1-2 NL Holdem. 9 handed home game. 2 players get it All-In on the flop. about a $650 pot. Board is AA7. One turns over AK, the other turns over 77. For a brief moment everyone forgot where they were but business is routinely run in this game so there were last second calls to run it multi times. 77 asked AK if he wanted to run, AK did the pshhhh hands up in the air as if he was going to to ask for some sore of multi way but the dealer began dealing the turn. The dealer quickly tried to hide the card but it was exposed to one side of the table. I could not see it but I could tell from the people who did see it that it was a King (or Ace). 77 couldn't see the card. AK may or may not have seen it. He refused to run it twice at this point. 77 loses his **** screaming at him that he definitely would have run it twice because he "always" runs it twice. AK claimed he was debating between asking for 1 or 3 times and also claimed he didn't see the card. (Later he said he could tell it was a king from the reactions of others)

I took the side of AK here. I don't know how anyone could expect him to run it twice when no deal had been struck and he now already knows he won. Everyone else in the game took the side of 77, and AK was eventually shamed into chopping the pot with 77. I was astonished by this.

The players in this home game have some strange beliefs on multi runs. They seem to be under the impression the person ahead is doing the person behind "a favor" by running it twice, and that you're a jerk if you sometimes run it twice and other times don't. Is this a common misconception? I thought 77 was way way out of line here and I couldn't believe AK chopped.

Some other potentially biasing information, AK is kind of a rude ass, who never tips the house when he wins (no rake game, they have legit table comfy seats, music, and they cook some food for us) AK is also a mega fish., worst player in the game.

This is the casino forum, the home game forum might give you different advice specific to home games.

In home games, the rules are whatever the host says they are. Peer pressure can be a significant element of acceptable behavior and rulings. Players will sometimes give in on things to ensure they get invited back.

In a casino, as a floor there is going to be no simple rule about how to handle disputes about RIT because it is subject to player agreement, not a casino rule. plus there may be different flavors which also cause communication confusion (twice, three times, etc.).

As a floor in a casino, if I had to rule here I would say as soon as the dealer exposed the turn card to anyone absent an agreement on RIT, it became a RIO board, regardless of whether the card was a A, K, 7, or brick. So it hurt 77 and helped AK, but that's just the way it happened here, it could have easily gone the other way and now the roles are reversed. The fact that one player "changed their mind" doesn't matter, because there was no longer any chance or choice by either player to have it run twice once the dealer exposed the turn card.

As a total aside, I don't think there is a big stigma in most rooms about switching between RIO and RIT if you are ahead/behind (not the least of which because it doesn't change EV at all), rather unlike chopping/not chopping which most agree you have to pick one and stick with it generally to maintain the social contract, but I don't generally play in those games so maybe players who do will have different opinions.

Being rude and being a dick and not tiipping shouldn't affect rulings, but humans are humans, and it will come around to bite you in the ass at some point. On the other hand, being a fish will generally get you more flexibility. All part of the complex mental calculus at some level, even if unconscious bias.

Players didn’t agree to RIT before the turn was dealt, so there should be only one turn. They can still agree to run the river twice if they want to.

I guess my question was misinterpreted. Obviously the rules follow that AK shouldn't have to run it twice, and dinesh you're probably right this belonged in home game thread. My question is more, in a home game setting, is it the 'right thing to do' for AK to run it twice. The whole table acted as if he should have, I thought they were way out of line. The dude was bullied into flat out chopping the pot which is even more nuts than allowing a second runout. I would have said piss off in AK's spot.

“The right thing” in a home game is whatever the involved players want it to be.

If you get it in with AA vs KK preflop and the board runs out 2467K, the KK player can feel bad and ask the AA guy if they should run it a second time. And if the KK guy just wants to hand over $100 in chips to the AA guy and all other players are fine with that, that’s his prerogative.

