Bubble Insurance

[TightEnd]

Does anyone use any of these providers?

"Bubble insurance allows you to get back your buy-in if you finish close to the paying spots in a tournament but can't make it to the money.

If you buy bubble insurance and finish in the bubble (Last places before the paying positions) we pay you the buy-in for the tournament. "

How can they be EV+ for the player and the provider?

Just using this one as an example (doesn't matter which company it is)

http://www.insuredplay.com/supports/faq#

 

[Longy]

inb4 "Hi i'm Chris Moorman"

[Magic817]

I haven't used it but did look at it a while ago. I guess part of the logic is that once in the new cash positions (eg where you get your buy in back through the protection) you can increase aggression and in theory your chip stack especially when playing against players determined to make the money. This should in theory improve your chance of a deep finish and if it does I guess it can be +ev for both provider and player.

I am just not certain how much it will help in practice rather than theory, I guess the key is how much opponents fear the bubble in the tournaments you play.

[edgascoigne]

Does anyone use any of these providers?

"Bubble insurance allows you to get back your buy-in if you finish close to the paying spots in a tournament but can't make it to the money.

If you buy bubble insurance and finish in the bubble (Last places before the paying positions) we pay you the buy-in for the tournament. "

How can they be EV+ for the player and the provider?

Just using this one as an example (doesn't matter which company it is)

http://www.insuredplay.com/supports/faq#

 

The only way they can be +EV for both parties is if they are financially +EV for the company (immediate) and utility +EV for the player (providing a theoretical increase in future expectation).

[rfgqqabc]

Does anyone use any of these providers?

"Bubble insurance allows you to get back your buy-in if you finish close to the paying spots in a tournament but can't make it to the money.

If you buy bubble insurance and finish in the bubble (Last places before the paying positions) we pay you the buy-in for the tournament. "

How can they be EV+ for the player and the provider?

Just using this one as an example (doesn't matter which company it is)

http://www.insuredplay.com/supports/faq#

 

The only way they can be +EV for both parties is if they are financially +EV for the company (immediate) and utility +EV for the player (providing a theoretical increase in future expectation).

But in reality it is likely to only be +ev for the insurance company.

[TightEnd]

Does anyone use any of these providers?

"Bubble insurance allows you to get back your buy-in if you finish close to the paying spots in a tournament but can't make it to the money.

If you buy bubble insurance and finish in the bubble (Last places before the paying positions) we pay you the buy-in for the tournament. "

How can they be EV+ for the player and the provider?

Just using this one as an example (doesn't matter which company it is)

http://www.insuredplay.com/supports/faq#

 

The only way they can be +EV for both parties is if they are financially +EV for the company (immediate) and utility +EV for the player (providing a theoretical increase in future expectation).

But in reality it is likely to only be +ev for the insurance company.

this was my question really

why is it attractive to a player given the

a) cost

b) likely incidence that you'll bubble.

?

[The Camel]

Does anyone use any of these providers?

"Bubble insurance allows you to get back your buy-in if you finish close to the paying spots in a tournament but can't make it to the money.

If you buy bubble insurance and finish in the bubble (Last places before the paying positions) we pay you the buy-in for the tournament. "

How can they be EV+ for the player and the provider?

Just using this one as an example (doesn't matter which company it is)

http://www.insuredplay.com/supports/faq#

 

The only way they can be +EV for both parties is if they are financially +EV for the company (immediate) and utility +EV for the player (providing a theoretical increase in future expectation).

But in reality it is likely to only be +ev for the insurance company.

this was my question really

why is it attractive to a player given the

a) cost

b) likely incidence that you'll bubble.

?

Unless they are intending to lose money the whole thing must be massively -ev for the player.

If you are tempted to use this service, the stakes you are playing are too high.

[Magic817]

I think if you can exploit the bubble as it were then it might be +ev for the player, as I said earlier it is down to whether players play differently around the bubble. This is the way that both parties can win at the expense of players tightening up around the bubble.

