You're under no obligation to answer him while the hand is still going on and if a player is wasting time asking people questions about non-hand activities while the action is on him, he's not paying attention to the hand anyway.

After the hand is over I would say blatantly that the nuts is on the board and tell him to get his head out of his ass. The caveat is, if the player was really good for the game, I would be nicer in my explanation.

Dealing 1/2, dummy in UTG+1 ($170 eff) open limps J5s, another limper, guy in CO raises to 15, everyone folds except dummy and the other limper who call

Flop ($48) T83 all spades (dummy's suit), dummy donk bets 20, limper folds, CO raises to 50, dummy puts on a bad acting performance before raising all-in, CO can't call fast enough and tables AQ of spades

Dummy loses and curses his bad luck, saying how he "never wins with this dealer" and how he should know better and just take a break whenever I come to the table- please do so I don't have to listen to your incessant whining every time. He then proceeds to not take a break, instead rebuying for 100, folding his cards aggressively a few times, and limping another hand or two before the push comes through. Never once does he consider "hmm, maybe I shouldn't be playing hands like J5, especially from early position". But it was sooooooted

This is pretty much a daily occurrence. I had a similar which I thought was funny. A guy limps TT and checks down a T5423 runout. The other guy tables 44 and TT complains about how bad he always runs. I can't imagine why this poor guy never gets to win big pots with his monsters.

No.

"scooping" is equal to winning half the pot twice the time of "scooping"

1/3 at the Bellagio last week. Live one comes to the table (Indian guy). Somehow makes his stack grow from 200 to 1300 in a few hours calling everything. Table was limping every hand to make a hand against him. In one hand I was UTG with 92dd, flop comes 962hh. I check, short stack goes in for 100 (with 77), live one calls, slightly bigger stack goes all in with K9, I go all-in for 480 with my 92, live one calls 380 more with 85o for a gutshot.

Didn't hit it fortunately. K9 wins the main pot with rivered K, I won side pot.

He eventually cashed out about $50.

Most absurd poker "thinking" you have heard in a live game?

the limping in with 92 i assume

Putting (Indian guy) in parentheses as if it's supposed to mean something.

Going to Bellagio to play 1/3 seems mildly absurd as well

It actually can be shown RIT is mathematically same EV wise.
Let x be number of cards that give you win.
Let y be number of cards possible
RIO EV: x/y
RIT EV:
Win both: x/y*0.5 + (x-1)/(y-1)*0.5.
WL or LW (Win 1 of 2): x*(y-x)/(y*(y-1)) * 0.5. Two cases so *2.
Add these up and it's equal to x/y.

The proof for when a board precludes other boards (think wasted outs... like making quads instead of just boats or getting 2 hearts instead of 1) is more complicated but it ends up showing RIT is the same EV as RIO.

I always assumed this was the case but the proof for 2+ card case was more interesting than I expected due to having to account for card removal.

Math is not necessary. A simple logical proof exists. All of the unknown cards have identical distributions. Therefore any group of the same number of cards has the same distribution, and each player has the same amount of equity for any group of unknown cards. Since each of n runs has the same equity and each run is worth pot/n*equity, the sum of the runs equals our equity in the original pot.

The RIT != RIO fallacy is that different unknown cards are actually different, but they are not.

unfortunately logic isn't a common thing at live poker tables. granted, even showing the math proof might not help

Not a math wiz here but the 'true' (real world) equity of the additional run-out(s) changes because we now have 1, 2 or 5 known cards at that point in time that affects what can (or can't) happen going forward.

Isn't EV a 'point in time' calculation, like at the time the chips go in? Most people would find it 'logically' hard to believe that if they are set under set and hit quads on the first Board that they have the same equity in additional run-outs. Or a PF AA v AKs with the first Board being 5 cards of the 'needed' suit.

Since variance is 'stack' related, it makes perfect sense that RIT has an affect on their potential stack size at the end of the hand. The formulas may show otherwise, but on the felt Players know the difference between a blank and a suck-out card.

The real issue that I see is trying to explain that variance and equity/EV are two different things. GL

They don't have the same equity in additional runouts, they have the same equity before there are any runouts.

