Hey guys, it's been a while. I really would like your opinions on something. Ok, so https://pokerfuse.com/news/poker-roo...re-coming-all/ ... It's my understanding that this allows players to dump the hand without risking large pots in exchange for a fee. I need to ask: ... Is this a good thing for online Poker? Should we enable this feature and if yes/no, why? What are the good/bad points here? What do you think???

Ragequit

Played cash game earlier today ... went all-in vs someone and before winning that hand i believe othere considered cashout or whatever ...

The benefit of taking out insurance is, that it reduce your variance. This allow you to use more aggressive bankroll management, or it reduce your risk of having to move down due to a run of bad luck. It also makes it easier to keep yourself off tilt, if losing big pots tend to tilt you.

I would consider taking the insurance, if the money at stake matter to my bankroll and there is a significant risk, I will lose the pot. It makes no sense to insure my flopped quads from being outdrawn by my opponents overpair, since this will only happen 1 in 990 times. And it also makes no sense to insure 5$, if my total bankroll is 645$.

But if I was playing 25NL with that 645$ bankroll, and had a 35$ share of a 50$ pot with 30% risk of losing it, this would be the time to seriously consider taking insurance and lock up that 10$ win rather than risk up ending with a 25$ loss due to a bad runout.

The downside it, that your opponents can also use insurance to keep away from tilt, so maybe they will play less bad against you. However if it attract more casual players to cash games, that is obviously a good thing, so as to this being good or bad for online poker, I can see an argument for both.

PokerStars Hand #203264873477: 6+ Hold'em No Limit (Button Blind $0.02 - Ante $0.02 USD) - 2019/08/14 0:03:23 CUST [2019/08/13 13:03:23 ET]
Table 'Cheleb' 6-max Seat #5 is the button
Seat 1: riennevaplus ($2 in chips)
Seat 2: procenko777 ($1.98 in chips)
Seat 3: LeoRheydt ($1.95 in chips)
Seat 4: kozong ($18.82 in chips)
Seat 5: Feuervoge909 ($2.29 in chips)
Seat 6: Mukim13 ($2 in chips)
riennevaplus: posts the ante $0.02
procenko777: posts the ante $0.02
LeoRheydt: posts the ante $0.02
kozong: posts the ante $0.02
Feuervoge909: posts the ante $0.02
Mukim13: posts the ante $0.02
Feuervoge909: posts button blind $0.02
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to kozong [9c Kd]
Mukim13: calls $0.02
riennevaplus: calls $0.02
procenko777: raises $0.14 to $0.16
LeoRheydt: folds
kozong: folds
Feuervoge909: calls $0.14
Mukim13: calls $0.14
riennevaplus: calls $0.14
*** FLOP *** [Qc 6s 9h]
Mukim13: checks
riennevaplus: checks
procenko777: bets $0.49
Feuervoge909: raises $1.62 to $2.11 and is all-in
Mukim13: calls $1.82 and is all-in
riennevaplus: folds
procenko777: calls $1.31 and is all-in
Uncalled bet ($0.29) returned to Feuervoge909
*** TURN *** [Qc 6s 9h] [Td]
*** RIVER *** [Qc 6s 9h Td] Q♦
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Mukim13: shows [8d 7d] (a straight, Six to Ten)
Feuervoge909: shows [Qs 8c] (three of a kind, Queens)
procenko777: shows [Ks Qh] (three of a kind, Queens)
Mukim13 cashed out the hand for $2.62 | Cash Out Fee $0.03
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $6.20 Main pot $5.94. Side pot $0.04. | Rake $0.22
Board [Qc 6s 9h Td Qd]
Seat 1: riennevaplus folded on the Flop
Seat 2: procenko777 showed [Ks Qh] and lost with three of a kind, Queens
Seat 3: LeoRheydt folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 4: kozong folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: Feuervoge909 (button blind) showed [Qs 8c] and lost with three of a kind, Queens
Seat 6: Mukim13 showed [8d 7d] and won ($5.98) with a straight, Six to Ten(pot not awarded as player cashed out)

its kinda good for players when their sets, straights or flushes being outdrawn by better hands i guess

but when we win a hand & opted in for it, we get considerably less than pot or worse like in Mukim13 case above is just somewhere less than 1/2 pot (2.62$ out of 5.98$ pot)

*im also wondering about those part of the cash-out pot that the winning players didnt get to keep

Guys this feature works even if one player agrees? Because I have disabled it by default and two times the villain cashed out, I didn't he won the pot from insurance and I lost everything. Wtf? Is it a bug?

