All these big all-ins where someone cashes out disappearing as hand histories is really messing with my HEM lol. Biggest parts of any session suddenly WHOPPSIE GONE CANT SEE IT ANYMORE
Done with stars in a moment anyhow. Zoom PLO rake lul
There needs to be some limit in BB's that this is possible, 20-30+? Several times I've seen some fish with <10bb ship it in multiple hands in a row and cash out. Just annoying and pointless.
Yes HEM and PT hh import have issues with the new feature. I was being told they are working on it. you can open a support ticket to get notified when they fixed it.
I don't like the fact that now pokerstars has a monetary incentive to ensure a certain player wins. (Of course they wouldn't risk rigging it, but I wish we could eventually see the percentages on scenarios like the above example).
Why the RIT isn't allowed when the other takes an insurance? Why is it called "insurance" and not a "cash out" or something? Why RIT isn't allowed at .es at all?
Why the RIT isn't allowed when the other takes an insurance? Why is it called "insurance" and not a "cash out" or something? Why RIT isn't allowed at .es at all?
.es had RIT then suddenly they removed it without any statement/reason why.
There is absolutely no advantage I can think of for using this, except if youre all in in a very favorable position with your entire stack and he has like 10% of winning, you get a big cashout and save your roll in case a person gets lucky on the river. But total equity is 1% lower from what they take. Even that's not a real advantage though, since you miss out on 10% and pay another 1% for it.
Just like insurance in blackjack, this move is -ROI
I want to extract as much as possible when I'm ahead and won't be using this at all. I would suggest you guys don't either.
The RIT decreases variance and that is not good for the games? I take it always vs. a bad player deep enough and when it is a big stack or when I am making shots or just don't like the idea of bad luck at that time.
I don't like it when it is not there at .es as it makes me more vulnerable to the variance that's bad for me.
The fish will not stack me as often (in cases he has the RIT on) but he also will not bust as often either. The other players can also get temporarily bust and as so, Stars gets less rake. The RIT is good for the rake. It slows down the game.
When the insurance is taken, it can be a solo RIT, as one thing. The insurance has a different look at the GG network, as the hand plays out for all but there too it will be run only once then. The insurance at GG slows down the game as do the straddles.
All-in insurance is the name at GG and technically, when just cashing out instead, it protects also, just a different kind of protection. It is called "surrender" in blackjack.
I would prefer the hand not to play out for the insured one at GG either (or have it taken only once) but they have made it complicated and more costly; maybe up to ten times more costly? Looks like it to me and they don't tell the cost on their web sites. I don't understand their insurance.
The splits are counted in as [full] odds (as far as I read) at GG so one should think twice when taking any insurance if it is a good deal when splits (straight draws and two pairs) more often happen.
As a gambling aspect, one can think if one takes the insurance at Stars, as all situations are not the same. Stars may know all the cards left (the cards mucked) so no card removal aspect can be there and if so the 1% cost is too high really, as stacks disappear in regular use.
A regular will have a higher variance vs. a non-regular who takes an insurance (when RIT not allowed then) and vs. a fish (insures) whose opponent loses the whole pot more often then.
The fish survives and can't hit and run in case that/these might even be a problem compared to it being more likely he continues deeper like the ministacks at GG getting deeper so one should not use RIT vs. them, nor the insurance but that's another thing. One thinks situationally case by case.
You may not want to play high variance vs. a fish in tourneys; not sure about the cash games but I prefer the RIT with more money on the table.
When on a short roll, it makes sense to survive (in good games more so). But not for the huge costs where one might prefer to go bust instead as one won't make it anyway then. The insurance is just for special reasons and the money lost can be worth more than the money won.
Cashing out a share multiway can have a lower (relative) cost and lower variance and it can be done with most percentages. The other players can still win as usual if they don't insure.