RIT is the same EV as RIO, and you can't use math to show otherwise. RIT only reduces your win-rate by reducing hands per hour.

----

I imagine that this casino wouldn't let you run it more than twice for the promo, but if it did deciding how many times you should run would be pretty complicated, since the EV of each extra run is less than the one before because there's a chance you've already hit your hand once, and there are so many variables contributing to the EV of the high hand which are hard to measure.

False

Math isn’t subjective

Okay, then show the math that supports your position, or just use the search function to locate one of the thousands of threads that show that the EV of RIT == RIO.

obviously not always the same when the cost of running it again changes and the payout does not.

No need to search. Show me just 1 example of getting in ahead that RIT works. Unless you get in bad more often then good, it doesn’t work.

Get paid vs over pay a draw.

I completely agree if presented with a draw to jackpot, then pay the $2

Of course. In this thread's case the EV of RIT is -$2 (shared between the players based on their equity) compared to RIO without jackpot considerations.

What do you mean "works?" Using the standard procedure, the EV of RIT is the same as RIO regardless of how much equity you have. It is only different here because the house charges to RIT and gives you a second chance at the promotion, which is non-standard.

I don't need to give an example. What I said applies to any all-in situation under the standard RIT procedure, so how about AA vs KK all-in pre? You're the one who came in here claiming that the math backs you up, yet you can't show that math, and you are the one challenging common knowledge that RIO EV != RIT EV.

Yes your EV remains the same for both runs. However your odds of winning the ENTIRE pot are reduced. Regardless of hands (unless one opponent drawing dead.)

So running it twice you expect to win a lower amount, but also lose everything less often. Reduced variance. Fine.

Reduced variance is fine, but when you add the time it takes to RIT (chatter, negotiation, dealer, chops), it is hard to overcome this lowered expectation in a live session. You spend your entire session playing every non all-in scenario at a higher stakes than you do in your RIT all-in hands.

Thus, I think your win rate will be higher if you ran it once when ahead.

In the long-run, this has ZERO effect on your win rate. You're not thinking about EV on the proper scale and letting variance affect your judgement here.

You are correct that RIT slows the game down, so if you are a winning player then doing this will lower your $/hr win rate... but only because of fewer hand/hr being played, and nothing to due with the reduced variance.

Of course this is all just for standard situations, and the $2 charge changes everything.

The amount of time/hands played taken to justify that is ridiculous.

You can pretend winning every week doesn’t matter because you eventually catch up, but reality is the pro with most hours plays maybe/at best 2400 hands a week. Me, I play maybe 800 hands a year live. I’ll embrace getting my money in good once.

There are also reasons to fold AA pre in tournaments

Your line about tournaments is right, but that's completely different from cash games. Don't shift the goalposts.

Since you're refusing to provide any math to support your assertion, I'll try some. Let's take a hand where you're an 80% favorite to win a $100 pot:

RIO
80% of the time you'll win $100
20% of the time you'll win $0

RIT
64% of the time you'll win $100
32% of the time you'll win $50
4% of the time you'll win $0

Your assertion is that in the RIT scenario your win rate will be lower than the RIO one. Please explain that.

64% + 36% + 4%. Hmmmm

You got me. Hard to argue with that.

Oh FFS you know I meant 32% (which I just fixed). But good job using a technicality to weasel out of having to support your position. "He made a typo! Case dismissed!". You are completely disingenuous.

Just to throw my logical wrench into this ...

1) EV is not the same in RIT ... there are less card(s) available to the second Board. This is pretty easy math. You can say that it's somewhat insignificant, but it's there.

2) 'Technically' when you RIT you have decided to play two hands for 50% of the chips. No one here will convince me that RIT takes longer than two complete hands, even if it's a chop in the blinds.

3) Would you rather win $80 96% of the time (long term average RIT) or $100 80% of the time (long term RIO)? (Did I do something wrong here?) (.64x100 + .32x50 + .04x0 = 80)

4) Is there a value we can place on chips gained or lost from our stack going into the next hand ... assuming we can't add on. (Even though adding on affects our stats as well.) This is a tough one since we don't know if we were already the big stack and/or if our stack size will affect a random Player's decision process. It certainly does affect our ability to win more or less chips, but is there a 'value' we can place on the difference between plus/minus 100 or =50 long term? Probably not, but you can't double what's not in your stack in the next hand.

Always an interesting thread with RIT ... did anyone answer if the $2 goes to promo only or is split between rake and promo? GL

That’s the argument you hear all the time when it comes to RIT. And also a pretty good example when to say “oh, that makes perfect sense now!” while sitting at the table. Instead of tapping the glass.

"1) EV is not the same in RIT ... there are less card(s) available to the second Board. This is pretty easy math. You can say that it's somewhat insignificant, but it's there."