I am not completely convinced and have therefore not taken the plunge but am very interested by what more regs say about it.

[Doobs]

Does anyone use any of these providers?

"Bubble insurance allows you to get back your buy-in if you finish close to the paying spots in a tournament but can't make it to the money.

If you buy bubble insurance and finish in the bubble (Last places before the paying positions) we pay you the buy-in for the tournament. "

How can they be EV+ for the player and the provider?

Just using this one as an example (doesn't matter which company it is)

http://www.insuredplay.com/supports/faq#

 

The only way they can be +EV for both parties is if they are financially +EV for the company (immediate) and utility +EV for the player (providing a theoretical increase in future expectation).

But in reality it is likely to only be +ev for the insurance company.

this was my question really

why is it attractive to a player given the

a) cost

b) likely incidence that you'll bubble.

?

Unless they are intending to lose money the whole thing must be massively -ev for the player.

If you are tempted to use this service, the stakes you are playing are too high.

Wrong answer

[hatthehole]

Taking the results of a really good player who plays quite a tight game, his finishing positions (according to OPR over a 15,608 mtt sample, $199 ave buyin) are

MTT Avg. Finish Percentage
Early   3% (10%)
Early/Middle   10% (20%)
Middle   45% (40%)
Middle/Late   29% (20%)
Late   13% (10%)

Assuming top 10% of field get paid then bubble protection would pay out when he finishes in the top 10-20%, which from this data I'm going to estimate happens 14.5% of the time. Looking at the prices on bubbleprotection.com they charge $13.08 for it on a $109. Therefore to make it profitable for a player they need to be finishing in that 10% bracket more than 12% of the time.  For this player bubble protection would be worthwhile before you even consider the benefits to this player of reducing variance  and being able to be more aggressive on the actual bubble.

I agree that for most players its burning money, but of you play a good tight style then it may be profitable to buy it.

[JustinSayne]

Any form of insurance in poker is always going to be sacrificing EV from the player.

If you cant handle the variance don't play the game.

I honestly think anyone taking these kind of insurance schemes is very stupid.

[The Camel]

Does anyone use any of these providers?

"Bubble insurance allows you to get back your buy-in if you finish close to the paying spots in a tournament but can't make it to the money.

If you buy bubble insurance and finish in the bubble (Last places before the paying positions) we pay you the buy-in for the tournament. "

How can they be EV+ for the player and the provider?

Just using this one as an example (doesn't matter which company it is)

http://www.insuredplay.com/supports/faq#

 

The only way they can be +EV for both parties is if they are financially +EV for the company (immediate) and utility +EV for the player (providing a theoretical increase in future expectation).

But in reality it is likely to only be +ev for the insurance company.

this was my question really

why is it attractive to a player given the

a) cost

b) likely incidence that you'll bubble.

?

Unless they are intending to lose money the whole thing must be massively -ev for the player.

If you are tempted to use this service, the stakes you are playing are too high.

Wrong answer

Explain please?

Insurance is always -ev as far as I know.

[Doobs]

Hatthehole has explained it below mine.  If you are a bit nitty and finish in that area a lot then it is + EV for you assuming the premium stays the same.  I assume they make money because the people who take it out are not good at poker. 

The insurance industry is littered with companies that didn't price properly.

[SuuPRlim]

If you cant handle the variance don't play the game.

I honestly think anyone taking these kind of insurance schemes is very stupid.

This is assuming that the reason people play poker is to maximize EV and potential profits.

Has it ever crossed your mind that some people's intention when playing poker is purely to minimize loses?

Continually baffles me how intelligent poker players just don't don't/refuse to understand gambling/how and why gambling works.

[snoopy1239]

Surely you can be a profitable grinder who finishes in the bubble spots a lot due to your individual playing style. I would have thought this is where it is +EV for the player.

Bubble protection. Don't play without it.