If we get in my AA vs your KK preflop, you have roughly 19% equity. If we say "run it three times", you have the same 19% equity in the pot. If on the first runout, you hit two kings, you don't have 19% equity in the 2nd and 3rd runs, because now more cards are unknown. Of course, the flipside is if no kings come, you have MORE than 19% equity in the 2nd and 3rd runs.

But at the time you decide to run it once, 3 times or a dozen, none of those choices changes your equity.

Isn't this an illusion based on the fact that the cards are dealt one after the other. There's nothing natural about the cards being put out like this, it's just convention because it's fun and pretty.

What if the dealer just put out all the necessary cards face down and flipped all of them at the same time. Has something changed?

To the bold: exactly. Of course if we are looking at each point immediately prior to each run, then each run does not have the same EV as all other runs because what cards came out on the prior run(s) changed the known information for the next run. But if we look at the point before we do any runs, then any number of runs we choose to do will have the same aggregate EV as any other number of runs that we could choose to do. At the point in time when you have to choose how many times to run it EV wise it does not matter how many times you choose. But after we choose how many runs to do, if you then calculate the EV of each run individually (each time taking into account new information regarding dead cards learned from prior runs), then each run will likely have a different EV than all other runs.

Friend's dad plays once a week with other friends for 20 years. Says a flush draw is 14% to hit if all in on the flop. 2 suit in hand 2 on flop. Says it's that cause the better player in his home game says so. Showed him simple math and simple examples of why it isn't that and he's still skeptical.

2 players get in a raising war with some knucklehead in the middle who just keeps calling in between. Eventually they're allin preflop for like 1k each and he's in there too for about 800. After showdown it's AK vs AQ and knucklehead has 46s. Says it was good to get it in with them because "they were going high so I had to go low" referring to card value/sharing. He lost.

I understand in math it doesn't matter. I just don't see how the loss on the one scooping event is made up for. Do you gain two chops by rit then? How? Sorry I'm dumb I just don't get it.

A 'scoop' is winning the whole pot, no matter how many times you run it. In H/L (split pot) games a Player can scoop the low and chop the high.

A Player can't scoop if they only have one out and run it more than once.

Not sure about your 'made up for' comment ...

There is no 'gain' in RIT, only potential reduced variance (stack size change). GL

Let's say we are playing HUNL, and we get allin on the turn, my 99 vs your 77 on K974. Pot is $100.

8 cards are known, 44 unknown. If we run it once, you will win 1/44 times, which is 2.27% of the time. Your equity in the pot is $2.27. So if I take $97.73 and you take $2.27, that is exactly fair. Running it once will mean I almost always end with $100 and you with $0, and 2.27% of the time, I end with $0 and you end with $100.

If we run it twice, you can't scoop anymore. But now, you will chop 5.55% of the time, by winning one river and not the other. So instead of 97% I get $100 and you get $0, now 95% I get $100 and you get $0, and 5% we each get $50.

If we run it ten times, now the best you can have at the end of the hand is $10, but you will have that $10 almost a quarter of the time, as opposed to RIO where the best you can have is $100, but will only have that 2.27% of the time.

Your average stack after the hand, no matter how many times we run the river, is $2.27.

Hold'em Simulation ?
263,184,768 trials (Exhaustive)
Hand Equity Wins Ties
Ak 42.58% 108,540,252 7,414,038
AQ 22.05% 54,510,738 7,414,038
4s6s 35.37% 92,719,740 1,099,236


theory checks out

Against 2 JJ+, AQ+ ranged players, his equity is closer to 26%. His logic only works if he is 100% certain that he is facing to big aces. Kind of hard to make that read.

Are you saying a guy who would put his $800 stack in pre with a 6-high is not the kind of person who can make a soul read against two villains also putting their stacks in?

(Actually I think the AQ guy is terrible too.)

I played some live $1/$2 at a casino and about an hour into my session this gentleman sits down with $100 wearing a big gold chain, gold grill and tattoos on his hands & neck (he was wearing long sleeves otherwise I'm sure I would have seen more tattoos). He limp folds the first 2 hands and then the 3rd hand he losses $65 in a hand he shouldn't have been in and after the hand he says to the guy to his right "man, this is a lot different than prison poker". Dude was clearly not joking. He lost the rest of his stack 3-4 hands later and asked where the ATM is before never returning.

^^hilarious