Originally Posted by Babis VGS

Guys this feature works even if one player agrees? Because I have disabled it by default and two times the villain cashed out, I didn't he won the pot from insurance and I lost everything. Wtf? Is it a bug?

Everyone decides it for themselves, you can't disable this option for other players.
So you disabled it - and once another player cashed out, you play not against him now, but against Pokerstars. So, in your hand - you lost it all, Pokerstars won a pot against you, another player cashed out his percentage by equity.

Originally Posted by iwont20

Everyone decides it for themselves, you can't disable this option for other players.
So you disabled it - and once another player cashed out, you play not against him now, but against Pokerstars. So, in your hand - you lost it all, Pokerstars won a pot against you, another player cashed out his percentage by equity.

So if I lose the pot and the other player has cashed out Pokerstars can take for example 30% of the Pot?

this is no good , if you win you don't take anything cause the other player cashed out what is this haha

Originally Posted by kostas1234

this is no good , if you win you don't take anything cause the other player cashed out what is this haha

Ι agree. Wtf how is that possible?

I basically agree with fundriver. Cashing out your equity in the pot helps to reduce variance. It will cost you a fee of 1% of your share in the pot, however. If you are good at mantaining your A-game even if get rivered again and again or never seem to hit your semi-bluff-draws, it's just not worth it.


If you are like me and start to feel your blood pumping once you see your AA losing to 72o preflop all-in AGAIN, it may be +EV to use the feature so you don't tilt away a lot more than 1% of your equity in a few all-in pots.


Personally, I decided to use it when I feel I'm not on my A-game anymore. That turned out to be kind of difficult, though, because when you are behind and desperate to catch up you will want to win the WHOLE pot, not just your equity of say 62%. So maybe it would be better to decide once and for all to auto-use it all the time.


One more thing: according to Stars the cash-out is FREE if 1% of your equity is less than 1c. So if you're playing micros and are way behind you can reduce variance at no cost.

Originally Posted by kostas1234

this is no good , if you win you don't take anything cause the other player cashed out what is this haha

If one player take insurance, and the other dont, the non insured player is playing against the house just like in a casino game. You have KK, your opponent have AA, you get it in preflop, your opponent takes insurance, but you dont. You spike a K on the flop and dubble up, but its PokerStars paying you not the other player. And therefore after the hand he has around 160BB in his stack, and you have 200BB.

Originally Posted by Numerius

If you are like me and start to feel your blood pumping once you see your AA losing to 72o preflop all-in AGAIN, it may be +EV to use the feature so you don't tilt away a lot more than 1% of your equity in a few all-in pots.

I certainly think, it makes sense to mainly insure, when we are against someone, who we think made a bad play. If we get AA all in preflop against KK, we typically dont berate the other guy for, how he played the hand. So there is less tilt issues, when KK occationally get there and win the hand.

Yesterday on 888 poker I had two hands, where I kind of wish, insurance had been an option. In the first I got KK all in preflop against TT. The opponent was somewhat of a maniac, so I was like “hah finally got you”, but of course he got there. In the second hand I turned a straight with a 1-liner on the board, I bet, and now my opponent, who was a bit of a fish, mini-raised. I put him all in, he called, he flipped over a set, and of course the board paired on the river.

I will not say, I tilted hard because of these two hands, but it would certainly have been more fun, if I had my equity share locked up, and these two goofballs were playing against the house. In that situation I would even hope for them to get lucky, because then we would have some nice deep stacked play going in the next hand.

This is a possible benefit of insurance also, because if we lose, we can only reload to 100BB, and if we win, the opponent can only reload to 100BB, and bad players will often stop, when they get stacked. However with insurance, we can take home our equity share and become deep stacked, and if the bad player get lucky, he will also be deep stacked, which should be a great situation for us.

I’m not sure what to think what this feature. I haven’t used it Seems to strange. Would be nice to have this feature in tournament play though.

I think the best way to use this option would be against aggressive player who like to bluff with air in their range and go all in with the plan to cash out and take the equity out cause you know you have some equity

I think this will ruin poker. It takes away some good bluffers who were willing to bluff with air. And more players willing to call all ins even if you are not sure they have the best hand because they can cash out with equity
if they have drawing who would must likely be priced out to make the call and fold but with insurance it changes the strategy

I really do think that this idea is not so fun, but, we all have the option not to plaY it if we dont find it fun, so pokerstars is just probably trying new methods of playing for more receeational players, i personally would not play it though.

