|
|
#11
05-09-2007, 11:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Insurance
1. The deal need not be between the players involved in the hand.
2. I think there is more to it than your correct superficial analysis. I believe there are benefits to taking insurance as well as to offering it. It is simple to say "absorb the variance" but we all know that suckouts lead to tilt and tilt costs money. A 5% premium might be too high, but what about 2%? And by reducing variance your bankroll management requirements would change dramatically, allowing you to make more monies by playing higher stakes and capitalizing on your superior decision-making abilities. The other aspect of insurance is something I started thinking about listening to Barry Greenstein talking about doing business. Barry talked about how he only runs it once because he doesn't want to encourage people to call his all-in's and to shove draws against him. Of course the implication of that is that having a 3rd party take your action you can combine fold equity with your EV in the hand to effectively expanding the size of your bankroll. 
|
|
#12
05-09-2007, 11:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Insurance
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Why not just absorb the variance and deal with the beats? [/ QUOTE ] Because many players don't deal with the beats very well and the EV they lose by making the deal would be gained back by not tilting? [/ QUOTE ] what he said
|
|
#13
05-09-2007, 05:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Insurance
[ QUOTE ]
1. The deal need not be between the players involved in the hand. [/ QUOTE ] I wasn't suggesting that it does... [ QUOTE ] 2. I think there is more to it than your correct superficial analysis. I believe there are benefits to taking insurance as well as to offering it. It is simple to say "absorb the variance" but we all know that suckouts lead to tilt and tilt costs money. [/ QUOTE ] I know that it's really a superficial analysis but as you posted it, it's a pretty subjective question. If you have data that supports that you're tilting away X amount after being sucked out for a Y-sized pot when you have Z or more equity, and you can quantify how much tilt actually costs you afterward as a result, then you can put a price on it - but since that changes player to player we're still not going to have a constant answer. Is 2 percent reasonable? For who? I suppose if you're in a juicy game and you can't handle beats too well, giving away Sklansky bucks might be better than standing up and leaving the game. Otherwise, if you just leave, no worries about tilt or the long-term insurance tax you're paying. The other thing that comes to mind is if another player was aware why you were taking insurance to avoid tilting, as opposed to doing it for BR/variance reasons, they might consider it more +EV to not offer you insurance in the first place.
|
|
#14
05-09-2007, 08:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Insurance
yes, which is why the insurance is offered by a disinterested 3rd party.
I'd be interested in trying to quantify the ability to play on a smaller bankroll - ie, risk of ruin calculations given reduced variance.
|
|
#16
05-10-2007, 10:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Insurance
I don't have a plan per se, I am just a tilt monkey who likes to play at the highest possible stakes so I'm thinking that finding someone who will offer to take on my variance (ie, offer me insurance) might make sense so I can play 2/4NL instead of .1/.25 and laugh in the face of gutshot chasers.
|
|
#17
05-10-2007, 04:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Insurance
[ QUOTE ]
I don't have a plan per se, I am just a tilt monkey who likes to play at the highest possible stakes so I'm thinking that finding someone who will offer to take on my variance (ie, offer me insurance) might make sense so I can play 2/4NL instead of .1/.25 and laugh in the face of gutshot chasers. [/ QUOTE ] So a third party is going to do what exactly... go through your PT database every week and find all of the hands where you were all-in as a favorite? Then, I guess he's supposed to sort out which ones held up vs. which ones you got bad beat, and then calculate the equity in each hand, and then apply the insurance premium, and then... you see how this is getting carried away? Or, if you're to play 2/4 live, is this guy going to follow you around all day, waiting for $700 pots to happen where you're a 4-to-1 favorite? If you're 80% to win and you take insurance at 78%, his expectation is a whopping $14, and because he's taking on a lot of variance he has to tie up capital just to offer you insurance. Even if you found someone willing to invest the time, effort, and bankroll to take on some of your variance in such a low limit game, he'd probably want a cut much greater than 2 percent for his services at that level. Even if I was sitting next to you in a live game every Saturday, and I didn't have to do anything else, I'd want at least 5 percent. From my perspective, this would be roughly the EV equivalent of running two overs vs. a pair for big pots again and again - and that's at 5 percent. At 2 percent I'm almost flipping and could probably put the cash to better use elsewhere. On one hand, you could say that these big pots are relatively infrequent and wouldn't cost that much in the long run, which would be an argument against having an insurance guy on retainer. On the other hand, if these pots are more frequent, you're absorbing a lot of overhead. You're giving away 2% (or more) on a lot of pots, on top of the rake, and that's pretty significant. The winrates you might see at .1/.25 aren't practical at higher limits.