If you play in an unregulated poker game, that’s basically no different than playing Uno with your kids. We don’t even know why everyone sided with the 77 guy. Maybe he’s the only dentist in town and getting on his bad side might literally hurt? Or he’s a big loser at the table and people want to keep him in the game? Or maybe nobody likes the AK guy and the only reason for him to agree to chop is that he fears that he won’t be invited again?

Wouldn't this be handled like a premature burn and turn. No matter what AK decided, the exposed card would be shuffled back into the deck and a new turn dealt?

I wouldn't think so, though I can see the argument of "the action wasn't complete." I just don't see the negotiations as "action."

Misconceptions about the EV of RIT abound, not just in home games, but also in casinos. I've seen arguments where one person said that RIT is better for you if you're behind and the other said it's better if you're ahead, and they were both very adamant. It's really hard to keep quiet and not give lessons when that **** is going on.

Seems pretty scummy to hem and haw about multiple runouts on the flop until he sees clear confirmation that he hit a 5 outer on a prematurely dealt turn.

Honestly I'd be pretty ashamed to be AK here, given his actions after the turn.

And if I were in this game, I'd be glad that there were fair-minded players at the game to protect it from people like AK and you.

As I said recently in another thread, this is one of the reasons I make it clear that I run it once, only once, every time. I'd rather avoid all the drama, the possible miscommunications, etc. I understand how running it twice reduces variance, and that is a good thing. But I hear stories like this all the time, while playing, and here on 2+2. It just seems worth it to add to my variance, and avoid a fight over a big pot. YMMV.

Cheers, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

lol... and me.. yeah ok pal.

So the hemming and hawwing is standard. Everytime someone asks how many times you wanna run it in these games it takes the other person 20 years to answer, it drives me nuts. The fact of the matter is AK had no opportunity to answer and the dealer dealt the turn without realizing they were discussing.

To me, once this turn gets dealt and AK sees it, running it twice discussion is over. If the card is good for AK, then AK should reject running it twice. If the card is bad for AK, then AK is not allowed to say "oh yeah run it 3 times". The info is out there, the negotiations end, it just shifts to default.

If I was in AK's position I would take the whole pot. If the card was 'bad' for me and my opponent tried to graciously allow me to run it multiple times I would also refuse and tell him he won it is what it is.

Running it twice should not be an expectation of either player, they should expect once.

This is my view on the matter. It feels odd to me anyone would disagree.

Not sure how the replier thinks I'm being scummy when my way keeps everyone's long term equity 100% fair

I know what you're saying, but realistically running it twice is a thing that keeps people happy in these games. What I've noticed in my home games is many of the players are either under-rolled are unwilling to play (1-2 stakes in this case) but think they have to because that's the minimum allowable in a casino I guess. 50c/$1 would be best, most of the players are not happy to flip for a $600 pot. I guess I'm not willing to be big meanie, I already agitate many of the players by winning more than losing.

Lol at equity being fair when one player gets to make a decision about multiple runouts after seeing that he drills a 5 outer on the first runout.

Dude I can't tell if you're a scummy player or not, but I do know that you are willing to back up a scummy player when he does a scummy thing.

Hence why the game needs to be protected from you.

Yw for clearing that up.

I think you're confused on what I'm saying. AK does not get to decide if he runs it twice or not based on what card comes out. What I'm saying is once the card comes out AK (and 77) should have any rights to request multiple run-outs forfeited. The point is we cannot know what AK would have decided therefor a runout of 1 card should always stand, whether that card is good or bad for him. There would be absolutely no advantage for AK too intentionally take too long to try and see the card, as no matter what it is he would be stuck with it.

Now if we obligate AK to run it twice because we "think he was going to", that creates some problems. What if the card had been bad for AK? Then 77 can complain AK waited to see what the turn would be and now wants multiple runouts because he saw the turn didn't help him.

If we allow this kind of thing AK will be bullied into making the lesser of 2 EV decisions for him based on what cards come out, essentially putting him at a disadvantage for seeing the card.

If the rules is, card is out, once it's out you cant run no matter what, then nobody gets long term screwed. This should be a default rule.


