Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMVP
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
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.