I love it when I have a set and the other guy is on a flush draw and I hear three players say "I had a flush draw, EYE had a flush draw!!! So did I!" well I guess I'll run it twice now since I know 11 of the clubs are out of the deck including those numbskulls hands, my opponent, the 2 on the board, and the 1 club I have.

that's some advanced tactics right there

I didn't say everyone takes forever, but you have people who want to beg to RiT and people who want to see cards, then you often have to split the pot which takes more time...

I'm hardly a degen. with that said i've had a lot of people i play with think i won't RIT because it can affects someone's decision to call or fold when that isn't the case at all. I just hate running it twice for about 10 other reasons.

i think for a lot of players it's probably a smart idea to RIT bc their bankrolls are a joke for the stakes they play or they can't emotionally handle swings.

the math is still the same
it's just if they're telling the truth you're now an even bigger favorite

I think it's good if other people are running it twice because it means they might be playing too big.

I think it's good to always run it once because you want to always lean on people with your superior bankroll.

it's better when they want to but can't bc a one timer is in the hand.
it speeds the game up and tilts those mofos.

wanted to add

if you're gonna be a nit and run it twice at least tip the dealer well even if you chop. you waste a few minutes of their time and the tables time with this nonsense so throw them an extra few bucks.

Lol wtf, the dealers are paid for their job. Whether you RIT or not they'll still need to do their job: dealing the next hand. It's not like if you RIO then they can get home any sooner.

Completely missing the point.... when you run it twice you get in less hands per hour, thus less tips per hour for the dealer, he's saying you should compensate that by tipping on chops.

I think it all depends on how high you are playing, and how much is it in the pot. I personally do like running it twice, but all players are different.

This misses the point. Say you're dealing and a big pot develops. If you RIO, someone wins a big pot making it more likely you get a big tip and a near certainty you get at least a small tip. If you RIT, there may be a chop, which means there's no "winner" of the hand. If that's the case, you're definitely not getting a big tip (no one tips a redbird when they chop), and there's some chance you get two small tips, some chance you get one small tips and some chance that neither player tips you. RIT and surrounding discussion also takes longer, so fewer hands/hour and fewer tips. Clearly worse for the dealer.

You seem like the type of person who doesn't tip their waiter/waitress because "they're paid for their job" too

As to the OPs question. I don't do it because I consider it mostly a waste of time. If other players do it , however, I STFU and let it go because it keeps them happy and likely staying at the table as often weaker players.

Your logic here is just bad. Rit does not impact your long term ev. Only impacts the variance getting too the long term.

Its not just "bad", its flat out wrong lmfao. dude must be trolling

I think all he is really saying is "it is harder for the underdog to hit twice"... so he doesn't mind running it twice when ahead since getting scooped is unlikely, but runs it once when behind since scooping it twice as the underdog is hard, so may as well go for the glory of binking it once.

It's kind of a strange risk philosophy, but yeah if he was using "favorable" to mean +EV then of course that is nonsense.

For anyone who doesn't see why it is the same EV, think about what would happen with all in of a pair vs a flush draw (no overcards) on the turn.

There are 44 unknown cards left and for simplicity let's say the game is heads-up and the dealer isn't burning cards between streets. So the flush draw has 9/44 outs.

If you run it once, there is a 9/44 chance the flush wins the full pot. So EV is (20.45%*1)+(79.55%*0) = 20.45%

What if you run it 44 times? The flush will win 9 times and the pair will win 35 times and there is a 100% chance that the flush will get 20.45% of the pot with the chop. That's basically an equity chop and removes all variance.

Running it twice is just a subset of that extreme "running it 44 times" scenario.

There's a (9/45)*(8/44) or 3.8% chance the flush hits both rivers. There's a (9/45)*(35/44) or 16.65% chance the flush wins the first river and loses the second, but order doesn't really matter so there's another 16.65% chance the flush loses the first river but wins the second. Finally there's a (35/44)*(34*43) or 62.90% chance the flush misses both times.

So the flush draw has a 37.1% chance of winning at least half of the pot, an "improvement" over the 20.45% chance of winning it all when running it once. Variance is lower because they will get stacked less frequently, but they also only get to scoop the pot 3.8% of the time vs 20.45% of the time if they run it once.

But the equity is (3.8%*1)+(33.3%*0.5)+(62.90%*0) = 20.45% again

I know that's probably obvious to most but seeing the math of "why" it is EV neutral might help.

It's not that strange when you think about it. If your bet is EV-, you don't want to reach the long term, so variance helps you defer the inevitable.

He said " This will allow me favorable results." Sounds like an ev+ claim to me.

I sense your tongue is jammed so far into your cheek it is tickling your ear drum.

A "favorable result" might be a player leaving or having to rebuy or a player not having to leave or rebuy.

You should realize that he dealer burning or not burning cards is inconsequential to your calculation

Maybe you would sense something different if you knew the difference between EV and CE.


Of course it sounds like that to you, you don't know any better.

Reducing variance while keeping EV constant is another way of being favorable, as is reducing variance while reducing EV in some limited circumstances (specifically, if CE goes up).

You've mentioned this twice now in this thread. In all the casinos I've played in around the country, I have never once encountered anyone wanting to do such a thing. In fact, I've never even heard of anyone suggesting that someone would want to see their opponent's cards first until you brought it up in this thread.

Most likely because it's a completely ridiculous concept.

Definitely, I just said that to set up the mechanics of running it 44 times with a real deck.

I kinda dislike RIT just because I end up second-guessing it if it goes against me.