If a poker site automatically offered you insurance when people were

[Unabridged]

all in, would you be interested?
lets say they would give you correct odds minus 1% for commission.

would it be worth 1% to cut down the variance?

[Tk79]

Sounds to me like a bet you would be placing with 1% the worst of it. Bad bet. If you need to take insurance as a 1% dog to improve the situation you are already in, you probably shouldnt be in the hand anyway.

[TimWillTell]

If Party would offer this, at the moment I definitly would take it. Lost 10K this week, Preflop-All-in losses: AA against QQ, AA against KK, AJ against JT, and so on. I almost broke my house down, when I ran out of cartonboxes to smash to pieces.
With this inurence I would have had a very good week, because of al the insurence money I would have collected for losing with the best hand.
Sounds like a absolute great idea, count me in!

[craig r]

Wouldn't you just be giving up your edge (and a little bit more) by doing this? Plus, when I played in backroom games in Houston, they only did insurance for the river (or would deal the river twice). So, if you went all in with AA and got called by KK, you wouldn't be able to take insurance until the turn. And you might even be behind by that point.

craig

[webmonarch]

If I understand this, I would get paid the odds I had once one player was all-in. That is, If I had AA, other guy had KK and the pot was $100, I would be guaranteed the $80, minus one dollar?

I would take that in an instant. Unless you play thousands and thousands of hands for the exact same amount every time, there is a very good chance you aren't getting your mathematically correct odds. This would allow it.

I'm all-in with the best hand (or calculated odds) 90% of the time. Seriously. Benefits:

1, Knowing I would get exactly what I had at the point of decision would be beyond awesome.

2. Avoiding the Tilt and mental effects of a huge hit that could tuen a good night into a bad one instantly.

3. Avoiding having to do all the accounting (i.e. moving money back and forth to replenish a bankroll amount at a certain site).

The other night I had $503 in gross bad beats. With this, instead of being down $500 I would be up $498 additional for that day, for the cost of a typical pre-flop raise.

I would take that deal so quick your head would be spinning.

[Unabridged]

[ QUOTE ]
If I understand this, I would get paid the odds I had once one player was all-in. That is, If I had AA, other guy had KK and the pot was $100, I would be guaranteed the $80, minus one dollar?



[/ QUOTE ]

this is exactly what i mean.

i think this would be a win-win situation, many people are interested in reducing variance and poker sites are interested in making more money

[craig r]

So, this would take place before the flop? The hand changes too much on the flop..sure AA is a big fav over KK, but what if the flop comes JTQ, do they change the odds? This is why it can only be done for the river. Plus, if it was paid based on what the odds were before the flop, then there wouldn't be very much strategy post flop at all needed.

craig

[destroBU]

Who exactly would play on a site that offered this?

Shellshocked low limit players that can't handle variance? That's about all I can think of, because the fish certainly wouldn't be.

[stigmata]

It would obviously be pointless in a cash game. I could see an argumant for it if you were playing above your head and got involved in a big hand which you could not stand to lose. But you shouldn't be doing that in the first place.

However, it could be theoretically correct to take insurance in tournaments. It would also make them take a longer time to finish, but the better players would have an increased edge.

[craig r]

Okay, maybe I am retarded, but in most situations insurance is -EV. I mean this for BJ (unless you are counting), car insurance (I mean they make money somehow..I am not advocating not having car insurance), etc...So why in poker is insurance all of a sudden positive EV? You are basically giving up your edge. If a player gets it in with 2:1 the worst of it, why would you be willing to give up your edge? And as far as the house taking 1%...that is nothing....there is no way that is all they are going to take. If they are willing to back 3:1 odds for example, how can they profit when you lose if they are only taking 1%. The way it usually works is that they reduce your odds.

craig