Fair play. I take all of that on board. It does annoy me when someone rejects a run it twice that I have offered (even if I’m a 95% favourite I still get miffed by a rejection). My use of the word “fair” was incorrect and I accept that. Kelvis I don’t believe you play to gamble. I believe you play to make correct ev choices to the best of your ability. But I do agree that the gamblers should be enticed to stay in the game via running it once style selections and I know that running it Monte Carlo style would benefit the skill focused players over the gamblers and poker wouldn’t be profitable without the degenerates so all in all it’s all a bit murky really but in a nutshell my view is:

Running it 3 times keeps the results more honest to long term avgs and expectations while running it once leans more into the “cos gambol” side of the spectrum. As a student of the game it makes sense to lean in the former side of the spectrum. With all this blow back I guess I’m wrong though.

If everyone played to make the best decisions then poker would be completely dead. If gamblers believed it was a game of skill primarily then poker would be dead. Now against a reg I will always deny what he wants to do because **** him, against a rec I will mostly accept anything he wants. If he wants to gamble, fine. If he wants to run it twice, fine. Against short stackers I will never run it twice because again, **** them. That whole thing can be seen as not being nice, but we're all there to take each others money and running it twice is a privilege, not a right and people are never entitled to it.

Haha. True that. Good point. Alright alright it’s only bad etiquette against poker nerd enthusiasts. Everyone else get f...ed.

I'm still waiting to find out how anyone is entitled to their equity in a pot before showdown.

No worries. It’s a concept called Sklandsky dollars. It’s pretty well explained here. It’s the money that you’d generate mathematically longterm in a spot

http://www.thepokerbank.com/strategy...ansky-dollars/

That doesn't mean you're entitled to anything. It's a theoretical concept.

Entitled is my short cut single word I use instead of typing out “the money you’d be entitled to gain in a mathematical long term avg expected result when simulated in a Monte Carlo fashion”. Hope that helps

Words have accepted meanings. I hope that helps.

Also, why should I assist you with that?

If someone called 2-1 with a 2% chance and the favourite offered him 3 runs and the underdog rejects then my feeling toward that is it’s bad etiquette. It’s as though the fav is offering the underdog a more realistic opportunity to get his equity back like an out stretched helping hand toward someone dangling off a cliff and the dangling guy slaps the helping hand out of his face.

Do you see my point of view here?

No. It may or may not be a smart move to turn down that offer, but there's nothing about etiquette, good or bad, that goes into it.

I don’t. But maybe we can agree on something else:

You feel offended if somebody turns down your offer to RIT. That’s OK, you’re entitled to your feelings. (Here, the word “entitled” fits)

But not everything that offends you is a breach of etiquette. If you feel offended by people wearing Hawaii shirts in a professional setting, you probably don’t like casual Friday. That’s alright, you don’t have to like everything. But it’s not a breach of etiquette.

So let’s just add “refusing to run it twice” to the list of things that Cfoye dislikes, but not to the list of things that are a breach of poker etiquette.

Essence of the issue

If you wanna shoot the moon then you’re probably a bad player and being a bad player also offends me so add that one to my list also

If the rules of the game are such that you don't get your equity unless the cards and an opponent decide to give you it, then you're not entitled to your equity.

In the long run you'll (probably) get your equity regardless, but even then you're still not entitled to it because a game involving randomness doesn't entitle anyone to anything. The universe doesn't care about fairness and Sklansky Dollars don't buy you a damn thing.

If you play online cash games or STT at the same stakes for a decent amount of time, there’s a good chance you might get close to actually getting that equity. For everyone else that long run is basically a pipe dream.

Extreme example are live big field tournaments. There are a lot of people who play smallish stake tournaments once or twice a month at their local card room and then one day they go for the big one and play the WSOP ME. Their lifetime poker results will be heavily impacted by their performance in that one single tournament.

If you have a proper bankroll, go once or turn in your man-card IMHO.

I started another thread about this before seeing this, more about the extra $2 you have to pay to run it twice where I play... in this case, it DOES matter, but, as I suspected, the substance of that conversation is so complex that I actually dont think that anyone IN THE WORLD has actually done substantial work regarding when or when not to run it twice - with considerations being made for jackpots/additional jackpot rake etc. The casino's big dogs would be able to tell you it is a win for them, but the breakdown of proper decisions at various points for players Im certain has just NEVER been properly done. It wouldnt be worth the effort for anyone to do that.

Another point brought up elsewhere which I do agree with...

It is selfish and rude to run it twice, when there are no jackpots at stake, you are essentially just making everyone else wait longer because you are not comfortable with the stakes you bought in for.