well that's ****ing awesome

This is exactly wrong IMO. You want the fish to stay in the table as long as possible, because you're getting some amount of BB from him every hand. When you run it once, you have 50% chance to bust him out, while when you run it twice, you have only 25% chance to bust him out. Since you want him to stay at the table, you should obviously run it twice, IMO.

You could make a cash transfer to the fish, that way he might stay even longer as well.

You could go to random people in the street, force them at gunpoint to play on pokerstars and lose to you. Massive +EV.

But really, the point is that running it once doesn't change your EV, and increases the probability that the fish stays at the table longer. Transferring money to him does change your EV.

dude, why would i want him to play longer if he gives me his money right away?

just read through this thread, and i have to say i find i quite ridicolous to use words like unethical to not run it twice to avoid putting your fellow regs on tilt...+
the pure form of poker is not to run it twice, but to accept the possibilty to lose money due to unlucky circumstances. if you can´t deal with that, you should probably not play imo.

you could call it a nice gesture or whatever from PS to give everybody the option to RIT or not, but in the end you can´t blame people if they don´t do it.

fwiw, i don´t really care whether someone has turned it on or off, i usually have turned it off in 4card, but turned it on in 5card plo (i admit i´m getting old).

If you have 100% equity in the hand, then by all means, feel free to run it once.

It you have 99% equity or less, then he's not "giving you his money": he has some chance to be left with some of his money.Would you prefer that he gets left with his current amount of money 20% of the time, or with two times his current amount of money 10% of the time?

sorry but your just way off there imo.
my point is: say you sit at a table with 1 fish and 4 regs.
the fish has $100 in his stack. if he looses $100 he is either:

1) reloading
in that case it doesnt really matter if you rio or rit, cause the ev will be the same and you'll get another chance to get into +ev situations against the fish again.

2) leaving (cause he might play with his whole roll e.g.)
in that case you increase your chances that you (and not one of the 4 other regs) take his money. if you rit and say you split the pot, you might not even get the chance to get another +ev sd against the fish, because one of the other regs already took his money in between.

another big thing to consider is that you can play 1/2 with a smaller roll with rit on, than with rit off. I'm considering starting to rio when i first enter a table, to increase my chances of getting deep, where my edge presumably is larger, then rit when i'm 200bb+ deep

I always RIO. If you can't embrace variance, then tough luck. I think it certainly gives added value against regs that seem to think RIT is obligatory for all the regs, since some of them tend to tilt really hard when I only RIO.

The discussion about ethics and regs is complete and utter BS. Poker is a game of variance, PLO ranks at the top of that list, finding edges is the way to succeed. Not some William Wallace brotherhood kind of sh**.

PLO bankroll: <150BI everyone should have RIT
>150BI you can turn it off if you beat the game of course