Hi guys,

what do u think about this sentence:

Everybody who plays PLO without run it twice option is likely to be a fish and players who plays with this option are likely to be regs.

Is this too easy of an thought? When yes: Why should someone not play with this option?

I play every day and I don't use it.

When I get it in as an underdog and suck out, I don't want someone who is a favourite to get a second chance. When I am the favourite and hold up the first time around, I don't want someone to get a second shot at sucking out on me.

If they beat me the first time, I just make some notes and move on. Its not the end of the world.

If someone who went from playing with it off, to playing with it on full time can show how much of a difference it made in regards to variance, I might be convinced to use it more.

**** that, I never use run it twice. Embrace the variance and let others know that you have no fear!!!!

i dont think so. plenty of regs who have it off and recreational players who have it on to make any generalization somewhat inconclusive

@DingusEgg: That run it twice lowers variance is no secret imo and is readable in every article i have read about it.

@Xptboy: The point that your opponents have to deal with it when you don`t use it is a true point. Maybe some people avoid calling in some spots because the know that i will be not run twice. But from another point of view: Some people might call spots where they are in disadvantage because the hope for running twice.

I think my conclusion is: For people with a smaller bankroll and newbies run it twice is a good choice. But confident regs and pros can have turned this option off because they don`t need it. So: Run it twice option doesn`t tell anything about if someone is a fish or a pro.

Thx for your opinions.

Personal preference

Depends on stakes. I would run it twice if I was a pro in high stakes just because those horrible downswings are not so bad. The upswings are nto as good either but at least it woudl give a fairer rep of my edge over my working year.

So I would say run it once has more fish on average. But a super shark at high stake pro level would probably run it once. So its like it starts with fish using it, then the small time pros use it, and then it goes back to the crushers who turn it off. Maybe.

Who the fk knows

OP: I do agree with what you´re saying. I only play very low stakes and I´ve never seen a recreational player who ran it twice. Once in a while, one of them gets excited when he sees other players run it twice and wants to know how to do that, but that´s about it. I only ran it twice vs regs/nits close enough to 100 % of the time so I just turned it off as a nice little "**** you" to them.

You're only focussing on negative variance.

As pointed out, the upswings are affected as well. From what I can tell, run it twice brings you closer to even, but affects your overall profitability both positively and negatively.

If you put yourself in good spots, you shouldn't need it.

In the end, its personal preference.

I'm sure a bunch of players have done it, but it would be a fun experiment to run a sample of X hands with it on and off and examine the results. Would have to have more markers than just profitability, as each cycle of X hands could be affected by a number of different elements.

Even the macho highest limit players run it twice. Will reduce ur fluctuations and encourage more action.

run it twice is a MASSIVE leak in your game if you play small stakes where the rake is so high. Everyone is already at a disadvantage playing in the over raked limits that using tools that even variance out is only +EV for Stars. Every time you get in a high equity edge and split the pot Stars pockets the rake and enjoys watching the players whittle away their roll via rake in future hands with the money that would have gone to one of the players adding to their roll.

I won't bother looking for the thread but someone once posted the % of money Stars expects to earn off players in 1/2 games and it was somewhere in the neighbourhood o 90%. I can only assume the smaller games with worse rake vs pot %'s would be higher.

FTP used to rake RIT pots and extra $1 and people still used it and I never understood why.

Obviously as you move up and rake is less of an issue then RIT become appealing by minimizing risk. In bigger games its safe to assume any reg 2/4+ is earning easily 500k+ VPP a year so their rewards to play and earn passive rakeback income is higher than the low stakers so they can ignore the idea that Stars will end up double dipping on rake in chopped RIT pots.

I myself agree with above poster....it's all about the rake at small stakes.

That said, I was just considering rit if only because of a downswing. And I think the only way to justify it is if (like myself) u r losing money but your EV is way on the plus side.

Still doubt I will use it, but can't help but think if I had been, would I be even right now? maybe not. Any thoughts? Any math?

Monkey math without thought for me would be something like this.

PLO 50 two stacks going in plus BB/SB for $100.75 pot

They RIT and chop $2 is taken from the pot in rake for a 1.98% removal of chips from the game

PLO 400 two stacks going in plus BB/SB for $806 pot

They RIT and chop $3 is taken from the pot in rake for a 0.37% removal of chips from the game.

PLO 1k two stacks going in plus BB/SB for a $2015 pot

They RIT and chop $3 is taken from the pot in rake for a 0.14% removal of chips from the game.

Guys at higher games can glady afford to chop pots and keep playing the fish as the rake won't empty accounts quickly. Every time you chop a pot while RIT at low stakes games its a huge killer to the amount of money available when weighed against all money in all accounts of people playing that limit. Stars LOVES it when people RIT and chop as both players continue playing and generating rake while they take the exact same piece of the pie as the pots where there's a clear winner.

This seems to be a valid point.

But stars doesn't take extra $ in rake for RIT like ftp did, correct? With the PL50 example you used, 2% of chips are getting removed from the game regardless of whether RIT is on or isn't, right?

If so, the chopped pots are at least partially compensated by the fact you will win less pots outright, so when you chop you pay half as much rake than if you won.

Rake is a huge consideration at small stakes, but unless they charge extra rake for RIT I think it is still mainly a variance threshold and psychological decision

It significantly reduces variance there's no disputing that. By exactly how much I have no idea, but I'm sure one of the math whizzes on here can give a good estimate. It effectively doubles your sample size in AI situation w/ cards left to come.

if you only have 2 outs is it dumb to run it 3 times?

