wrote an article and double checked, it was DE version of EU (/poker/promotions/all-in-cash-out/) ... now they've changed it to 1%.

sry for the confusion :/

no problem

Computerized umpires wouldn't be to "reduce variance"... It would be to reduce human error/mistakes, bias, and possibly cheating.

The only thing it would do is that every call is good.
So you think it's preferable that bad calls are made once in a while, for the same of "variance"?

Anyway, about the topic at hand: The 1% thing makes this worthless to me. I won't pay to get my "just share". Unless you believe you are legit cursed, or playing WAY higher than you should (half your bankroll on the table), this is stupid.

stars is absolute scum of the earth

So, basically you are saying this is not stupid for a significant proportion of players?

good for me then, im cursed

No matter how you would count this, this solution is just printing money to PokerStars... RIT was v.good for recs, I think the more you play the less you want to count on variance... With this solution i still can't see any possible sense to use it... maybe if you are over 95% in fav.?

On the other hand it migh be good for some aspiring regs, lot of recs maniacs may now Just go crazy with 20-30% of chance of wining the hand and just insuring it? dont' know... They may much more often try to call with flush draws with ~35% chance of winning, in this term it will be good to have a blockers on your hand...

This could wise some recs up a bit and hurt the ecosystem.
Imagine a rec calling off with a flush draw for $5, taking the insurance and ending up receiving $3 because they called with horrendous odds. Maybe they won't be so keen to gambool it up after seeing that.

Maniacs will stay maniacs... so don't bother about them
RECs calling with ~35% Equity probably will call a bit looser and that's actually good for a game imo.

RIT will still be an option for players along with All-in Cash Out option.

https://pokerfuse.com/news/poker-roo...-all-cash-out/

This is certainly a way for PS to skim more off the top. But as much as I'd like to join the Amaya hate train, I'll go against the grain here.

My lifetime (>900k hands) actual winnings are 29% lower than AI EV winnings . If I was planning to play >10MM hands, sure, I'll take the variance. But being that I won't come close to that, I'll happily pay 1% to not lose (or win) 29% again.

Then there's the mental factor. I consider myself to be fairly calm with a relatively tilt-proof game. But I'd be lying if I said all those suckouts didn't affect my mood. Also, if it takes my game down even 1% then it's already worth it. Less, actually, since AI winnings are smaller than total winnings. I recall Doug Polk 4betting the old 95s. Maybe it's a low-frequency play going over my head, but most people thought it was what it looked like on stream: a tilt 4b.

Historic returns on the stock market far exceed the interest rate on my mortgage. Yet, every month, I divide my savings between extra mortgage payments, and stock investments. Why? The sleep-at-night factor.

I'm also fairly sure a normal insurance costs way more than 1%.

Did you consider that this may be an artifact of incorrect calculation of AI EV rather than pure variance?

Things to consider are blocking effect and software bugs
- blocking effect (however hard to imagine it to account for 30%)
-- It might be that the hands you go to AllIn are on average negatively affected by the blocking effect folded cards of the remaining playeres.
-- collusion: if you go allin against people who know more dead cards than you you will run below Allin EV.
- software bugs. I remember that the last time I checked it (which was admittably in 2011) some trackers were calculating these numbers incorrectly making everyone think they run below EV.

holdem manager does track RiT, can it also track all-in cash out?
if not, anyone knows if pt4 or anything else does?

And insurance is often a terrible buy for something where the worst case scenario is not that bad. It’s just not repeated often enough that people have to scrutinize their choices and so they do whatever makes them feel better in the moment. Little ol granny feels very wise and discerning for paying $150 for an extended warranty on her $600 laptop, while management at Best Buy is laughing it up.

You’re not just paying 1% on your net all in ev. Over 1m hands you might hve 10-50k all ins depending on the game type... that’s 1-5bb/100 or 100-500 buy ins in additional rake.

So to avoid possibly running $25k below ev at 1/2 nl youd be paying around $10-20,000 more in rake. Good buy!

Dynamic pricing is potentially in both parties interest, and should be a function of the size of the pot (in terms of $, not bb), and the player's $winrate, $standard deviation, and volume in the game type.

At the end of the day, you're a mug if you take insurance in all but possibly one or two scenarios for psychological reasons. If you're looking to fade two outs on the river then maybe it's worth paying just under a couple of BB to avoid the negative impact of a potential suck-out. Likewise, if your session is drawing to a close and losing a large pot would effect your mood for the rest of the day then you can justify it.

Otherwise you're not just giving up variance, you're giving up *significant* amounts of money long-term as well as giving up a lot of the excitement that the game generates. When you get it in with AA v KK, you get a buzz in anticipation of doubling up your $100. Who really wants to click a button and be presented with just a $158 stack?

I think there could be some spots where you use the cash out so you can maintain a deep stack to cover a big whale at the table.

Yeah, I agree that would be a +EV spot, albeit a rare one. Good point.

I could totally see myself taking the deal and giving up 1 percent in hands where I'm a monster favorite. taking 92+ percent of a pot with no downside risk is not a bad take for a rec player. players who only get to play when its convenient have a different tolerance for variance. If i was a full time reg i might differ my opinion greatly.

it would also make sense if you took a shot at a higher limit, won a few buyins and were deep with a whale or two. you could easily have more than 10% of your bankroll on the table in this scenario, but don't want to quit because the game is so good, but at the same time don't want to risk so much of your bankroll on a single hand

Well... you are the whale then... XD

A huge proportion of rec players are effectively shot-takers, with no concept of BRM or even a define BR. They think "deposit" not "bankroll" so protecting the length of their session - to increase the perceived chance of a bink - is the motivation. They will eat this feature up.

This slows the game down a bit am I right? People not familiar with this thinking about it because it's on by default.

It definitely does.

The first time it came up for me I was confused, like ... wtf is this ****? lol

I can see the confusion in others too, banking right down to the last second and making their decision.