Is *All-In EV* a stat that is present in HM2/PT4? If so, for players with a large enough sample, it would be interesting to see what 1% of that value translates to in terms of BB/100?

I rate to take the insurance when playing higher than usual and having a big stack. Not good below PLO50 as it is pretty much a no-cap limit that is already hard enough as it is and the money may not be too much; just on good tables with big stacks. Similarly, I use the RIT only with a big stack that not only protects vs. the variance but helps to maintain a bigger stack.

They might not consider the RIT option to be profitable as it doesn't exist at .es, so it would be a good idea to remove it at .com also if this insurance test is a success. Interestingly, they opted to test the insurance option at .com but not at .es -- that's the direction where they have done up to all of their testings before, maybe as the 5-max tables test was really bad there just before, or they don't plan to offer it there (no RIT).

I haven't updated Stars since I was last forced too and I played some reg tables for the first time in a long time yesterday.

When I was all in all the graphics disappeared and I had to wait for a timer to run all the way down then the board was run out. Definite time waster but still not worth updating Stars for.

Played with this new option last night for the first time.
I don't think this is good for the game at all! Like others have said, variance is good for the game, its why the game exists.
Also (correct me if I'm wrong), but I think one of the biggest issues is money being taken off the table. For instance, say fun player has 40% equity ($100 pot) and wants to cash out, but then happens to win the pot. Fun player only gets $40, and stars takes the other $60 off the table? This is horrible for the game, as I actually want the fun player to take the whole pot off me because I can win that off them later. I don't want stars taking the money off the table! Plus, how is that ethical? The other players on the table haven't agreed to money being taken off the table either.
How is this done in the live setting? If I recall correctly, I remember Phil Hellmuth on "High Stakes Poker" asking for insurance in a few pots and Eli Elezra or Farha gave it too him. I don't recall money being taken off the table. This was essentially a business deal between them and didn't effect the other players in the game. The deal would have been settled up after the game without affecting stacks. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I don't think money should ever be taken off the table, unless everyone at the table agrees to it. These all-in cash out options violate game flow and stack dynamics, and therefore also effect other players not involved in the hand.

You are right. I crunched the numbers in Excel; it is a lot worse than I thought.

The extra cost is between 1-3 bb per AI pot, depending on pot size and stake. I've about 0,5 AIs / 100 hands in my DB, so that would be a whopping 0.5-1.5 bb/100 for the cashout privilege.

It's a double whammy, because PS not only takes 1% equity, the capped rake plays in their favor as well. You're better off paying capped rake on a 200bb pot with 50% chance, than paying the same capped rake twice for a 100bb pot. It's only at nanostakes where this isn't a factor. I got assraped for -1.44 bb/100 in AI EV variance, but at least that has 0 future EV.

Results:

Maybe Dnegs will start playing online at stars again.
I doubt he could pass up on such a great opportunity to pay more rake.
Did you guys forget, #morerakeisbetter

I think the rake cap just works in our favour at low, micro limits and non-capped pots and is a small detail.

What happens if he loses the pot?

As a PLO player who has ran 20 full buyins under EV in 1000 hands once I do find this appealing. But probably not gonna do it, not worth the price after all.

in before stars starts to rig it in favor of the insured 20% to take fish money

The price for PLO is far, far higher than what the other guy calculated because you get so many more hands that get all in.... he computed a 1bb/100 cost for .5 all ins per 100. In some aggressive short handed PLO tables it could easily be 10 per 100.

Is it just me or are hands that get insured just cease to exist? Several times now I've had a hand occur, fish insures, and then the hand never appears in the replayer, hh, etc. Its as if it never happened.

obv massive rigging by stars being hidden.

Hey does anybody know what happens to run it twice if someone opts in to all in cashout??? Does run it twice just get cancelled?????

Picking your spots is possible with this, especially in PLO. For example when it’s 3way and you get a fold from what is AA most of the time.

Trackers can't handle these HHs properly yet. Some hands aren't imported at all.

According to their forum they try to fix it for HM3 and PT4 first, before implementing it into HM2.

The hand doesn't exist in the stars replayer. Its an issue in the client, not HM/PT3. Its possible its just my countries client.

it just runs twice, opponent might not have used cash out and can win both or none of the runs

the question is will i get progress on my chest for that 1% pot rake

is this live for all stakes now, or still only play chips and micros?

Does anyone know a tarcker that can handle those hands properly?
HM2 and HM3 fail to do so AFAIK

I have HM3 and it tracks them.

Unless you mean after clicking the insurance option - in that case I don't know as I haven't clicked it.

Scratch this. Just had a large pot and it hasn't shown up in HEM. How ******ed.

HEM posted this in the software forum:

played a bit of zoom and it seems even if only the other guy uses cash out option and you pass the hand still cant get imported

Biggest effects I've seen are:

1) Recreational players getting it in more often knowing they can cash out their equity.

2) Recreational players cashing out with tiny equity in huge pots, winning the hand and a load of money disappearing off the table.

3) People taking ridiculously high variance lines but then cashing out - I don't understand what they're thinking.

theyre not thinking