If a poker site were to offer insurance on hands backed by the house

[Rzitup]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong I don't want the sites taking more money from the fish, but why would the time delay be so bad? Give them like 5 seconds or however long they give people to show a winning hand.

"Take insurance for $xxx?"

Yes - No

What's tough about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to try to explain it in detail here, but let me just say that your mind would be boggled by what 1 second can generate.
In addition to the time delay, there were several other things talked about that stopped it. Like the fact that a site would all of the sudden have an interest in the outcome of the hand.

[grando]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong I don't want the sites taking more money from the fish, but why would the time delay be so bad? Give them like 5 seconds or however long they give people to show a winning hand.

"Take insurance for $xxx?"

Yes - No

What's tough about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to try to explain it in detail here, but let me just say that your mind would be boggled by what 1 second can generate.
In addition to the time delay, there were several other things talked about that stopped it. Like the fact that a site would all of the sudden have an interest in the outcome of the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

why would they have an interest in the outcome? either:

A. the player takes the insurance, giving the house a certain percentage
B. the player doesn't, and the remaining cards are dealt, giving the house the rake they'd get anyways

how would the remaining cards be influenced?

the only thing I would see is that the house would want more coolers so that people would take insurance more often

[ikestoys]

personally i liked being able to have a beer at the table with me in paradise... i wish that could come back

[SootedPower]

Fish have a limited amount of money they are going to ape away online. And you are proposing that the house get a bigger cut of our profits, why?

Also, a rabbit cam would encourage people to fold, bc they can know if they'd hit w/out actually putting the money in.

[KSOT]

[ QUOTE ]
personally i liked being able to have a beer at the table with me in paradise... i wish that could come back

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored] yeah man... I always got myself a cigar and stuffed imaginary weed into it.

Sooted, I'm not proposing anything, just sharing a thought I had.

[MotorBoatingSOB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong I don't want the sites taking more money from the fish, but why would the time delay be so bad? Give them like 5 seconds or however long they give people to show a winning hand.

"Take insurance for $xxx?"

Yes - No

What's tough about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to try to explain it in detail here, but let me just say that your mind would be boggled by what 1 second can generate.
In addition to the time delay, there were several other things talked about that stopped it. Like the fact that a site would all of the sudden have an interest in the outcome of the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

So according to your logic, an internet gaming house would never offer blackjack/craps/keno because they have an interest in the hand/dice/number outcome? By offering insurance, the house would get a large and repeatable edge on the players. The house cheating at the insurance game is roughly equivalent to the house cheating at any other game. Why would they do it?

I mean, there might be other problems with offering insurance. But house dishonesty is not one of them.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, there might be other problems with offering insurance. But house dishonesty is not one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's got little to do with perceived/actual house dishonesty as such. However, when the house has an interest in the game, it tends to run (a lot more) afoul of certain US state and federal laws.

[MotorBoatingSOB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I mean, there might be other problems with offering insurance. But house dishonesty is not one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's got little to do with perceived/actual house dishonesty as such. However, when the house has an interest in the game, it tends to run (a lot more) afoul of certain US state and federal laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, this is one thing I had in mind. A purely poker site (such as FTP) would then have things that are basically pure gambooling, and could no longer be defensible as hosting only skill-based gambling games.

But a site like Party that does the red/black flop stuff and blackjack doesn't have this problem.

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]

I mean, there might be other problems with offering insurance. But house dishonesty is not one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not house dishonesty that would be the problem, its retarded fish thinking it makes it more likely there is house dishonesty (which they most certainly would)

[freecard4all]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
a site would all of the sudden have an interest in the outcome of the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
The house cheating at the insurance game is roughly equivalent to the house cheating at any other game. Why would they do it?

[/ QUOTE ]
it's not about cheating (although there would be more threads "I can prove it's rigged"). The problem is with CS.

Do we really want the cash-out, bonus and other procedures like the casinos have?

What about this scenario:
- fish deposits ($100)
- fish buy-ins for the highest game
- fish goes all-in let's say blind steals (TT vs KQ)
- fish takes insurance
- fish lost
- fish gets insurance
- fish leaves
------------------------------
the house lost $93 on this player. That can happen at casino and that cannot happen at poker (the house is almost never negative after all that rakeback+bonuses).

That's why I've never bonus-whored casinos.
That's why I've never bonus-whored sport-books.
They all can lose to players and we all know how they behave to the winners...
I don't wanna wait 3 months for cash-out and sending ID a drivers licenses and all the other trouble. I don't want to be afraid of my money simply because I win.



+ fish would lose their money faster and to the house (who wants that - except the house).

Moreover this could really kill the game (I don't like when sites flip over cards and show the percentages because now the fish know how much he was wrong). This would even make him to think about how much he was wrong by calling.

And even more: the fish would see IMMEDIATELY what cost her to call! This is big big NO NO!