Jump to content

Start » Forum

Photo

Insured Play


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#1 poker_zoner

poker_zoner

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 118 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 04:20 AM

Insured Play. I love this business, well I love the idea. I wish I had invented it. But enough dreaming, I want some reality.

A) Have you used it, what do you think?

B) Do we know of any highstakes players using it? (I sure as **** would be)

#2 ilikeurstyle

ilikeurstyle

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 89 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 05:18 AM

I would give it a shot, as I would much rather take my 55-60% equity in PLO rather than leave it to variance. Unfortunately, IP does not cover US-friendly sites... :(

#3 ilikeurstyle

ilikeurstyle

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 89 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 07:30 AM

Of course you're giving up a little equity; that's the way insurance works. But if you play a lot of big pots, would you rather sacrifice a tiny % of the equity in your all-in pots to protect against huge swings while continually outplaying your opponents in the small to medium sized pots, or would you leave it variance to decide whether you will make a ton or lose your shirt that day. IP is for those who favor the former option...

#4 onlyamonkey

onlyamonkey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Location@Onlyamonkey

Posted 13 December 2012 - 07:38 AM

ilikeurstyle (2012-12-13)  IP is for those who favor the former option...



IP is for retards. At the poker table we work extremely hard to increase the small edges we have in every spot. Giving up so much equity just so you can get insured can turn a winning player into a losing one.

#5 raheappa

raheappa

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:14 AM

IMPORTANT By default, the maximum insurable pot on InsuredPlay is $1000. If you play a pot larger than $1000, the pot will be considered $1000. This limit can be increased to max. $2500.


#6 ilikeurstyle

ilikeurstyle

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 89 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:14 AM

Like I said, I haven't used the service so I can't speak for it, but there is nothing wrong with safeguarding yourself at the cost of winning say 54% equity vs 55%. Using such a service can easily, easily be more profitable than not using it, especially if there is a big fish in a game you're not quite rolled for. PLO is an incredibly swingy game. When the money goes in the middle, I'm almost always the favorite, and if I had this option to try this service, I definitely would...

#7 onlyamonkey

onlyamonkey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Location@Onlyamonkey

Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:38 AM

ilikeurstyle (2012-12-13) Like I said, I haven't used the service so I can't speak for it, but there is nothing wrong with safeguarding yourself at the cost of winning say 54% equity vs 55%. Using such a service can easily, easily be more profitable than not using it, especially if there is a big fish in a game you're not quite rolled for. PLO is an incredibly swingy game. When the money goes in the middle, I'm almost always the favorite, and if I had this option to try this service, I definitely would...



Look- it's a great idea because it's free money for the company offering insurance. And there are suckers everywhere willing to pay for it.


But do not even try to give me any reason why this is profitable. It's not. It takes your money because you're supersticious. It's the exact same thing as spending money on a rabbit's foot. It might be good for your mood, but it's not profitable. Using the service will lose you money. If you're a slightly winning player, it might even transform you to a slightly losing one. That 1%, that's what we fight for. There are no big edges in poker. And when finally the money goes in and you're ahead, you want every fkn penny of that pot. Like the rake wasn't enough lol.

#8 justforthat

justforthat

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 329 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:07 AM

ilikeurstyle (2012-12-13) Of course you're giving up a little equity; that's the way insurance works. But if you play a lot of big pots, would you rather sacrifice a tiny % of the equity in your all-in pots to protect against huge swings while continually outplaying your opponents in the small to medium sized pots, or would you leave it variance to decide whether you will make a ton or lose your shirt that day. IP is for those who favor the former option...



if you play a LOT of big pots, it´s just about the silliest idea you could have. nothing more to say about it, and if this is not common knowledge by now, i´m sorry to post this on a public forum. feel free to delete mods.

#9 Joytoys

Joytoys

    Lead Nozzlepop

  • Moderators
  • 4076 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 12:03 PM

onlyamonkey (2012-12-13) 

Look- it's a great idea because it's free money for the company offering insurance. And there are suckers everywhere willing to pay for it.

But do not even try to give me any reason why this is profitable. It's not. It takes your money because you're supersticious. It's the exact same thing as spending money on a rabbit's foot. It might be good for your mood, but it's not profitable. Using the service will lose you money. If you're a slightly winning player, it might even transform you to a slightly losing one. That 1%, that's what we fight for. There are no big edges in poker. And when finally the money goes in and you're ahead, you want every fkn penny of that pot. Like the rake wasn't enough lol.



For some people IP will not be a good idea but for many it will.