Actually each board has the same EV at that time, since the cards are unknown in both cases. Unknown cards don't affect the EV. Think about it. Does the EV of a hand depend on how many players were dealt in and folded? Because that makes less cards available in the deck to be dealt to the board.

"3) Would you rather win $80 96% of the time (long term average RIT) or $100 80% of the time (long term RIO)?"

$80 96% of the time is wrong, it should be 100%. But you've highlighted the point brown and I are making, which is that in the long run it doesn't matter! The only thing it affects is short-term variance.

OMG, how can people experienced on this board still make this error?

No, the EV does not change when you RIT.

Take a damned stats class!

... see #3 above ... $80 in both cases ...

... sorry for the knowledge leveling suggested in #1 ... just an experienced poster's attempt at getting two other posters off center from their babble by tossing in a 4th decimal comment. (I should've included a 'wink') GL

I really don't know what you're trying to say any more.

Your #1 is 100% wrong. Entirely inaccurate. At 1 or 4 or 10 or 1000 decimals.

#2 is...correct I guess, but completely irrelevant to the argument. Has anyone argued that RIT takes more time than two complete hands?

#3 is, again, totally wrong. It is $80 in EV whether you RIO or RIT. (As I think maybe you're finally agreeing with above.)

#4 is potentially interesting in a qualitative way. If you feel like you have an advantage over the table when things are deeper, then you want to get a deeper stack as quickly as possible. So RIO gives you a chance to do that, and if you lose you can always rebuy up to the max. RIT makes it more likely that both you and your opponent end up less deep. So (including the rebuy) your average stack size at the beginning of the next hand is highest if you RIO. Makes sense, though I would say this is a pretty minor effect.

Though then this all gets undermined because you include the phrase "assuming we can't add on", which makes me say I have no idea what your point is again.

1) Your EV is the same for both run-outs ... before any more cards come out. But once cards are exposed and you know that they can't show up on the next Board then it changes. It has zero factor long term since we make our decision to RIT before the deck changes.

If you hit a one-outer on the first Board, it's not going to show up again. EV is based on the (number of cards) in the deck, once you eliminate cards it should change. When we RIT we aren't allowed to change our mind after the first run-out, so this change is irrelevant to the discussion, other than to throw a curve out there.

If you hold 99 and a 9 is exposed PF your EV changes for the rest of the hand. Luckily it has happened before you make any further decisions.

2) Pretty sure they've been spouting about RIT being a waste of (everyone's) time (on the clock). "Let's move onto the next hand (so we can win more chips)." One of the things you can't typically control in variance is the size of the pot. When you RIT, you are essentially playing two hands for the same size pot with the same EV. Nothing hurts more than getting your AA cracked for $400 and then winning $80 with them the next time around in basically the same spot.

3) Dead horse .. $80 long term EV both ways as shown

4) "assuming we can't add on" refers to when we lose the hand but our stack is still above table stakes, and thus ... we can't add on. You already saw this with your 'max' comment.

Thanks for putting up with me ... GL

Your hand: AA
My hand: 55

Board: AA55

We decide to RIT. How does your equity change?

It seems like OP answered his own question: the best policy is to run it once unless you have a good chance at a high hand that will likely hold up. So OESFD on the flop is almost certainly good enough, and it just takes a bit of math and multiplying by the high hand bonus amount to determine if other high hand draws are good enough. If I’m not going for a high hand then why would I want to pay extra money in rake - the variance reduction isn’t worth it for me at least.

Now the only other issue to navigate is the people who want everyone to be consistent on whether you run it twice. And also letting opponents in the hand draw to a high hand if that’s what they are going for. I would probably generally say something like “I would prefer to run it once unless you have a really good reason to run it twice” and hope they pick up the hint. Given that I’ve seen people in South Florida selectively limp in and check it down instead of chopping the blinds with “high hand” starting hands I think most of them will pick up on what you’re getting at.

You wake up in the wrong side of the bed? Little cranky.

No weasel here.

You win less in the short term with RIT.

You’re trying to present odds on a single hand. Win rate has zero to do with odds of your single hand example. How many times do you go all-in as 80% favorite per session? Given that number, how many sessions would you have to play for the reduced variance to balance out? Would your opponent have folded their crappy 20% hand if they knew you only ran once?

Btw if you are looking to reduce variance as an 80% favorite you may want to stick to correcting posts and avoid actually playing.

This is patently false. It depends on where your money generally comes from.

If you make more money on FE and/or when stacks are deep, RIO.

If you make more money getting fish to gamble with you and overpay for draws because "he'll let me RIT, and I might at least win one of them," RIT.

Also patently false. Your EV is exactly the freaking same, FFS.