Cash game, in a room that allows players to discuss what they have and expose cards while deciding what to do while heads up.

Player A was all in on a previous street.
Player B bets.

Can player C show a card to B and talk about the hand before acting? Why or why not?

Does player C's decision (and player B's subsequent action) still affect player A's equity? If so, then no.

No. From a rules perspective, having one player all in does not mean that it is now heads up between two other players, it is a multi-way pot still, so table talk and exposing cards should not be allowed.

The underlying reason is that, as Spewing indicates, it is possible that B and C's table talk will adversely affect A's equity. Since there is no way to know for sure a priori, it cannot be permitted.

For the same reason, players shouldn’t be allowed to run it twice with another player all-in on a previous street.

How would that affect the third player's equity?

Because some players base their decision to call all-in on their opponents willingness to run it twice.

Example: A is all-in on the flop. B ships on the turn. C is on his last buy-in for the night and wants to call but also doesn’t want to go home. If C only calls against a player that is willing to RIT, letting them do it affects A’s equity.

Right, but the actual decision to run it twice or not doesn't seem like it would affect him. I guess the overall situation could change it, but only if everyone is very clear on the RIT rules in the casino. Otherwise C could call because he thinks it may be run twice. It's asking a lot to assume everyone will be well informed of a fairly obscure rule.

No. It can affect the outcome for player A.

It 100% will affect him. RIT should never be an option unless truly heads up.

Do you mean the same thing that Madlex said, or you think the actual decision made to RIT will affect his EV? I don't see how it could, as it doesn't even effect the EV of the other two players.

Running it twice may incentivize a call from a player that might fold. This is an extra hand that the all-in player has to play against with no additional money being added to the pot of money he's entitled to.

It will affect him and it will affect his equity when he plays the hand are two different things.

I might decide I won't play flush draws when the there is a full moon, but the full moon doesn't affect my equity so no cares if it factors into my decision making.

I'm saying he shouldn't be given the opportunity to decide to RIT. Having the option to RIT may change whether or not someone is willing to make a call. That is not fair to the all in player that doesn't have that option.

I deal with both sides of this. There are rooms that don't allow any RIT if there is a short stack all-in. I've actually made decisions taking this into consideration since RIT runs rampant in the game and I don't really like to RIT. I may call knowing that I realistically wont win the pot twice and I'll take my chances on the one Board to win the full pot.

On the flip side, some rooms do allow RIT with side pots. The strangest spot with that is when the short stack only wants one Board and then the side pot Players want to run it twice ... IF the shorty wins the first Board the main is his, but the side pots still see a second Board and can chop the rest depending on the outcome.

As far as the thread is concerned .. There should be no discussion between side pot Players until they are also all-in AND even then I would discourage the showing of any cards that may influence a RIT decision with a third party involved (unless of course, he is also willing to talk RIT). GL

Thanks everyone! Funny how an entire table full of 2/5+ regs looked at me like I had a second head when I said they couldn't expose cards and talk about the hand with a 3rd player all in.

Sounds like you found a good game in a badly run room

If the short stack runs it once and the two big stacks decide to run it twice (and this is all allowed by the room), then the big stacks are running it twice ONLY for the side pot. The winner of the first board will take the main pot.

Otherwise this can mess up the equities - for example:
short stack has top set
big stack 1 has middle set
big stack 2 has flush draw
In the main pot, big stack 1 should be drawing to 1 out. He is not entitled to half the main pot if he holds on the second board while the flush comes on the first board.

To be fair, I would have looked at you a little funny too if you said "couldn't," which makes it sound like there's a specific rule against it but you'd be okay with it if there weren't.

I would nod my head in agreement if you said "shouldn't" instead, indicating it's a bad idea whether or not it's legal.

This is wrong; Player C should not be allowed to win the main pot based off the strength of his hand. Instead, whoever wins the main pot should be based on Player A's hand versus Player B's. If Player B wins the main pot, the main pot will be split between him and Player C based on the 2 boards. If Player A beats Player B, Player A takes down the main pot even if Player A can't beat Player C. The only reason Player C is in the hand is because of the run-it-twice deal; he never would have remained in the hand if it was only run once. To allow Player C a chance at the pot based off the strength of his hand is unfair to Player A, facing off against an additional hand with no addition to the amount of money he could win.

In this example, if Player A and Player B had the same hand, the main pot would be chopped in half, half of which would go to Player A and the other half split between B and C based on the two boards run out.

Isn’t the dealer supposed to tell players what they are allowed to do and what they aren’t allowed to do? I don’t want the dealer to tell players what he thinks is a good or a bad idea but the (house) rules.

???

The first board determines the winner of the main pot between all three players. The first board also determines the winner of the first half of the side pot between players B and C. The second board determines the winner of the second half of the side pot between players B and C.

We have absolutely no idea if player C would be in the pot without the option to RIT. Not that it should matter anyway. If the room has a rule that allows to run it twice even if a third all-in player objects, the standard rules should apply no matter if the option to RIT influenced the decision of one player.

I apologized if I have missed the the OP was the dealer rather than a player.

I assumed he was a player - if he was the dealer, then yes, he should use can / can't.

Forget the holdings .. let's get to showdown. Player A (short stack) only wants to run it once, which covers the Main Pot. But B & C agree to run the whole thing twice if one of them wins the first board.

1) Player A wins the first board, thus 100% of the main while B & C showdown for 50% of the side on each board.

2) Player B or C wins the first board, thus eliminating A, and wins 50% of both main and side. Now the other 50% of both pots is up for grabs on the 2nd board. This is treated as if Player A's chips are dead money when he loses the first board and thus combines the main and side into one pot which gets split on each board.

In the example if Big Stack #1 hits quads on the first board and BS2 hits a flush on the 2nd then they split both the main and side pots while the top set gets left out.

Obviously each room can put their own twist on this. The 'nicest' change to the RIT rule lately is that all parties must table their hands before the boards are run out to speed up the process. GL

Your proposed method of doing this changes the equities involved, where usually running it twice does not change the equities. Big stack 2 with the flush draw in my example loses roughly 10% equity by running it twice for the main pot, because if he hits on board 1, he still has to hit again on board 2 to get the full main pot, whereas if he misses on board 1 he is guaranteed to get 0% of the main pot. It's giving the middle set a freeroll at half the pot in this case.

Full math:

if you only run it once- just one time it no matter what.

the other example you mentioned often turns into a huge argument bc people don't understand the main pot is once no matter what.

for example 3 way all in

10k main
2 k side

players a and b want twice, c is only in for the main and wants once

so players and and b either think that if c doesnt win the first run they're going twice for everything which isn't the case.

ie player a wins the first run,b wins the second
player a wins the 10k main, players a and b chop the 2k side.


I love parx rule where people can't run 3 way pots twice.

I'll only say this once more ... in some rooms I play in (mid west) ...

1) It is the case
2) And they chop the main

There is no wrong and right here, there is only room rules apply. GL

PS ... I'm not making any of my remarks here with reference to any equities that any of the players may, only the method of which the rooms operate.

PSS ... There should be no discussions/showing of cards when there is a short stack all-in. I believe this is where this thread started. Players in the side should treat it as multi-way until one of them is also all-in. GL GL

Well at the very least it helps to be aware of this scenario, so that you can make an informed decision and protect yourself if you're at a room that (IMO incorrectly) allows players to run it twice for the main pot in this situation. If your hand is drawing, then either insist on only running it twice for the side pot, or just run it once.