For example, a million hand a year profitable grinder at FR SSNL may be advised to steer clear of the service as their variance will not only be very low to start with but simply due to the sheer volume they play they are likely to overcome any "bumps in the road" without having to pay a premium to do so. In this instance you're right - it's almost certainly not worth it.

Look at another case however - a recreational player playing under rolled at $1/$2 (or any level they are under rolled at for that matter) PLO heads up. Recreational players (and there are millions of them) often play under rolled, especially in a big variance game like PLO - they may just have a few hundred dollars online here and there and fancy a quick game.

The variance in this instance can be HUGE and insuring your all in equity may be a very smart move. Not just because it safeguards you against bad beats (or just beats) but also because of the effect it will have on your mental state.

You said it yourself - "it might be good for your mood". I think you underestimate the impact ones "mood" has on ones poker profitability - especially in a heads up situation.

It's easy in HU situations to become way too passive against strong, aggressive players and simply bleed money, tilt and bleed more money. To me, it seems like insurance may be a good idea.

When you're playing against an opponent who can do that to you then often your thought process goes to pieces - situations in which you KNOW a check raise or a big call may be the best move long term often lead to you folding, simply because you don't want to risk putting your whole stack at stake in a coin flip situation or face another big bet on a later street. With some insurance perhaps you might start fighting back and putting some pressure on your opponent, knowing that you can now safely put them to a decision for their stack without worrying about busting your roll?

Just one example might be a pre flop raised pot in HU PLO where there are 18bb in the pot - you make a standard 1/2 - 2/3 pot c-bet with a decent (but not unbeatable) hand and your aggressive opponent comes over the top of you - effectively telling you this pot could end up all in. If you're playing under rolled this is a scary place to be. If you have all in equity insurance and you feel you have decent equity (40-60%) then you can happily get all your money in here. Not only might you get a fold but even if not you will get most of your money back. If you have no insurance then chances are that an under rolled player is going to fold and lose even more equity.

In this instance for many players giving up 0.25% in fees for the pot would probably outweigh losing 18bb by folding to an aggro opponent.

Obviously in a perfect cash game poker players world they would not play under rolled, they would never make -EV decisions due to pressure/bankroll and would ultimately play their "A" game until variance evened itself out and never need insurance. Unfortunately this is not the reality of a lot of poker players our there - especially recreational ones.

Having done a decent amount of research on InsuredPlay and heard from customers (which include several successful SNE players) then I'm pretty confident that the service is definitely a worthwhile one for many people. I have also heard plenty of counter arguments and agree that in many instances InsuredPlay is definitely a -EV investment for others.

Like any insurance service you need to weigh up the pros and cons given your particular set of circumstances/leaks/mindset and decide whether giving up a little long term equity might allow you to make better decisions and become a more profitable player.

To say that IP is not a good idea for anyone is as naive and ignorant as saying that its a service that everyone should use. Clearly there is a balance.

#10 ilikeurstyle

ilikeurstyle

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 89 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 03:45 PM

Joytoys is absolutely correct. The variance will shake out over the long run for someone who puts in a ton of volume, and if the person is properly rolled for their game, then IP doesn't make much sense at all. But for a good player who wants to play higher, especially if their is a fish or two in a game, but isn't nearly rolled enough for the stakes, then IP makes sense hands down. Clearly a more profitable situation then playing the stakes he is rolled for...

#11 fisher1414

fisher1414

    Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 386 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 04:35 PM

Regardless of whether youre rolled for a game or not this still might not be a bad idea

Im sure there are a lot of $1/2 - 3/6 players playing online for a living, yes if they are playing for a living they probably put in enough volume and are properly rolled to have a downswing in the game


But a lot of these people are RELYING on a monthly income. They have bills to pay, and need food to eat. Yes, they should know enough to have enough money behind to play, but these guys need to leave a huge % of their life rolls in the poker accounts.


This is how long term downswings start, you run 10bi's under EV in a session or something and then you just keep playing emotionally trying to make it back.


If youre a $3/6 playing whose EV is about +$30k a month, but if you were to use ensured play you'd be earning $27k/month. Im sure youd rather pay that 3k/month or something opposed to risking having losing months where you run like 40k under EV

#12 justanotherrailbird

justanotherrailbird

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 06:56 PM

onlyamonkey (2012-12-13)

IP is for retards. At the poker table we work extremely hard to increase the small edges we have in every spot. Giving up so much equity just so you can get insured can turn a winning player into a losing one.



Your post speaks volumes about (I'm not saying intelligence, although I could have) your logic and understanding of poker.


