Agree with this. Especially because if you double up the whale you can still get the money back later.

I didn't say regs get more tilted than recreational players at losing, I just meant that when in a hand with the weaker players I 100% let them pick, if was vs a pro player then I might run once for some reasons (I might feel like they'd steam if they lost, I might be losing myself and just want to gamble a bit w/e reason) but would only make the decision myself vs a reg player.

Most of the time though people want to run twice, and that's fine with me - being nice innit and EV or no EV it's nice to be nice.

Tipping waitresses and dealers is nice

Saying 'nice hand' and meaning it when you get beat is nice

Agreeing to run it twice? If it is nice, it's less nice than smiling at random people in the street.

In home games, running it twice will maximize the chance that the game will keep running if players don't like to play 3-4 handed (like many people). In that case, you should always RIT to keep the game going. On the other hand, if the main fish will even play you HU, then it doesn't matter.

What does nice mean?

Doing something, because it's what someone else wants - that's quite nice isn't it?

My point was that yeah, it's nice, but on the scale of nice things, it's pretty close to meaningless imo.

Or you're forgetting the fact that the guy is a total whale and if you lose, it won't take him long to dump your money to someone else either...so you choose. The only reason I'd run it twice vs such a whale is if he has a bunch of dimes in his back pocket and is ready to rebuy, if thats all he's got, then I might RIT

it's definitely trivial to prove and has been done many many times on 2+2. i'm surprised sklansky entertained "a lengthy debate".

Do it then or at least link me

i'm bad with mathematical proofs but its pretty easy to understand that board #1 and board #2 come from the exact same distribution and hence the equity cannot change.

The proof is straightforward as I remember but I don't want to type it onmy phone. Here's a quick one. On the turn in Omaha there are 40 cards unseen. If you run it 40 times your ev will not change and your variance will be zero.

I don't think so. What about two following scenario:

1) Set over set.
Hero is holding middle set vs top set. AI on the flop, assume no other redraws than quads. So hero has 1 out giving few % of equity (in holdem would be little over 4%, in PLO due some backdoor possibilities usually more). If I run it multiple time for the rest of the deck - i'm not getting my expected value. It is possible my out is already dead (other hand, before flop), or might be burned with 50% chance.

2) drawing to flush/straight
Hero is holding combo draw, stacking vs top set. This results with more outs, so we are not so concerned about the fact that some cards are burned. I can still imagine there might be multiple sick runouts, where we hit our flush/straight outs but it is always with board pairing, and despite having almost 50% equity stacking off on the flop, we results with 0 after running it for the rest of the deck.

Please, tell me if my arguments are correct or I made some stupid mistakes in above.

The variance is zero because there's only one card to come and you're running every card remaining in the deck. There's no burn cards. The result is the same every time.

My policy now is to always run it once. I play poker for a living, 2/5 up to 10/20 (sometimes smaller when waiting for a game, obv). I do not gamble or get a thrill from gambling (no table games, PLO flips, sports betting, fantasy football, etc.).

I am properly rolled for this size game so losing a bunch of 60/40's doesn't hurt as bad. Also, I don't tilt as much as many other players. I do try to enforce a stop loss to help prevent the tilt, also.

Basically, the biggest tangible reasons I have for running it once are speed of play and the ability to get deep vs other loose gamblers on a heater.

The biggest intagible reasons are reciprocal tilt and the fear factor (since changing my policy a few months ago, I have won many more pots uncontested and my opponents are much less likely to realize their equity).

Assume set over set all in on the turn in PLO (only 1 out with 1 card to come). 1k pot. Is it more profitable to RIO, RIT, or no difference?

RIO:
1/40 or 2.5% chance to hit
Equity: $1000/40 = $25


RIT:
First Run - 1/40 or 2.5% chance to hit
Equity - $500/40 = $12.5

Second Run - 1/39 or ~2.56% chance to hit
Equity - $500/39 = ~$12.82


In summary you gain 0.06% equity running it twice in this scenario. A TRUE run-it-twice would involve shuffling back in the river from the first board in order for there to be no equity difference.

On the flip side, if you have set < set and on the first run you river quads, you have no hope of scooping the pot because your case out is in play.

So it evens out.

your equity will be 500/40=$12.5 for the first run and 39*500/(40*39)=$12.5 for the second (it takes into account that you missed your 1 outer on the first run)

The easiest way to understand it is to calculate villains equity and then deduct ours
probability of vilain scooping :39*38/(40*39)=38/40
probability he gets half pot : 2/40
His EV is then 38/40*1000+2/40*500=$975
ours being then $25

haha. A+ troll

Lol guys all the EV fiends in poker who refuse to give the casino a 0.1% edge would never casually RIT if it changed the equity

This thread is AIDS

no

Have to agree with this.

The cost of possibly having to move down stakes is bigger then the gain of some unspecified 'tiltEV' imo. Also I do belive people are immune to tilt from singular pots, but not so sure if they are so calm when they have those 100bi downswings..

What if your outs have already been folded?

then your variance is still zero, you just win less often