Originally Posted by dlam

I think this will ruin poker. It takes away some good bluffers who were willing to bluff with air. And more players willing to call all ins even if you are not sure they have the best hand because they can cash out with equity
if they have drawing who would must likely be priced out to make the call and fold but with insurance it changes the strategy

I believe, you are way overthinking this. It just give players an opportunity to always win 7$ from a 10$ pot, where they are a 70% favourite, when all the money has gone in before the river, rather than sometimes win 10$ and other time 0$. There is no logical reason at all, why this should make people play any different. Also these situations are simply not all that common. I played 4 tables for 1 hour to try out the new feature, but did not even get the chance. And neither did anyone else at the 4 tables, so I have yet to see it in function.

Played another short session this morning and have seen it in function now. A recreational players with 40BB got AK all in preflop against AJ, and took the insurance option. More importantly in another pot two players got QQ all in against AK, and did not take the insurance option. But they ran it twice, so that feature has NOT been removed, even though their have been rumours about it.

Originally Posted by fundiver199

I believe, you are way overthinking this. It just give players an opportunity to always win 7$ from a 10$ pot, where they are a 70% favourite, when all the money has gone in before the river, rather than sometimes win 10$ and other time 0$. There is no logical reason at all, why this should make people play any different. Also these situations are simply not all that common. I played 4 tables for 1 hour to try out the new feature, but did not even get the chance. And neither did anyone else at the 4 tables, so I have yet to see it in function.

Let’s say you hold A♥️Q♥️ On a K♥️K♦️J♥️ Flop and pot is small. You are HU and deep stack He puts you all in and you think you are behind I know I have insurance I will more likely call to get cash back and hope I was wrong and he was bluffing Only way to know is to call If I didn’t have insurance I more likely than not call as I don’t know how nitty the player is and rather not take the chance

imo it't not a horrible feature as its saved my a$$ a few times from busting out.. but it does take a bit of fun out of the game at the same time

Originally Posted by dlam

Let’s say you hold A♥️Q♥️ On a K♥️K♦️J♥️ Flop and pot is small. You are HU and deep stack He puts you all in and you think you are behind I know I have insurance I will more likely call to get cash back and hope I was wrong and he was bluffing Only way to know is to call If I didn’t have insurance I more likely than not call as I don’t know how nitty the player is and rather not take the chance

Even with insurance you are still losing money, when you get it in behind. You are just losing for instance 3$ every time rather than 10$ most of the time and winning 10$, when you get lucky. For a rational player it should make no difference to his decision making at all.

Hi! Think if this option reduces the effect of dispersion, then this is good news. It is very unpleasant when a hand with better value loses to a weaker hand. If a person is inclined to tilt, this function is able to save him from incorrect actions.

Cheers for all the replies. I still can't fully grasp the Maths of how Pokerstars are working all of this out, I'm sure it will click soon! .... until then I'm leaving it disabled.

R

This feature will reduce fold equity imo.

Hey everyone, I had to hit search to find a thread on the subject, because it kind of ruined my morning. I had forgot about this new feature, and it popped up for the first time in my play. I was playing a zoom cash table, had $2 at the table. Received AA, villain had raised to me, I re-raised, he put me all in, of course I called . He had AK, then the cash out option appeared. I was 94% to win, and I was given an option to cash out for $1.66. In my mind, that meant they were offering me $1.66 of my original $2, so I declined. Of course the villain won, this is PokerStars. In hindsight, the $1.66 they offered me, would that have been in the addition to my original $2? So I would’ve finished the hand with $3.66 at the table?

What I do is cash out if I’m ahead with 5 community to go as there is a lot that can happen. If it’s one card and just 5th street I let it ride if I’m ahead as likely win
I do the opposite if I’m the underdog

If I’m behind preflop I let play out with 5 community card
If I’m behind after the flop usually cash out and get what ever equity I have unless it’s less 20%

I think that its not a good idea long term, but you have to pay a fee to mitigate variance. Its an interesting idea, cause you get less winrate, but on the other hand, there are less risk to run.

I think it was a brilliant idea for PS to get a new form of revenue other than rake.
If you have a good and rigorous bankroll management, then I think its not worth it.