Calling me scummy is an ad hom and a silly one. If I was trying to cheat people I would not 'out' myself behind defending another scummy player when it's of no benefit to myself. I'm willing to discuss this with you if you have a counter to what I'm saying but keep the name calling out please.

I think this is another potential way to handle it, but the game would have to have an established rule that

"if running it 2 times discussions are going on, the players are guaranteed to have a right to finish their negotiations"

As it currently stands, in most games and casinos, or wherever 1 runout is the default, and it's not always asked for. I'm not sure if "oh I wad deciding whether I was gonna run it" should be a valid reason to shuffle the card back in. Now you open the door for people to try and claim that when they really weren't.

People do like 77 better than AK and I do think that was a factor in this. The home does a lot for us. They have a comfy area, nice table and chairs, and make food for us. It is customary to tip them when you win. AK does not do this and a lot of people know it. Furthermore most of the game is friendly with 77 and they have known him for a very long time. AK is also the worst player in the game, so I don't think people were siding with 77 because 77 is the game's biggest loser; AK is. 77 got very angry as if he was going to punch AK. Often I have noticed people have a bias towards siding with the angriest person.


I also understand your point that the rules are whatever everyone wants it to be. I guess that is an accepted risk when playing in a home game.

As a host, I'm immediately calling it a premature card, as was mentioned earlier. It gets shuffled back in and the players can go back to the RIT discussion. I would have no hesitation about this. AK was clearly thinking about RIT. If these discussions are common in this game, than a mild KITN to dealer for blowing his load too soon.

I allow and in fact personally always offer to RIT. My game, people usually buy in for 200BB but at least half the table has a 2 BI stop-loss. RIT keeps the game going without causing too much extra work. but I am an 'on top of it' host, and even when I'm not dealing, if I see an all-in for more than 100BB each, I immediately put my hand out to stop the action and ask the players if they want to RIT. So a less mild KITN to the host is also merited.

Finally, I may not call you scummy for siding with AK, but at the very least, backing AK in this spot goes against the ethos of a friendly home game. (Non-raked, host has a sweet set up and feeds your ungrateful butts, that's a friendly game to me.) I'd probably demote you from my A-list or even B-list of invitees, depending on how the conversation played out.

I'm still on the A list

Everyone is grateful and leaves the hosts money, except AK, who is a dick for that reason.

My problem here is since I know just running it once if no one had a chance to answer is fair, I never ever ever in a million years would expect, or even take if offered money from AK if I was in 77's shoes. So these misunderstandings will be a net loss for me, I guess I just have to avoid them.

And I would never side with AK in YOUR home game. What you described is a completely different scenario. If your game has an expectation that all players should have an opportunity for RIT then it is different form our game. While players often do it, we do not have it set in stone that the dealer is supposed to wait. Perhaps it's something we should consider doing in the future.

Lol bud I literally said I can't tell you if you're a scummy player.

And by your own retelling, AK lied about knowing the turn card benefitted him and then admitted his lie later in the night. You don't think he says "ya let's have multiple runouts" if he knows the turn card doesn't help him?

S c u m m y.

And you were there and now are here telling everyone how he didn't do anything wrong.

That's why the game needs to be protected from you.

Scummy or not, your judgment is not good.

That's why

By my own re-telling AK did not lie about seeing the card. I believe AK got the same information I did, he didn't see the card but could 'tell' by the reaction of another player what it was. This was what he said later on and I do believe him. The player who did see it was very obvious it was a game changing card. When the card was dealt he was in the middle of 'deciding'. What he claimed after was he was going to say "1 or 3 times", which a lot of people do for some odd reason. What typically happens in my games with the running it twice is stuff is a "what do you want to do" -fest, where each player says this back at each other over and over again. It seemed as if AK was going to do this, but is now stuck in the position of either deciding himself, or letting 77 decide when 77 may very well know what card is coming out too. Both options sucks. You have to give people some latitude for not knowing exactly what their own thoughts are and instantly how to process them. Within 15 seconds of this situation occurring 77 was already screaming at him and half the players arguing with each other about what to do. AK is a bit socially awkward/weird. I don't like that he doesn't tip at the games when he wins but I think he's possible he doesn't understand. I have intended to mention it to him in private if I get the opportunity.


