No all-in protection

[paul1]

I happen to love playing at Interpoker and Paradise Poker. But even though I have DSL, once in awhile I have been disconnected during a hand. These two poker rooms both have done away with their all-in protection. So when this happens, it doesn't matter that you have the nuts in a jammed up pot. You're screwed. This is quite frustrating when it happens.

I can't think of any other rooms that have completely done away with all-in protection. I can understand that cheaters and angle-shooters abuse the all-in protection. But isn't there a better way to handle this situation? Perhaps you could only use it once and then have to sit out for 48 hours. That would suck, but it would sure be better than losing a big pot to a disconnect.

The thing is, I'm not going to quit playing at either of these rooms. I like these places. Of course, Paradise's software is a lot better than Cryptologic's. Speaking of which, I wonder if Crypto plans on a major upgrade in the foreseeable future. They could certainly improve on it.

I haven't read much (or any) complaining on bulletin boards about the lack of all-in protection at these two sites. Am I all alone?

[pokeraddict]

I completely understand not allowing all in for NL or PL but I agree finding a way to limit all ins is the best solution and not allowing people who abuse it to have any at all. The issue is so many people complained about it that they did away with it. I would imagine this will become more the norm. Another issue I cant stand is if you time out it normally folds you instead of checking. This is especially irritating if you are the button at the river and had the winner and you get folded when noone bet.

[paul1]

I guess you're right about NL and PL. That makes sense. I only play fixed limit, though.

I guess it is just part of the package now. And like I said, I'm still going to play there, because I do like the sites. And I have a feeling you're right that it may become the norm. Although I never read why Paradise did it, I just assumed they were getting tired of dealing with all-in "issues". But am I correct, Poker Addict, in that these are the only two sites that have done away with it entirely?

I can tell you one thing, though. I wouldn't think of doing Paradise or Crypto on a dial-up connection. Why invite headache?

On the other point, do you think Crypto has any plans to upgrade their software soon? It certainly has its flaws. lol

[chalupa]

I am a passionate proponent of getting rid of all-in "protection".

Keep track of your play for a few months, and record how many times allin protection would have saved you (part of) the pot, vs how many times someone took a suspicious free-ride on you.

I think you will find that you are paying for too high a price for that "protection". It is like paying $200 in insurance premiums for your $100 car.

The problem is that honest players have disconnections happen to them at random times. And, most of the time, you have junk and would have folded anyway (assuming you're a decent player).

The cheater, on the other hand, gets to specifically choose the optimal time to cheat... i.e. take a freeride on a flushdraw when he knows he's currently behind... go allin on his KK when there's an ace on board and he's not sure it's still good, etc.

I have experienced FAR more ill than good from allin protection during the course of a couple years play.

The most egregious was a multitable tournament on Party Poker (before they got rid of allin protection for tournaments) where a guy disconnected after making a big raise at a final table. I reraised him allin with a higher pocket pair, and without disconnect protection he would have almost certainly called and busted out.

As it was, I eventually busted him out 3rd, but he potentially cost me 1st place due to my reduced chip count. More importantly, there were 6 or 7 other players who busted out before him who would have all placed one position higher. Given that this was a major tournament, he stole literally THOUSANDS of dollars from the other players.

I reported him to Party and I believe he had his allin protection removed (he had some suspicious behavior in the past, including another disconnect in the same tourney), but... that's cold comfort to those who got screwed to the tune of thousands of dollars.

Even in the case where someone LEGITIMATELY disconnects, because they have a bad connection, that is STILL unfair. Why should someone get a free-ride on me because they have a bad connection? They should get a better connection, or live with the higher risk.

Really the only way to truly have "fair" allin protection is to make it a part of the game -- i.e. you get two allin protections per day that you can use as you wish. Stick a "free ride" button right on the screen.

But... bluffing and making someone pay to chase are essential elements of poker. Without that, it ain't poker.

So I say, get rid of allin "protection" altogether. Put the responsibility for a good connection where it belongs -- on the player.

