My local casino allows up to the entire board to be run twice at 2/5 as long as it's heads up, and there is at least $300 in the pot.

At two of the three casinos I play at most often in the Miami area, you can RIT even at 1/2NL and I believe the pot only has to contain $50 or $60. The rooms rake an additional $1 when RIT is requested.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. Just because you agree to run it twice in a particular hand certainly doesn't mean you need to run it twice every time someone asks for the rest of your poker life. But I don't think that's the question at hand.

The key distinguishing factor which is asked about in the OP is "Would you see somebody as lacking integrity if they were to change the number of boards you run based on the situation and their own perceived equity in the pot?"

In this case, the player perceives it as favorable to the underdog to run it twice. So when they are asking to run business when behind, they are pretty much asking a courtesy from the other player in the hand. Asking to RIT every time you're behind, and refusing to RIT every time you're ahead, is bad form and only emphasizes the selfish aspects of poker.

This is essentially my view on it. It's pretty douchy and selfish to ask for business every single time you perceive RIT to your situational advantage, but then when the positions are reversed, refuse the same courtesy to the same player because of the perception of your own naked self-interest.

At some point, poker cannot only be about EV or perceived EV. There are other aspects to poker which, when lost sight of, deteriorate the game.

In that case, I would never RIT.

They should charge 25 bucks for this gutless time wasting nonsense.

Good stuff ... Another 'issue' is that at most places that do RIT the whole hand becomes BBJ ineligible ... and they still take the drop! GL

Sounds like that practice is screwing the other people at the table and should probably be illegal.

Agreed. If RIT voids the BBJ, then I don't think RIT should be allowed at all (assuming the BBJ pays a portion to the entire table). Everyone at the table pays into the BBJ and 2 players in a particular hand shouldn't have the authority to void the jackpot for players that aren't in the hand and who don't have a say in it.

But the two other players already have that power. They can fold their hands. The logical extension of your argument is that no player with a jackpot possible hand should be allowed to fold.

Are you sure about that? Not questioning the veracity of your statement, just curious. I've only done RIT in Miami, and in my experience the bonuses are still in play on the first board, and only excluded from the second run out.

Poster should have quoted Greenstein's reasoning:

If people know you as a tight and competent player, they may be less willing to play a big pot against you, knowing the money goes into a lockbox from which it is hard to get back. This could give you excellent fold equity, as opponents may release hands which have enough equity that they'd be willing to gamble with against other players and get the adrenaline rush of a big pot, knowing they can run it twice.

Thanks for that. It sounds like exactly what I described earlier though - Greenstein says that the reduction in variance is worth more to Hansen and Farha than it is to him, so he doesn't let them RIT. I'm not sure why the earlier poster claimed that it was something else.

Why would the poster say "that's not it" and then leave us to figure out wtf he's talking about lol.

I think the expectation is that any hand that sees showdown should be eligible for the jackpot.

Yes but you have no expectation that any hand will see showdown with the possible exception of a third player who calls the allin bet but folds to a bet on the sidepot

That is totally irrelevant to my arguement, as I'm sure you realize, as a RIT hand has still reached showdown.

The validity depends on how the regulations are listed, but I would imagine at least some state that when a hand goes to showdown, jackpot qualifications are checked. Having two players be allowed to disqualify a hand that sees showdown, to the benefit of only them, certainly goes against the spirit of the intention behind jackpots.

Out of all the casinos that I have been at that allow players to RIT, u get raked 1 extra dollar and the first board always qualifies for the jackpot in RIT pots.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

The original comment was about the power of two players to void a potential jackpot before showdown. They can do that by folding.

I was the one who made the original comment about the RIT nulling jackpot probably being against regulations, and I was talking about voiding it at showdown, not before showdown. No one before psandman mentioned anything about a jackpot being ruled out before showdown, and that is completely irrelevant to the situations talked about here. He was just going out of his way, as usual, to be an apologist for any ridiculous policies casinos might have.

No you didn't say it was against regulations. You said it screwed other players.

My first comment said it was probably illegal. Of course, I also said that it screwed the other players, which it would. But again, it is in no way analogous to players folding before showdown, which has always been a part of poker, and would have been anticipated when the jackpot regs were drafted. Your analogies are getting more and more ridiculous in each thread you post.

RIT happens before showdown, chillrob. Same with folding.

That doesn't really matter. When all but one player folds, there is no showdown. When RIT is used, there is still a showdown. If there is a showdown, the hand should be eligible for any jackpots, and I imagine it is, based on the wording of most regulations.

When I saw this thread, I was going to post that as you make your decision immediately, we can run once, twice, or until the deck runs out. But if you take more than a second to 'strategize' we're running it once.

However reading through this thread, if I was playing where they'd rake an extra dollar (or even a penny), or the jackpot wouldn't be good on the first board, I'd just run it once.

I'm not sure what I would do if jackpots would be nullified but, one wasn't possible given the cards held (and the board if there was one). Assuming that could be figured out quickly, I'd be willing to run it multiple times.

RIT is situational and generally a waste of time. I do however, sort of go with the general table vibe unless going counter seems to give me some type of edge.

AW