If you can't afford to "lose" 1 dollar out of every $400 all-in pot you get in for the convenience of not worrying about downswings and emotional play due to downswings and other factors (history, maniacs etc), so if that stinky dollar turns you from "a winning player into a losing one" (your words), you'd be better off playing canasta with grandma.


I am absolutely convinced that 99% (or more) of poker players, when presented with a question like "would you give up 0.25% of your equity to forget about variance?", would say "fk yeah!" in a split second. Whoever doesn't, either they don't really understand what playing poker means or he/she is a freaking emotional robot and is over rolled like a sheik. I seriously doubt you are the latter, judging by the tone and content of your reply.

#13 Mr...uk

Mr...uk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 07:36 PM

I heard this insured play was the mastermind of moorman.

#14 Joytoys

Joytoys

    Lead Nozzlepop

  • Moderators
  • 4076 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 08:08 PM

Mr...uk (2012-12-13) I heard this insured play was the mastermind of moorman.



No, Chris Moorman is not involved in InsuredPlay

#15 onlyamonkey

onlyamonkey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Location@Onlyamonkey

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:01 PM

Joytoys (2012-12-13) 

For some people IP will not be a good idea but for many it will.

It's a bad idea for most people since they're losing money. But hey, I'm not going to argue with people about insured play, just like I'm not arguing with roulette players, religious or otherwise superstitious people, people who buy lottery tickets or losing poker players. By all means, keep doing what you're doing. It might be "worth it" for you because you overall make poor economic decisions but get other things out of it. It's a trade off.


I have realized that there are many ways to tilt. IP only covers a small fragment of the ways tilt can affect us. It doesn't cure tilt. It still won't do anything about the times I reached the river as a 90% favourite only to have my opponent suck out and stack me there. It still won't do anything about the times I 3bet a big pair only to have a lower pair outflop me. So as I said, IP only covers a very small part of why we tilt.

Look at another case however - a recreational player playing under rolled at $1/$2 (or any level they are under rolled at for that matter) PLO heads up. Recreational players (and there are millions of them) often play under rolled, especially in a big variance game like PLO - they may just have a few hundred dollars online here and there and fancy a quick game.


Yeah, they are afraid of variance so they play underrolled. Obviously there's big hole in that logic, but I don't really care. I respect that people give away money.

The variance in this instance can be HUGE and insuring your all in equity may be a very smart move. Not just because it safeguards you against bad beats (or just beats) but also because of the effect it will have on your mental state.


It's just wild speculations from your part. I can argue the opposite; that every time I get it in and have to pay a cost and hold up, I will curse my luck because I wasn't unlucky. Or I'll have the gnawing feeling in the back of my head that I truly am a big sucker and therefor my general level of tilt is constantly higher.

You said it yourself - "it might be good for your mood". I think you underestimate the impact ones "mood" has on ones poker profitability - especially in a heads up situation.


Well, we can just agree to disagree here. I think that in the long run, you will lose more money using this service than if you wouldn't. I can obviously prove my statement, whereas it's impossible for you to prove yours. In that way, it reminds me of having a discussion with someone who believes in God.




It's easy in HU situations to become way too passive against strong, aggressive players and simply bleed money, tilt and bleed more money. To me, it seems like insurance may be a good idea.


Yeah, I mean from what I read the guy is already used to bleeding money, so a little more bleeding probably won't kill him :)

When you're playing against an opponent who can do that to you then often your thought process goes to pieces - situations in which you KNOW a check raise or a big call may be the best move long term often lead to you folding, simply because you don't want to risk putting your whole stack at stake in a coin flip situation or face another big bet on a later street. With some insurance perhaps you might start fighting back and putting some pressure on your opponent, knowing that you can now safely put them to a decision for their stack without worrying about busting your roll?


I don't think that you know what you're talking about here, but it's pretty clear what kind of customer base IP expects; passive, weak, underrolled, already losing recreational players that blames their losses on bad luck.


You make it sound like IP magically changes your game, but I don't think you have any proof at all here and you're just selling empty promises.


In this instance for many players giving up 0.25% in fees for the pot would probably outweigh losing 18bb by folding to an aggro opponent.


Since we're talking about recreational players, I think we have to assume a 1.5% fee right?

Having done a decent amount of research on InsuredPlay and heard from customers (which include several successful SNE players) then I'm pretty confident that the service is definitely a worthwhile one for many people. I have also heard plenty of counter arguments and agree that in many instances InsuredPlay is definitely a -EV investment for others.


My jaw would fall to the floor if you provided me with one SNE that wasn't affiliated with IP in some way.

To say that IP is not a good idea for anyone is as naive and ignorant as saying that its a service that everyone should use. Clearly there is a balance.