Originally Posted by Muckutoo

Hey everyone, I had to hit search to find a thread on the subject, because it kind of ruined my morning. I had forgot about this new feature, and it popped up for the first time in my play. I was playing a zoom cash table, had $2 at the table. Received AA, villain had raised to me, I re-raised, he put me all in, of course I called . He had AK, then the cash out option appeared. I was 94% to win, and I was given an option to cash out for $1.66. In my mind, that meant they were offering me $1.66 of my original $2, so I declined. Of course the villain won, this is PokerStars. In hindsight, the $1.66 they offered me, would that have been in the addition to my original $2? So I would’ve finished the hand with $3.66 at the table?

If the total pot was 4$ then yes.

I'm going to revive this thread to see how people have been using this feature, now that we've had some time to figure it out.

So far, I've been burned by this a couple of times, both of them in rather stupid ways (on my part). The big one (that put me in tilt that took me a while to recover from) is when I stupidly decided to cash out when I only have 15% equity on an all-in call, and the river completed my hand and I lost out on 85% of the pot. Again, I was dumb. Another time (this time much smaller), I neglected to cash out with 85% equity when I made an all-in call, and I got rivered myself (but this time, it was for a very small pot as the villain was playing with a super short stack). Generally though, I haven't been using the feature -- would rather just accept fate of good or bad plays. My general attitude (IRL) around insurance for small-ticket items (like extra warranty for electronics, etc) is a huge money grab and generally not worth it.

But all this to say... how have you guys been playing it? Part of me is thinking that I might only cash out with any pot over 80% equity, let not cash out for anything less than that. In some ways, I'd rather lose everything on a bad call, but pay like... 20% insurance simply to avoid tilt when I get screwed by the turn or river card... but is that worth it at all?

Your thoughts?

I never use it. I think this is a rejection of my decision to go all-in!

I am not playing much at Stars these days, but I have used cash out in a few pots, where I was flipping or somewhat ahead like 70/30. I have not used it, when I was way ahead or way behind, or if the opponent was shortstacked.

My main reason for using cash out is, that I have withdrawn most of my funds from Stars, since I mainly play at 888 now, and moving around money is inconvenient. So for me its worth it to pay that 1% to reduce my variance and the risk, I will need to move funds from one poker site to another.

Originally Posted by iwont20

Everyone decides it for themselves, you can't disable this option for other players.
So you disabled it - and once another player cashed out, you play not against him now, but against Pokerstars. So, in your hand - you lost it all, Pokerstars won a pot against you, another player cashed out his percentage by equity.

What you are saying makes sense. But do you know if anyone can buy this insurance or only the player having the best hand at the time. In other words if a player with 72 shoves from early position and gets called, can he opt-in for for the protection? Because it would make sense to go all-in every hand and steal blinds until someone calls and then buy insurance if you had a bad hand.

Originally Posted by zinzir

What you are saying makes sense. But do you know if anyone can buy this insurance or only the player having the best hand at the time. In other words if a player with 72 shoves from early position and gets called, can he opt-in for for the protection? Because it would make sense to go all-in every hand and steal blinds until someone calls and then buy insurance if you had a bad hand.

Once someone opts for insurance, they get paid out and then the rest of the players are play against the house instead of the insured player. The house then pays the remaining players the amount the hand ends up losing or receives the amount hand wins. For all other players in the hand, it is played exactly the same way unless they buy insurance.

To your question, if 72 shoves and gets called and has, let’s say 5% equity vs opponent who has 95%, then player who buys insurance with 72 gets paid 5% of the pot (less commission) no matter what happens in the hand. If the player who calls has 95% equity and opts to buy insurance, then he receives 95% of the pot less commission.

Again, once someone buys insurance, that player takes the cash based on equity and is no longer entitled to winning or losing. So if player with 72 buys insurance, he gets 5% of pot less insurance but if he hits the combination of cards (like 3 7s) that gets him the win, player is no longer eligible for win; the house (PStars) gets the winnings.

Note that insurance is not offered on river calls. It’s only when there are still cards to come out.

I know this to be true because this happened to me once where the river would have gotten me the win and I didn’t get the winnings. I was really quite pissed but it happens.