[nafanny29]

Chalupa very well put indeed. I wholeheartedly agree

[paul1]

I am a passionate proponent of getting rid of all-in "protection".

This was REALLY a good post. There is much to it that I never even thought about before. I like the comment about the $200 insurance on a $100 car. I guess there could be (and probably is) a science to executing strategic all-ins.

Of course, the times when it has cost me a big pot stands out in my mind more clearly than the times I have disconnected on a rag. But one that does stick out in my mind was once I was playing stud and started with hidden Kings. My opponent caught AA on 4th and 5th Street. Well, I'm ready to muck, and all of a sudden HE mucks! lol Needless to say, I did not give him his money back.

Like I said, your post was really good and provided a lot to think about. I mentioned perhaps one would be allowed one all-in and then have to wait 48 hours for another one. Do you think there is any worth to that idea? Or would the angle-shooters still make an art out of THAT?

Well, I think you have persuaded me to think differently. Not that the industry gives a damn what I think anyway. But really, I rarely get disconnects on DSL anyway.

Thanks for your great response.

[chalupa]

one all-in and then have to wait 48 hours for another one ... would the angle-shooters still make an art out of THAT?

No question in my mind they would.

In some ways, such a policy might be even worse, because it could lull the poker room into a sense of complacency thinking they had solved the problem.

If all the poker rooms did that and you had 10 different accounts, you could sign-in on one account, play until you get in a sticky situation, disconnect for the free-ride, and on to the next account.

With 10 accounts that's 10 allins per 48 hours, or 5 per day. If you play 5 hours per day, that's one per hour.

There is no doubt in my mind that if I took one free-ride per hour it would increase my hourly take significantly.

In the high-limit holdem games in particular, there is often a lot of loose/aggressive play where a freeride would be a fantastic edge.

Many times you simply have to pay off some of these aggressive players even if you think you may be beaten, otherwise they will run over you. If you're playing $50/$100 and can save a couple big bets on a hand each hour by calling them down for free... that's some serious cash.

[paul1]

Chalupa, again, very good post. I think you have convinced me.

So anyway, as far as I know, Paradise and Crypto are the only ones with NO all-in protection. Are there anymore that you know of? (I'm talking fixed-limit, not NL, PL, or tourney)

Hey Chalupa, sounds like you've been around the block. Could you EVER have imagined 20 years ago what we would be seeing now? Is online poker the best thing since sliced bread or what?!

[chalupa]

Party Poker (and associated skins like Empire, Intertops) have some fixed limit tables designated as "No disconnect protection", though when I just checked now it seems to be only for their 50c tables. I thought they had more in the past... but I don't really play fixed-limit there so I'm not sure.

Speaking of Party... I think what they are now doing in tourneys is a decent compromise though it could use some tweaking. Basically they give a player longer to reconnect based on how much is at stake in the pot.

You could take that further and allow a long (3 minutes or something) time to reconnect, allowed once per 48 hours or something. That would give you time to reconnect or switch to a backup Internet connection.

Or you could even have an emergency phone number to call if you get disconnected... a live operator or computer generated voice could walk you through the hand. Make it a 900# and it would pay for itself.

By the way, I think anyone that plays tourneys online should have a backup connection. Getting disconnected in a cash game sucks, but it's just one hand. Getting to the final table of a Party Poker $1 Million tourney and having your ISP go down... well, your backup connection will look real cheap about then.

I have a cable modem as my main connection and a phone dialup connection through a completely separate Internet provider.

[winbig]

Speaking of Party... I think what they are now doing in tourneys is a decent compromise though it could use some tweaking. Basically they give a player longer to reconnect based on how much is at stake in the pot.

You could take that further and allow a long (3 minutes or something) time to reconnect, allowed once per 48 hours or something. That would give you time to reconnect or switch to a backup Internet connection.

I believe (at least for tourney's) that paradisepoker has the BEST wait time for when you get disconnected. Especially during a final table.