Yes, there is a balance. That balance is on a bank account. Hint: It's growing :D


Apart from this, thanks for moderating this great forum and thanks for taking the time to reply with such a lengthy and well though out post.

#16 onlyamonkey

onlyamonkey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Location@Onlyamonkey

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:11 PM

justanotherrailbird (2012-12-13) 

onlyamonkey (2012-12-13)

IP is for retards. At the poker table we work extremely hard to increase the small edges we have in every spot. Giving up so much equity just so you can get insured can turn a winning player into a losing one.



Your post speaks volumes about (I'm not saying intelligence, although I could have) your logic and understanding of poker.


If you can't afford to "lose" 1 dollar out of every $400 all-in pot you get in for the convenience of not worrying about downswings and emotional play due to downswings and other factors (history, maniacs etc), so if that stinky dollar turns you from "a winning player into a losing one" (your words), you'd be better off playing canasta with grandma.


I am absolutely convinced that 99% (or more) of poker players, when presented with a question like "would you give up 0.25% of your equity to forget about variance?", would say "fk yeah!" in a split second. Whoever doesn't, either they don't really understand what playing poker means or he/she is a freaking emotional robot and is over rolled like a sheik. I seriously doubt you are the latter, judging by the tone and content of your reply.



Listen here, you shill.


1 dollar out of every 400 dollar pot seems like nothing. 3 dollar out of a 400 dollar pot is also nothing. Yet, most grinders play several thousand dollars per month in rake. In one month, the average 100 NL grinder pays 4k in rake. Add Insured Play. Whoops! 500 bucks more! Was it worth it?


And by the tone in your post I obviously realize that you're not a winning poker player, you're affiliated with IP and you're in general just a very unlikeable person. You know, since we're into insulting and everything.

#17 onlyamonkey

onlyamonkey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Location@Onlyamonkey

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:14 PM

fisher1414 (2012-12-13) 
If youre a $3/6 playing whose EV is about +$30k a month, but if you were to use ensured play you'd be earning $27k/month. Im sure youd rather pay that 3k/month or something opposed to risking having losing months where you run like 40k under EV



That is absolutely HILARIOUS.

#18 BustACap

BustACap

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 121 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:20 PM

From what I have seen from Phil Helmuth, he buys and sells insurance, so if a guy like him and other top pros use it, I would say its smart to use.

onlyamonkey (2012-12-13) 

ilikeurstyle (2012-12-13)  IP is for those who favor the former option...



IP is for retards. At the poker table we work extremely hard to increase the small edges we have in every spot. Giving up so much equity just so you can get insured can turn a winning player into a losing one.



#19 Joytoys

Joytoys

    Lead Nozzlepop

  • Moderators
  • 4076 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:45 PM

onlyamonkey - I'm sure there are plenty of other examples where IP might benefit a player - I just chose one I thought illustrated a type of player.

Now, it's fair enough that you may not suffer these problems - that you are not a passive player and that you don't play recreationally and you don't get tilted too much by the things I pointed out. Then that's cool - you clearly won't find the value in the product. Like I said, its not for everyone.

Obviously there are massive flaws in logic for lots of players - the vast majority of online poker players are losing players so not too many are playing optimally. I'm not trying to suggest something like IP will turn all losing players into winning ones obviously - I'm just pointing out that while in the long run YOU might overcome variance and its effects by playing optimally and not being weak/scared money etc that lots of people are.

Like you say, you're glad these people exist who throw away money as you put it, who play under rolled, who are scared money. Well, seeing as they do exist then perhaps they might benefit from it?

You seem to be arguing everything from your own perspective - again I'm not disputing how YOU might feel or react. There are testimonials from players who have benefitted from higher win rates from using IP and I'm sure there will be more in the future. These are the players who can and will prove my statement - you can only prove your own experience, and if you're a solid winner who is able to overcome the effects of variance (and I have no reason to doubt you can) then your evidence is good for no other player but yourself.

It seems strange to me that people who don't see the value in the service for themselves cannot see that for some players it might be something to look at seriously.

You don't have to prove its of no benefit to you - but you can't speak for everyone anymore than I can.

For the record I hate religion, superstition and roulette ;)

#20 onlyamonkey

onlyamonkey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Location@Onlyamonkey

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:56 PM

BustACap (2012-12-13) From what I have seen from Phil Helmuth, he buys and sells insurance, so if a guy like him and other top pros use it, I would say its smart to use.




Yeah, that's a great argument much like the argument that Stu Ungar and Kurt Cobain did heroine so therefor if you want to become the best poker player in the world or a legendary musician, you must shoot up.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users