Originally Posted by nameless1537

Once someone opts for insurance, they get paid out and then the rest of the players are play against the house instead of the insured player. The house then pays the remaining players the amount the hand ends up losing or receives the amount hand wins. For all other players in the hand, it is played exactly the same way unless they buy insurance.

To your question, if 72 shoves and gets called and has, let’s say 5% equity vs opponent who has 95%, then player who buys insurance with 72 gets paid 5% of the pot (less commission) no matter what happens in the hand. If the player who calls has 95% equity and opts to buy insurance, then he receives 95% of the pot less commission.

Again, once someone buys insurance, that player takes the cash based on equity and is no longer entitled to winning or losing. So if player with 72 buys insurance, he gets 5% of pot less insurance but if he hits the combination of cards (like 3 7s) that gets him the win, player is no longer eligible for win; the house (PStars) gets the winnings.

Note that insurance is not offered on river calls. It’s only when there are still cards to come out.

I know this to be true because this happened to me once where the river would have gotten me the win and I didn’t get the winnings. I was really quite pissed but it happens.

Thank you for your reply. In my opinion it changes the game completely. I would go all in preflop with any hand, and pick up the blinds until someone calls, and then if I have a weak hand buy insurance and pay 1% of my stack and pass the bad odds to Pokerstars, and if I have a premium hand I reject the insurance. If more players are doing that, Pokerstars will lose a tone of money unless they tweak the algorithm and then it's not worth playing anymore for anyone.

Originally Posted by zinzir

Thank you for your reply. In my opinion it changes the game completely. I would go all in preflop with any hand, and pick up the blinds until someone calls, and then if I have a weak hand buy insurance and pay 1% of my stack and pass the bad odds to Pokerstars, and if I have a premium hand I reject the insurance. If more players are doing that, Pokerstars will lose a tone of money unless they tweak the algorithm and then it's not worth playing anymore for anyone.

Not quite. If you buy insurance, you only get the equity of your hand at the time of calling. Buying insurance is not a get-out-of-jail card. So if you buy insurance when your equity is 10%, then you get 10% of the pot less commission. You actually already ate the bad odds at the time of calling.

And remember, even if you have 80% equity in a hand preflop, you can still easily lose your whole stack on the runout of the cards too. And if you buy insurance at 80%, then you’ll never win 100% of the pot less rake because insurance is actually costing you 20% of the pot + commission + rake.

I don’t think there is really a way you can game the system to “beat” Stars with this feature. All it does is help prevent some people from being sent into tilt as a result of a bad run out of cards. If you already have good tilt management and a good understanding of odds, then I think you shouldn’t pay to use the feature.

That’s where I’m landing with this anyway. If I know I’m vulnerable to tilt, then I would probably pay for the insurance.

Hi the All! I think this feature "All In Cash Out" is not very good for the online poker,
and main for the players, because reduce responsibility, appear opportunity less to work
above your skill... This how a cushion under ass, and poker how a game starting to remind
casino! First time I saw similar feature on site PokerOK: may be they are the first created
and put this feature... Therefore, based on above, can wish only Good Luck!

1% tax!
I see this just as another chance for them to make money! People just think about it. Sad!

Originally Posted by German629

Hi the All! I think this feature "All In Cash Out" is not very good for the online poker,
and main for the players, because reduce responsibility, appear opportunity less to work
above your skill... This how a cushion under ass, and poker how a game starting to remind
casino! First time I saw similar feature on site PokerOK: may be they are the first created
and put this feature... Therefore, based on above, can wish only Good Luck!

I've said this in a prior comment -- it does not affect responsibilty taking whatsoever. What it does do is for you to request to be paid in accordance to your hand's equity at the time of the call, regardless of how the rest of the hand unfolds. You cannot purchase insurance after the river card is dealt because your hand's equity is already determined before you purchase insurance.

If you call (or someone calls you) all-in and your hand ends up having only 10% equity once the opponent flips over his/her cards, you will only get paid 10% of the pot less 1% for the insurance fee. If you are idiotic to call all-in with a 72 against a nit who has gone all-in with AA, then insurance is not your get-out-of-jail card.

There is little or no correlation between this feature and skill. What it does do is give PStars another source of income from those who are not able to handle bat beats. Assuming that all of the cards are dealt at random, then in the long haul, PStars will break even in all of the insurance purchased, but will collect mightily on the insurance fee of 1% per pot of the hand dealt.

