Always asking/agreeing on 3 rivers deal? - Live Low-stakes No Limit Poker Forum

Two Plus Two Forums Poker Strategy Live No-Limit Hold’em Cash

Always asking/agreeing on 3 rivers deal?

Post Reply Subscribe

...

03-08-2015 , 10:26 PM

IgorC

newbie

Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 49

Is it +EV to always ask to run it 3 times on the river? I know for sure that it helps with the variance. My city has a fairly small player pool and everyone kinda know each other so the game is friendly most of the time, and the deals are accepted most of the times.

Quote

03-08-2015 , 11:52 PM

Garick

Oberbiergenießer

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 26,939

It is neither +EV or -EV. The EV is exactly the same. The variance is reduced. Personally, I never ask, as I have a sufficient bankroll for the games I play, but always accept if asked, because it makes no difference to the EV, but it makes me look like a nice guy and I get more calls of all-ins because the Vs know they can ask for multiple chances to suck out on me. Since I am betting for value much more often than as a bluff, I prefer the extra action to the extra FE and "what a dick" responses of never agreeing.

Agreeing sometimes and not others is just silly.

Quote

03-09-2015 , 12:00 AM

David Nicoson

enthusiast

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 95

In a mathematical sense, the EV difference for the hand is zero because it's fair to all the players and poker is a zero sum game. If you're asking about the bigger picture, I'd probably say it's bad in a small stakes no-limit game with a small player pool because it causes the below-average players to have no winning sessions.

Quote

03-09-2015 , 01:06 AM

IgorC

newbie

Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garick

Yeah, I see the point. I always accept when asked, especially since the game is filled with old people and I my self being one of the youngest at the table most of the time try to be really friendly, to add to that i'm not properly rolled so I need to reduce variance as much as I can.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Nicoson

I don't know, since the player base is REALLY BAD, and is used to loosing for years and years now I think the deal is fine because they like it even if they only take 1/3 of the pot and see the deal as a "courtesy"

Quote

03-09-2015 , 09:22 AM

bobman0330

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 24,234

Always say no because the possibility of someone winning 1/3 of the pot is ridiculous and should be fought on principle.

Quote

03-09-2015 , 09:45 AM

David Nicoson

enthusiast

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 95

Quote:

Originally Posted by IgorC

It's certainly "fine". If the other player wants to run in multiple times, then I wouldn't refuse for social reasons. There's a cost, though, in time. If you're winning, time is money. Does the winner of 1/3 of the pot tip the dealer? Does the winner of 2/3 of the pot tip less or the same as the winner of the full pot?

And yeah, if you're under-rolled for the game, do it to reduce your variance. That's the best reason. I'm not sure why you didn't lead with that reason.

Quote

Post Reply Subscribe

...