|
|
#18
05-10-2007, 07:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Insurance
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I don't have a plan per se, I am just a tilt monkey who likes to play at the highest possible stakes so I'm thinking that finding someone who will offer to take on my variance (ie, offer me insurance) might make sense so I can play 2/4NL instead of .1/.25 and laugh in the face of gutshot chasers. [/ QUOTE ] So a third party is going to do what exactly... go through your PT database every week and find all of the hands where you were all-in as a favorite? Then, I guess he's supposed to sort out which ones held up vs. which ones you got bad beat, and then calculate the equity in each hand, and then apply the insurance premium, and then... you see how this is getting carried away? Or, if you're to play 2/4 live, is this guy going to follow you around all day, waiting for $700 pots to happen where you're a 4-to-1 favorite? If you're 80% to win and you take insurance at 78%, his expectation is a whopping $14, and because he's taking on a lot of variance he has to tie up capital just to offer you insurance. Even if you found someone willing to invest the time, effort, and bankroll to take on some of your variance in such a low limit game, he'd probably want a cut much greater than 2 percent for his services at that level. Even if I was sitting next to you in a live game every Saturday, and I didn't have to do anything else, I'd want at least 5 percent. From my perspective, this would be roughly the EV equivalent of running two overs vs. a pair for big pots again and again - and that's at 5 percent. At 2 percent I'm almost flipping and could probably put the cash to better use elsewhere. On one hand, you could say that these big pots are relatively infrequent and wouldn't cost that much in the long run, which would be an argument against having an insurance guy on retainer. On the other hand, if these pots are more frequent, you're absorbing a lot of overhead. You're giving away 2% (or more) on a lot of pots, on top of the rake, and that's pretty significant. The winrates you might see at .1/.25 aren't practical at higher limits. [/ QUOTE ] Good post.
|
|
#19
05-10-2007, 11:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Insurance
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I don't have a plan per se, I am just a tilt monkey who likes to play at the highest possible stakes so I'm thinking that finding someone who will offer to take on my variance (ie, offer me insurance) might make sense so I can play 2/4NL instead of .1/.25 and laugh in the face of gutshot chasers. [/ QUOTE ] So a third party is going to do what exactly... go through your PT database every week and find all of the hands where you were all-in as a favorite? Then, I guess he's supposed to sort out which ones held up vs. which ones you got bad beat, and then calculate the equity in each hand, and then apply the insurance premium, and then... you see how this is getting carried away? Or, if you're to play 2/4 live, is this guy going to follow you around all day, waiting for $700 pots to happen where you're a 4-to-1 favorite? If you're 80% to win and you take insurance at 78%, his expectation is a whopping $14, and because he's taking on a lot of variance he has to tie up capital just to offer you insurance. Even if you found someone willing to invest the time, effort, and bankroll to take on some of your variance in such a low limit game, he'd probably want a cut much greater than 2 percent for his services at that level. Even if I was sitting next to you in a live game every Saturday, and I didn't have to do anything else, I'd want at least 5 percent. From my perspective, this would be roughly the EV equivalent of running two overs vs. a pair for big pots again and again - and that's at 5 percent. At 2 percent I'm almost flipping and could probably put the cash to better use elsewhere. On one hand, you could say that these big pots are relatively infrequent and wouldn't cost that much in the long run, which would be an argument against having an insurance guy on retainer. On the other hand, if these pots are more frequent, you're absorbing a lot of overhead. You're giving away 2% (or more) on a lot of pots, on top of the rake, and that's pretty significant. The winrates you might see at .1/.25 aren't practical at higher limits. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think it would be a manual process. I could write a script to analyse hand histories, but that is an implementation detail, I'm more interested in the theory of it.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
