i wish it would go away too as it's terrible for the game for a lot of reasons, but i'd say at least 90 percent of the time it's clear what people have agreed to.

Hmm ... as much as i understand your point from a dealer's view, as a player i can only say that it's very good for the game, multiple reasons:

1. fun factor, makes the game more entertaining, thereby attracting non-regs
2. reduces variance (nothing else), which means keeps people longer in the game
3. as a matter of fact, the 1-2/5 PLO game at Aria in Las Vegas is probably the longest running plo in the world, for several reasons, dealing it twice being one of them. (variance reduction as mentioned, also they keep it small (max buy in 500), also no straddle)
if you make it bigger, increase variance, people go broke faster, and at one point you don't have enough people to start a game.

so, in the end, keeping players happy should be in your interest as a dealer too, because it helps make your job more longlasting.
besides, happy people tip more i guess, no?

i agree though that not every (even very small) pot should be run twice, costs time, but that can easily be solved by having a rule saying minium 100BB or whatever in the pot

First of all, sorry you had a bad experience and I totally agree with your sentiment.

As a player I hate for other people to run it 3 times because it always takes ages. Dealers are used to chopping up pots in halves but not in thirds. I’m sure some do a phenomenal job with that anyway but based on my personal experience a lot of times it results in the same kind of struggle that multiple side pots create.

Last couple times I’ve seen people run it 3 times I told myself to just stare down on my phone and not look up so nobody can tell from the look on my face that I can’t deal with people who are bad at math.

I'm surprised at the amount of discussion on this topic. Since RIO/RIT is becoming more common, perhaps it's time for the TDA (yes, I know this is cash games, not tournaments) to address the issue.

TDA wouldn't touch this with a 100 foot pole.

As with any 'option' there's going to be mixed, and by default misunderstood, 'stances' on each side of the discussion .. with a lot of floaters.

While the number of Players who actually understand variance is increasing, there's also Players who think they have outsmarted the conditions of variance .. or just want to use RIT as another game tool at the table.

Obviously if a room wants to put the 'proper' steps and order of those steps to facilitate RIT then perhaps over time (2-4 months) a lot of the bickering would be reduced.

Ahead, behind, big or small pot, against this guy but not that guy, never, always, only multi-way, only if there's enough dead money in there to chop up are among a list of conditions that Players consider when making a RIT decision.

Until all Players focus on the only tangible reason for RIT, reducing variance, there will always be dust surrounding it. GL

As long as they come up with a rule that says, "This is never allowed", I' all for it.

What is so sad that it is funny is in SFla several rooms (all?) allow RIT in 1-2NLHE with no min pot size. Literally have seen someone trying to convince someone else to RIT, full board for a massive $75 pot. I literally LOL. I initially thought the guy was kidding when he asked.

+1

I remember Aria used to actually have a minimum ( i think 1000 ) for running it twice about 7-8 years ago. This was in 5/5 plo as at the time they didn't allow it in raked games.

In our room it used to be only 5/10 nlh and 5/5plo and higher could run it twice. Then they opened it to 1/2 nlh and 2/2 plo. But the catch was to RIT in the small games you had to also pay double rake. That eliminated the enthusiasm for RIT in the small games.

Yes, I have been advocating extra rake for RIT in our charity rooms .. $1 extra per Board.

One room has just expanded their RIT rules, allowing for 3+ Players to embark on the process .. still no extra rake. "It's the Player's money, let them decide" is what I heard. While I somewhat agree with that sentiment, you're still trying to produce revenue during a fixed time frame .. for a charity whom without there would be no game (if they feel it's not worth their time and effort). GL