I dont remember the source but i think i remember that run it twice reduces the variance to half. makes sense in my eyes. I think it was a galfond article.

About the rake: i didn`t thought about this. I "trusted" in the fact that Stars is not charging extra on it.

If i pay only the "normal" rake % for RIT (even if i do it 2 times) i don`t think that it is so bad. It`s like getting to times in the the spot. So why not?
Let me explain my point of view a bit more.

I get allin in one hand without run it twice. Then i play 12 hands and get in a similar pot all in again. But to get in this spot i have to pay 2x BB and SB anyway. This makes 3 BB anyway. Maybe my thought is stupid but i want to run as many allins with +ev. Assuming you are a +ev player than its better to run it twice because you lower variance. I see RIT as possibility to play automatically one hand more in allin situations and this makes me a good feeling.

One point i forgot: Isn`t it true that RIT lowers the risk of tilting. Very important for me.

Can we agree that RIT is finally a taste question? ;-)

every 3 months...

It's strange to see such a high-class player misunderstand RIT. It affects neither anyone's EV nor the amount of rake paid once the stacks went in (the times when FTP was taking double rake for DIT are gone).

What RIT does is that 1) it reduces the overall variance (by 20-30% if anyone RIT, less in practice because recs don't RIT), which is good for a reg as he can now move up with a 15-20% lower roll; 2) it alters the stack distribution - if regs RIT against each other, they'll be able to top up less often and hence will be shallower on average vs a deep rec. (If two 100 bb stacks clash and split, no one can bring extra money to the table; if one of them doubles up, the other can rebuy, so the total amount of money brought to the table increases and the game will become effectively deeper soon.)

Which factor is stronger - 1) or 2) - is a difficult question. I think that if one is playing underrolled (taking a shot), 1) is a bigger factor and the player should auto-RIT because s/he would hate playing deep anyway at this stake. If one is playing at their normal stake or lower, they may consider switching RIT off in order to help the game get effectively deeper and thus more pleasurable for the recs.

It's not so black-and-white, e.g. it depends much on the relative positions at the table - e.g. I'd turn RIT off vs 'twin' if he was on my right and there was a deep rec in the game because I wouldn't mind being deep IP vs 'twin'; however, if he was on my left, I'd leave RIT on because I'd hate him doublng up while sitting with position on me (and 3-betting me a whole lot) and also obviously for the sake of our good relationship.

When you RIT and chop the money is hacked up and shipped back to each player keeping it in circulation thus generating more rake towards Stars. When one player wins and one player loses the loser either adds more to the table or leaves. The ratio of rake vs the size of the pots is very high so a constant influx of new money is good for the player and bad for Stars. Stars loves it when its chopped as they get to take more bites of the same piece of pie before someone ends up owning the pie.

In the end though I hate RIT as its all about getting blood in the water and making people tilt off. I haven't played on Stars anything serious in over a year so my opinion here is just that.

Is it significant somehow that you cannot scoop the whole pot if you run it 3 times with 2 outs? What about if you ran the entire deck in some situations, where there is(?) cumulative chance that outs would be 'wasted' in the boards that it has won or lost (effectually some sort of freeroll factor is potentially created by running more than once?).

1) It's not significant that you can't scoop 3/3.
2) Stars put the cards that are dealt in the first run back into the deck for the second run, so the fact that the EV doesn't change is obvious. But even if the cards weren't put back, the EV would be the same too (I've been too lazy to write a proof down for soooo long).

You can't unilaterally make the deposit-to-rake conversion ratio smaller anyway. If you try to hack it by running it once or some other trick and Stars find that they're getting less rake than they feel they should, they'll increase the rake percentage, reduce the VPP earn rate or find some other trick.

It's a matter of an unwritten compromise what percentage of deposits goes to Stars and how much - to net withdrawers' purses. The per-pot rake mechanism is just a stealth implementation of this compromise that is less obvious to recs.

Besides, we're alking mostly about RIT between regs (as recs seldom turn it on), who're more likely to withdraw their winnings from recs than to lose them back at higher stakes. When a reg loses a stack to a reg, that money doesn't get instantly withdrawn anyway. Close to nothing changes - if before the hand they both had 100 BIs, after the hand they have 99 and 101 BI respectively, which hardly affects their behaviour. The only big consequence is that the reg who has lost brings more money onto the table, hence the game gets deeper, hence you might argue that less rake is paid when a reg stacks a rec for 400 bbs, but it happens rarer than 100 bb upsets, and anyway, the above paragraphs apply.

I believe you. But.

What about when you need runner runner, there is x% chance that a run would use a runner, making it impossible to win on the next run.

Say you need a runner runner straight flush to beat quads. There is a chance that on the first run out, the 7h is used but the 8h does not come. Now if the 8h comes on the next run, there is no 7h to complete the hand. If they put the cards back after a deal, then fine, but if not I think that it would affect somehow.

Much appreciate this comment but I don't think that's been true for over a year or so. I really didn't take Poker seriously last year and played very sub optimally on Stars whenever I did give it a go. I spent a lot of time the last month working on things and I plan to earn back that designation.

This year will be different.......graphs to be posted on the sixth figure on my HEM2 and then the wedding planning can officially kick off! Go big or go home.

I clearly have a different RIT opinion of than you so no point going back and forth. If it makes you play a better overall game for some reason then do it. You're winrate at smaller stakes should be priority #1 before rakeback concerns.