This isn't true.
In this case, your equity is 95%, not 5% (you said so yourself).
Thus, it's 1/95, not 1/5.

You realize that the probability of losing three flips in a row is roughly the same as losing one pot vs. a 6 outer OTT?

Insuring the three flips over 100bb effective costs you the same as insuring vs. a 6 outer 300bb effective. Variance reduction from taking the insurance is the same, too.

Losing flip after flip can be just as tilt-inducing as getting rivered by someone who was a huge dog when the money went in. I think this is just a reason to work on one's mental game. Win rates at poker aren't so great that we can afford to do this.

Remember that taking this insurance lowers your win rate. With a lower win rate, the probability of prolonged downswings (in the sense of phases where we are losing money, not phases where we run below EV) goes up

Personally, I wouldn't play poker if I cannot handle the variance. Lastly, and most importantly, one should note that variance comes not only from the community cards in the middle. Variance results also from variations is the strength of your starting hands (e.g., being card-dead) and your opponents' starting hands (e.g., getting coolered because you happen to run into the top of your opponent's range). Some variance also results from idiosyncracies in your opponents' play/strategy.

The bottom line is the insurance always costs 1% of your expected winnings.

That doesn't sound like much. Right, somebody might think intuitively: If I take the insurance once every 100 hands, I pretty much reduce my win rate by 1%, so I go down from being a 10bb/100 winner to being a 9.9bb/100 winner.

However, that line of reasoning may be fallacious. What distinguishes winning from losing poker players is that winning players win the big pots disproportionally much. (Of course, with some exceptions for certain play-styles.) But if most of our winnings come from our edge in big pots (as opposed to small pots) and we elect to insure these big pots, then the impact on our win rate may be more substantial. Does that make sense to you guys?

I just got it in on a small stakes 6+ table for 5 times pot on a KdJcTh flop, holding AhQc. My opponent held AdQd and decided to use the cashout feature, handing Pokerstars the privilege of freerolling me and even paying them a fee for doing it. Must be nice to have a business like that ...

lolol

^^ pretty bad it allows that unless it only takes rake of the 2% freeroll equity

Am I understanding this correct?

PS's allin cash out; if player A has xx and is a 60% favorite and cashs out, he/she gets 60% or the pot. If player B has yy is 40% fav, but doesn't cash out, unless he/she wins the money is just gone. Does PS's scoop this extra cash when someone cashes out?

Yes (other than a player who cashes out gets less than his full equity.) That is how insurance has worked since Barney Rubble first got his car covered.

From your question, it seems you're probably forgetting about what happens when the dog doesn't cash out and wins the pot.

No, I get it, just wondering if it was a way for PS"s to make more money.

It also entices someone to go allin with a less of a hand, knowing he/she can get 40% etc back and not risk it all.

Pretty poor feature in my opinion.

Stars has a 1% edge, thats how they make money from it.

Just a funny anekdote from today. I saw someone taking the insurance on plo200 in a 300bb pot on the turn when HE WAS FREEROLLING villain and river he would have hit.

thats one of the most lol things i have seen recently.

Thats not the first time i have seen smt like this. people also like to use insurance on the turn even when they are 100% splitting vs villain (no freeroll possible)

People do dumb sheet with this. Allmost every day you see someone stacking off with 4% and cashing that out. Like why?

I see it often when your on the wrong end of those one outers I have to admit I have taken it as well.

I feel like these are the people who have no idea about poker and just use betstars to gamble. They just see some way to get money out and jump at the chance, like slot or something. I insta tag these people as fish though but this is what I imagine their psyche being

Tbh the case I mentioned above, ps should def Programm it so that in these situations for the freerollef cashout shouldn't be able. It's so shady to still allow it.

By allowing the possibility of using cashout in cases where there is 100% split pot, eg both players have a straight on the turn with no one having fd, two pair or set, and the cases where one person is freerolling, they basically are stealing money from their customers.

