Ideas based on probability theory can be very counter-intuitive at times. What is happening when the "escape hatch" occurs is that in a sense the hand wasn't played but is instead eliminated from the game. This won't change a player's expectation (positive or negative) but it does reduce the standard deviation. And when the standard deviation is reduced the balance of luck and skill is affected.

In this example, the losing recreational player who will occasionally win the pot, will often have his win thrown out. And when this happens, his probability of having a winning session has gone down, and from the view of the poker game itself (as well as the expert players) he needs to have these occasional wins to encourage him to come back. And running it more than once works against this.

Mason

RIT is a hot topic for sure and probably has a few Threads already on this site .. but not a bad place for it here either.

I have no real statistical data to fall back on .. but I tend to 'not' RIT unless the pot is well above averaged size for the current table.

I want to eliminate luck .. I want folds. I don't want the gamblers stuffing it in all the time looking to chop up the dead chips. I realize this is counter to pretty much every conversation about long term poker. But I do know one thing .. there's no variance when your opponents fold.

I was checking on a Player's status for the last seat in a game and they texted back that they weren't going to show up unless I agreed to RIT every hand, not just the big pots. I didn't respond and they showed up anyway! GL


PS .. and IMO RIT is awesome for the rake/house .. often extending sessions as Players continually push smaller amounts of chips around the table instead of busting.

Is it really? If it helps insure that the recreational player doesn't have that occasional large win which encourages him to keep playing, I suspect that in the long run the house gets less rake.

Mason

It could be looked at in different ways .. depending on the market and Player Pool characteristics

1) A Rec comes to the casino with X in funds .. if they lose those funds, they leave. If they keep chopping up pots they end up staying longer, thus game runs longer, thus more rake. Specifically for PLO in our area where games/lists are typically short you need Players to remain at the table to continue rake collection.

2) IMO a Rec has X in funds each week/month no matter what, so the large win doesn't necessarily impact their overall poker budget .. just how much comes out of the left pocket into the right pocket for the next poker session. As long as there's funds in the right pocket then they will be playing. Yes, for some Recs a large win will 'create' additional sessions and/or longer sessions.

3) IMO a chop 'is' considered a win for some Recs even though they only increase their stack by 5-15%

4) This 'effect' is 2x-3x in the Home Games since the Player Pool is typically much smaller .. and games will break exactly 3 min after the Whale's car exits the property. GL

Where I play, running it twice means the house collects double the rake. The rooms are thrilled to run it twice.

If it was like that in my room, I would never RIT.

No poker room should be allowed to get away with this.

Mason

They should probably take triple the rake to discourage idiots from wasting time.

There's one room in our area that takes 2x rake .. another an extra $2. I've been telling room management to take $1 extra ever since this started, some say no way others say yes.

It's time consuming and should be taxed in the normal non-linear rake structure v the fixed rake of Time Pay rake. (We have a room that charges $22/hour time .. the list is always long!) GL

It is time consuming, and if you're a winning player it shouldn't change your EV except that being able to play less hands will change your EV.

Mason