agree, but i'm sure many players will us it.

Also if both players cashout, do they still get regular rake from the pot PLUS 1% of each players equity?[/QUOTE]

as i understand it's Cash Out = (Pot - Rake) * Equity * 0.99 [and not sure if 1% is the standard fee, or 'just' for PM)


what's definitely interesting, that if the losing player/s was/were insured and the winning player not, it's more money of the table afterwards.

be prepared to face more frequent flop shoves from weak tight players with hands like flush draws plus pair or overcard.

So am I understanding this correctly:

2 players are all in for $100 each with 50/50 equity split.

Player takes insurance and still wins hand = $100 (minus rake) removed from table and goes to Pokerstars?

Player takes insurance and loses hand = $100 (minus rake) added to table by Pokerstars?

If so doesn't feel right. Deals such as this should be taken from account balance and not money in play at the table.

I mean, no winning player will ever take this, so it's just a way to increase Stars' cut of recreational player's money going to them rather than to regs - i.e., it's an effective rake increase

Would they take it if there was no fee?


Would they take it if the fee was 0.01%?


If so, what's the cut-off?