This is terrible.

I went all in KK vs KQ preflop, the KQ went cash out and I went normal. He hit trips with Q, but because he took the insurance, he got his 8% back (lost 92%, and of course didn't win mine), and I lost 100%, generally P* stole whole pot.

Afterwards, I couldn't win it back, because the fish was left with short stack.

Also, to everybody who is saying "yeah but it lowers the variance". If you are playing 1000 hands over a month, then maybe its okay for you, but for people playing 100k hands, the variance is close to 0, and only the right decisions matter.

Rofl this might the dummest thing 2020 so far. You are seriously saying playing 100k hands it removes the variance compeletely and you are running close to pure ev? And on top of that it doesn't make any difference if you play 1 or 100k hands only right decisions matter.

I have no idea how good you are (probably good if you were at least winning over a large sample in EV bb/100) but quitting your job to jump into the toughest consistently running game in the online world without knowing for sure if you can sustain a living is pretty risky

I dont understand why so much hate against this feature...

Why dont you want to cash out when your hand is 95% favourite?

Just cash out every allin that is above 75% and let it run as usual if your percentage is below.

If one rates to have a winrate when making shots up that doesn't mind the cost for a start, it should be good.

I would use a more aggressive cashout strategy for a start here, cashing out anything reasonable (anything one doesn't want to lose) and then cashout less when one can afford it.

If the winrate is strong enough, one can more easily later also continue to cashout but more selectively. Insuring the multiway pots as a default. And the bigger edges and whatever occasional that might make sense like the big all in pots in case the hurt is more than the fun of not insuring.

Vs. anyone who runs it twice, one prefers not to cashout.

If one doesn't rate to have a winrate, it won't really help, as sooner or later one needs to stop using it as much or at all.

If one could make it sure one gets some winrate, it might make sense, if one is ready to pay a true insurance that's possible only by insuring all all-ins and one needs to run fine in no all-in pots also. How much the selective insuring helps one in the long run, I don't know.

The flips have more variance and it makes sense to insure them when making shots with an expected winrate.

In the long run, there are more around flips in PLO than bigger edges but what the curve looks like there in the long run, I don't know, just guessing it will favour stopping insuring around the flips.

A flip is the name of the game in PLO and feels like a spot to not insure but when making profitable shots or starting out somewhere with a good edge.

it cost you 1% each time
if you play a lot this is a couple of buyins each month if you cash out every 75%+hand

Because I'm not afraid of the variance and I'm rolled for the games I play. Allso I don't tilt if I lose 95% favorite because I understand I win it 9.5/10. Allso i don't want to pay stars to reduce my variance.

100% this.

PS is already sticking it to us with their Chests bs. Do you really want the Fletch “ using the whole fist doc?” to go along with it?

Bottom line, it is a sucker bet, do not use it.

its a good feature if you have a small bankroll for the stakes you are playing.

The best is to cash out when you have a 100% chance to win the pot, thus ensuring you 99% of the pot.

I'm a genius!

+1

run 100 buyins under ev and say the same thing

Play with 500 buyin roll and don't be a baby.

You don't get offered cash out if you have 100% equity , it goes straight to sd.

Assuming I pay 1% of my 100bb stack every all-in in cashout fees I would have paid 517 buyins in extra rake, instead of running 174 buyins below ev. So yeah, still an absolute scam.

oh its a scam alright.. its pokerstars so it must be

i simply meant its easier to say the attitude of 'variance doesnt affect my game, i know i win it 95% in the long run' but when running massively under ev its understandable to wanna choose to cash out during a session just to win a pot youre favorite in for a change

btw 50k allins before river is quite a lot, must be some sample, though ev man

I think it's stupid to use if esp if you play games you are rolled for. Only situation I might use it when I'm taking shots and playing a huge pot. Other than that I don't understand why players are willing to pay to : just to win a pot youre favorite in for a change.

E can't remember for sure but don't think it's mentioned in the client it costs 1% to cashout. So it's shady atleast for recs who might think it's free.

Oh nooooo!** They don't want me to execute my master plan!

[** Again, how could I have known? I disabled the damn feature.]

After initially dismissing this as ridiculous for regs, some recent runbad in deepstacked pots made me reconsider. I realize that paying more rake is a bad proposition for regs. But, I think there is something to be said for cashing out, especially in deepstacked pots when you have a massive equity lead and getting 1 or 2 outered would be very tilting for you or hurt your results/BR noticeably.

I'm moving to 10nlz from 10nl reg tables and going to try this approach. These are all only for HU spots, I have no considered multiway.

Pots under 250bb (players have 125bb or less effective pre): Never cashout

Pots 250bb-400bb (players have 125bb-200bb effective pre): Give myself the option to cashout with 90%+ equity. I do not have to take it if I don't want to.

Pots 400bb+ (players have 200bb+ or more effective pre): Give myself the option to cashout with 80%+ equity. I do not have to take it if I don't want to.

I looked at my database in spots like this for 30k hands at 10nl reg tables. There was less than 15. Likely because I wasn't getting it in deepstacked very often when deep other than at the river.

The other obvious answer here is not to play deep, but I think it can be an advantage against fish.

Yes, I am paying 1% more rake, but I think given the small number of times I was in this position in 30k hands at 10nl reg tables, it is worth it to limit variance and tilt.

Yes, I realize I need to work on my mental game so these spots don't tilt me.

Regardless, I think it is worth considering suffering through the 1% rake when deeper when you consider for some people getting 2 outed in more than once a month with high equity when deepstacked can make or break an otherwise profitable month.

Thoughts?

^Cashing out to reduce variance makes more sense the bigger the variance in the spot is. Thus it ofc makes more sense to cash out bigger pots than smaller ones as you say. BUT, it also makes more sense to cash out the closer your equity is to 50/50 in the hand, since variance is maximal in flips (and minimal when equities are very far apart, like dead or 1 or 2 outs).

So to sum up - since you're paying to reduce variance, you should want to reduce the variance in the biggest variance spots - which is big (bb) pots that are flips

You have solid points. But I disagree with them and went for a different approach for several reasons.

1) Flips (AK vs QQ AIPF etc) happen alot more in cash. Thus if I did this for every flip it would cost a lot more in the rake from cashing out long term.

2) Given that flips happen more often, I am likely to see them more frequently and thus should in theory, be more likely to roughly win as many as I lose and run closer to EV long term.

3) I can avoid the deepstacked variance of the aforementioned flips by not getting hands like QQ, JJ and AK in pre when deep. Just calling the 4bet after I 3bet.

4) I am more concerned about postflop spots where the player has very few outs and a deepstacked suckout would be super tilting than preflop flips when AIPF with QQ vs AK bvb.

Yea I know how much deep suckouts hurt, they can be pretty gut wrenching

It's just that if you cash out with 95% equity and you pay 1% of the pot (that's what it costs, right?), then you're paying 20% of your equity in the hand to get rid of the variance..

If you cash out with 50% equity and pay 1% of the pot for it, then you're paying 2% of your equity in the hand to get rid of the variance...

I use it about 5% of the time . That 5% is when im a huge favourite but I’m running so wretched (I only play PLO) that I know one more gut punch will send me on monkey tilt. In that sense the extra rake is an excellent investment

It costs 1% of your equity, not 1% of the pot.

Jesus christ how massive pots are you playing if losing them hits your br noticeably.