But I wouldn't have expected anything else from ps these days

Agree that it shouldn't be possible but if you are stupid enough to take it with 100% split you kind of deserve it too.

It seems like some people are missing the point. It is a math problem. With lower variance, you can afford to play higher stakes on the same sized bankroll. If you will win more at the higher stakes with a 1% all-in penalty than at your current stakes without a 1% penalty, then do it.

EV is EV, none of that winning streak / losing streak, ahead in the hand / behind in the hand stuff matters. If it matters to you, get educated and/or work on your mental game.

But pokerstars is all about protecting the fish! This has to be a mistake they didn’t notice.

I don’t buy that they would take advantage of the people they’ve been so vocal about catering to. Sure it will be fixed ASAP

Take this hand posted in Small stakes. If its me I am taking the Cash in on the all in on the turn



PokerStars, Hold'em No Limit - $0.25/$0.50 - 9 players
Hand delivered by CardsChat - https://www.cardschat.com/hand-converter.php

$id (UTG): $50.62 (101 bb) - relatively unknown player
nbz (UTG+1): $30.00 (60 bb)
Hero (MP): $46.45 (93 bb)
kidpoker (MP+1): $274.94 (550 bb)
Aisha (LP): $160.74 (321 bb)
Lubah (CO): $57.00 (114 bb) 40/9/20 over 1500 hands
Lavincey (BU): $80.53 (161 bb)
MrSun (SB): $29.15 (58 bb)
simba (BB): $43.25 (87 bb)
Dealt to Hero [7 7]

Pre-Flop: ($0.75)
$id (UTG) raises to $1.50, 1 fold, Hero (MP) calls $1.50, kidpoker (MP+1) calls $1.50, 1 fold, Lubah (CO) calls $1.50, Lavincey (BU) calls $1.50, 1 fold, simba (BB) calls $1

Flop: ($9.25) K♦ 7♣ J♦ (6 players)
simba (BB) checks, $id (UTG) bets $6.93, Hero (MP) calls $6.93, kidpoker (MP+1) folds, Lubah (CO) calls $6.93, Lavincey (BU) calls $6.93, simba (BB) folds

Turn: ($36.97) 8♥ (4 players)
$id (UTG) bets $18.48, Hero (MP) raises to $38.02 (all-in), Lubah (CO) calls $38.02, Lavincey (BU) folds, $id (UTG) raises to $42.19 (all-in), Lubah (CO) calls $4.17

River: ($159.37) T♠ (3 players, 2 all-in)

Total pot: $159.37 (Rake: $0)

Showdown:
$id (UTG) loses and shows AA
Hero (MP) loses and shows 77
Lubah (CO) shows Q♦ A♦ (a straight, Ten to Ace)
Lubah (CO) wins $159.37

It seems like lots of players just automatically use cash-out every single time. Stars really should make it more clear that people have to pay a 1% premium to use the feature. It's not even shown anywhere in the client. I guess this is why I see people cashing out AKo vs. AKo AI preflop.

Hey, u think stars doesnt want a share of the fish stack? Stars was like we need to find a way to get some % of the fish stack also, the only reason this feature was introduced, funny thing is regulars are evan using it which is pepega.

Yeah I think you're right, the fish absolutely LOVE this feature. This feature was a genius play by Stars. They essentially get 1% extra rake from the fish.

Hi.

Lets say we play 100NL. 100bb stacks. Player 1 and 2 are allin, equity is 50/50. Player 1 does cashout, Player 2 doesnt. Player 1 wins the hand.

Player 1 gets 100$ (minus rake and fee), since he used the cashout-feature.
Player 2 gets 0$, since he lost the pot with no cashout-feature.

What happens with the remainimg 100$ (minus rake and fee)?

Flip your scenario and now player 2 wins, player 2 gets 200 dollars minus rake + fee and player 2 gets 100. Where does the extra 100 come from?

*

I meant to say player 1 gets 100 in the example above.

Stars adds it to the piggy bank