The more I am engaged in this discussion, the more I am seeing this as just silliness and another way for Stars to make money off of their players and I will not be purchasing insurance again unless I've had a series of bad beats and I'm vulnerable to tilt if I get another one. I'd rather save the money and work on controlling tilt.

This opportunity is something amazing. I used it many times at Cash tables. When i saw it first time, i was confused, but than i realized what is this and i love it. Thumbs up for PokerStars.

hi hi
i sometimes wish they would just leave poker alone as it is

Is the calculation on pt4 changed?

I noticed that if we have taken the insurance, pt4 wouldn't have counted it.

Originally Posted by POKER123456789

Is the calculation on pt4 changed?

I noticed that if we have taken the insurance, pt4 wouldn't have counted it.

No. So if you use the cash-out option, PT4 will not track your actual results correctly. However if you consistently always use it, you can just look at your all-in adjusted C instead, which will then be identical to the actual C barring the 1% commission.

Originally Posted by nameless1537

I don’t think there is really a way you can game the system to “beat” Stars with this feature.

Actually there is, and this might also be why, they have limited it to 10NL or lower, so that they dont risk getting taken for a significant amount of money, before they catch the cheaters.

All, you need to do, is to be two players sharing information about hole cards. Lets say for instance, that I get it all in preflop with AK, and my opponent flip over QQ. My buddy now tell me, that he folded A2, so I know, one of my outs is dead, and therefore I cash out. Whereas if he folded T4 or even better Q4, I let it run.

Now I am not recommending to do this. Its cheating, and if discovered, your account will be banned, and all funds confiscated. But it is possible and not even difficult at all.

it makes me sick when i see 2-3 players go all-in.. see someone slightly ahead and decides to cash-out.. and the one that was behind cashed out.. but wins cause he riverred it and stars keeps all the cash! .. So gross

Originally Posted by Santiman

it makes me sick when i see 2-3 players go all-in.. see someone slightly ahead and decides to cash-out.. and the one that was behind cashed out.. but wins cause he riverred it and stars keeps all the cash! .. So gross

If both players cashed out, then the whole pot was already rewarded less 1% commission. So I dont really understand, what is gross about that situation?

Originally Posted by fundiver199

Actually there is, and this might also be why, they have limited it to 10NL or lower, so that they dont risk getting taken for a significant amount of money, before they catch the cheaters.

All, you need to do, is to be two players sharing information about hole cards. Lets say for instance, that I get it all in preflop with AK, and my opponent flip over QQ. My buddy now tell me, that he folded A2, so I know, one of my outs is dead, and therefore I cash out. Whereas if he folded T4 or even better Q4, I let it run.

Now I am not recommending to do this. Its cheating, and if discovered, your account will be banned, and all funds confiscated. But it is possible and not even difficult at all.

Another way would be 'if' both players who knew each other were to raise & gii (w say QQ vs AK)... both could cash out. But how often would they be able to do this before Stars caught on? (I have no clue and actually just thought of this right this second after reading your post prior).

I've used cashout occasionally... idk.. just felt like it (ie. today in a 3-way allin on flop). My PT4 shows me losing 150bb's in that hand but I actually won 60bb's .. huh??
I read on PT4 forum (just now as I did a google search on the topic) and it said a fix would be in the next update (that was back in Oct. or Nov. 2019). I guess it hasn't happened yet.

Seems confusing, and is a losing proposition in the long run. Just another way for PS to get an additional rake since the normal rake is capped.

I like it. The number of times I get screwed in micro stakes when someone hits flush or runner runner I tend to use it all the time if it leaves me in profit or minimises my loss when I'm behind.

Run it twice I can't stand, and I have that option disabled,

Don’t like the gimmick myself,you went in on the hand should be whatever the outcome is

I like the cash out option. I dont understand why i see alot of people cash out when they have the odds of winning then they lose and extra rake to PS. Im not sure if i saw correctly but i thought one person cashed out more than he started the hand with ? Maybe im mistaken. But other than that its cool. If i know im beat im taking my tiny bit back.

I was wondering how much this option affects the gameplay in itself. F.e. playing flush-draws in bigger pots makes more sense now and should be +ev. What i mean is in situation when you got a flush draw on the turn in a 3bet pot you can commit by check/raising or shoving almost everytime and the outcome is :either your opponent folds and you get the pot, if he calls you still got decent equity which you can cash-out variance free. I don't really know how profitable or non-ev that play would be, so i am opened for suggestions and discussion.