Now one thing about my solution (barring running it twice if it's not agreed upon before the card flips) is that it is UN-MANIPULATEABLE. There is no arguing that. AK could get no possible advantage by waiting to answer because he would not be allowed to decide after regardless of what the run-out is. Your solution is 'kinder/nicer' in a home game setting, and I absolutely get where you're coming from believe me I do. But it is also long term less fair and more open to manipulation/ nicer people getting screwed more. I can understand you're point of view but if all you can take away from mine is, "I must have bad judgement" then it is you has bad judgement.

Oh sorry, what I meant to say is.. " I don't know if you have bad judgement or not".

So you can't come back at me saying I said something bad about you. I clearly stated I don't know if it's true or not

Bud, you're just like so many other people who post on this site and ask about a situation. People tell you how it is, and you can't admit that you aren't right so you just ignore or argue with everyone who disagrees with you.

Let's be clear:

The dealer revealed the turn card early by mistake. This happened before the players had even begun talking about multiple runs and well before either player wanted the turn dealt.

Everyone at the table knew that the exposed turn card was good for AK, whether he saw it or not. Everyone knew it. Including AK. We know this because he readily admits it to the table, but only later and only after he lies about it in the moment.

AK later admits that he knew the turn card was a great card for him. And with the knowledge that it was a great card, AK completely dismisses the idea of multiple runouts even though he was about to ask for them.

You literally spell out how scummy this behavior is right here. AK shouldn't know what the turn card is because it was dealt early. Once he knew the critical portion of the first run, he refused any further runouts. You back AK up on keeping the entire pot on a single runout because you think he'd be an idiot to try to be more fair or less scummy in how he handles things because that would cost him some ill-gotten equity.

He is scummy and you are also scummy, or, maybe you're merely a hapless fool whose judgment can't be trusted.

Every post you've made since the first one is just dissimulation or deception on your part, because you can't admit that you took the wrong side of the argument. EG, you continue to act as if AK seeing the card is somehow different than AK knowing the card massively benefits him, and you ignore the fact that AK lied in the moment about his knowledge of what the turn card was and how it benefitted him when he later admits that he knew immediately.

So you can decide for yourself. You're scummy or you're hapless, but I don't see much of a middle ground here. Unless you count hapless scum as a middle ground.

No. I've told you I see your point. My problem with you is your conclusions about me as a person based on nothing, AK as a person without considering his point of view (him not seeing the card and the fact that he may have only run once). ... and your complete inability to understand that forcing a one board run out is fair and unmanipulateable. You're impossible to deal with and combative for no reason. You expect to be able to call me scummy based on nothing and then get me to "admit I'm wrong" from your one dimensional explanation. Go piss off.

AK owes 77 nothing...it's that simple. Nothing had been agreed upon...the turn stands. It doesn't matter which of the players it benefits. If it had been a deuce, the turn stands no matter what. The card was not dealt prematurely...it was just dealt before the players wanted it dealt. Tough...deal with it and move on.

This is probably the way it should be handled most often in a home game. There was a discussion, then action is not completed, because it's a home game.

Our game is spread limit an dealer's choice. No big all-ins. No RIT.

Only played in a few games where it might have been a consideration, but honestly it's too much for most of the players to comprehend. They just want to move along and none of them want to be delayed if they aren't in the hand.

I'm surprised by all the comments, I would rule it premature dealt card. Let the players finish their discussion. I'm not sure why the point that one player never tips came up, got nothing to do with it.

What was done in previous situations ? I find it hard to believe that dealer regularly deals cards before both players clearly state weather they want to run it once or twice. If it regularly happens before than it is a poorly run game. The correct ruling should be a premature card, it goes back into the deck, get confirmation from players on how many times they want to run, shuffle and deal. After all the card may come back out again.