Hi everyone, can someone explain why running it once vs recs is indirectly higher EV, in mathematical terms?

I have heard several players voice the concept of wanting to run it once versus recreational players when playing cash games. The direct EV of running it once vs twice is of course the same, but I keep hearing that "YOU want to be the one who stacks the fish". I have heard strong players say this, and I´m sure they are right, but it does not make intuitive sense to me. Is there really an urgency factor that trumps the indirect EV of chopping the pot and still having the fish at the table? It seems to me like they should cancel each other out.

Depends upon the predator/prey ratio in the game and the willingness of the prey to rebuy. 8 predators/1 prey you are 1/8 to stack him and the money goes to someone you can not easily take it from; 1 predator/8 prey does not matter. If once stacked at any point will rebuy your play has nothing to do with whether the fish stays at the table.

i always try and keep it friendly vs recs so i'm more willing to run it twice. the ev is the same and it incentivises them to stay in the game so in actuality the long term ev of keeping the fish in the game is higher running it twice. plus it lowers variance

Rules for this situation:

1. Keep the fish happy
2. Ignore the blathering of losing regs
3. See Rule #1

I always RIT to keep the game friendly.

Running it once versus twice does not change the EV. Anyone who tries to convince you otherwise is a moron and deserves what they get.

Running it once versus twice does reduce variance (though not as much as people assume).

I think most of the people trying to to convince you to run it once or twice are either messing with you, or have a poor understanding of variance and telling you nonsense.

For me personally, it does not matter. In the long run, nothing changes. So I do whatever the weaker players at the table want in order to keep them happy. Having happy whales at the table is far more important than any voodoo nonsense.

I am fully aware that the EV of the hand is the same no matter how many times you see a runout. The question is if RIT vs fish puts makes the game lower EV later? Like I said, it does not make sense to me, but one player who recently said this is Sifiasco (pkrELMO) on his youtube channel. And he is not the only strong player who never runs it twice vs fish, just the most recent I´ve heard.

I agree that it is probably higher EV in the long run to do whatever keeps the fish happy! I´m just curious about this statement that "you want to be the one who stacks the fish", implying a kind of urgency.

correct but there is some future ev,assuming fish always buys is 50bb deep cause he blinded down or lost chips but always (re)buys in 100bb you want to run it once especially sitting left to him cause your future edge is higher when he has 100bb(and he either doubles to 100 or rebuys to 100), several of these scenarios exist but I tend to agree its overestimated vastly how much it matters really

Whether all that is true or not does not matter.

One of the biggest lessons that good players need to recognize is that fish (whales) are much more likely to "gamble" (i.e overcall whatever odds they are getting versus their EV) with players who they like, or who have demonstrated a willingness to gamble with them.

I have literally seen fish fold flush draws they were getting nowhere near the correct odds to call simply because the other player was known not to run it twice. Normally they would call, but the other player was a dick and regularly only ran it once so they folded.

Whatever theoretical advantage they would have gained by seating position was more than overwhelmed by the simple play of having a bad player correctly fold because they couldn't run it twice.

The biggest lesson in all of poker is making the fish happy. Period. End of sentance. There are all sorts of theoretical discussions we can have about small minor edges, but they pale to the simple strategy of making fish happy and willing to gamble when they got it bad.

You are missing the forest for the trees.

I can understand this question. Especially since it seems lately I have played at tables with fish who have gotten lucky against me and then given it away to others before I could get it back.

I do get that. I really do. One of the most frustrating things in the world.

That said, it needs to be balanced against the fact that the EV doesn't change and that fish are more likely to gamble with people they like than not.

For example, you only run it once thinking you will stack the fish, but he hits his miracle and wins (remember the EV doesn't change, just the variance). The fish then proceeds to lose it all a few hands later to someone else. You didn't gain anything by running it once. In fact, you probably lost half of his stack because you refused.

EV is EV.

We often lose sight of the whole goal of winning poker is to get money in good against worse hands (or technically get it in getting more than proper odds). Running it once or twice does not change the EV. Just the short term variance.

Focus on making worse players getting it in with worse odds than you are giving them. That is the whole point.

It does take longer to run it twice, which should lower your EV.

Big bet poker is already so slow; I'm glad the games I play don't allow running it twice.

I would think that a good player who wins some pots with bluffs should be able to get more of them through if he is not willing to run it twice.
Getting a better hand to fold is worth a lot more than getting a worse hand to call with less than proper odds.

I am firmly -- FIRMLY -- on the side of do what the rec wants, because the odds themselves aren't changing. Yeah, you're lowering variance by running it twice, but it provides no real benefit other than maybe if you're on a super short bankroll and can't fade a loss.

Do what the rec wants, keep them happy, keep the game friendly. Those are always the best games and that rec will come back and play again and remember your friendly gesture.

As a dealer, I have seen very good players literally show the whale their hand (after the money has gone all in of course) and tell the whale that they can then decide to run it once or twice based off of what they see.

The EV doesn't change.

Make the whale feel like he has a choice in his fate. Costs nothing to a pro and gives the whale something. Why not?

I am a recreational/social player and I always preferred running it once. I always played games at stakes I was comfortably rolled for so losing wasn't a concern but I totally get why ppl say running it twice vs a rec is a good thing to do.

Running it once makes the chances that one of you win is higher, so furthermore increasing one of yours relative stack at the table and forcing other to rebuy.

Well running more than once gives more options to chop the pot.

So furthermore, you can just logically think out what you want to accomplish and choose if you prefer to run it one or run it twice.

Good reasons for running it more than once:

You have a short stack on your left, which is good for you dynamically and you want to keep him short, so you run multiple times.

Stakes are high and you prefer slightly lower variance (though I wouldn't advise in a first place to play that type of stakes where this influences your decision)

Good reasons for running it once:

You want to force your opponent to double up or rebuy, and that way putting more money on the table. Assuming you are the winning player, the more money there's at the table, likely the more $ hourly you will be able to extract.

_____

I just do that type of logical calculations online. Live there's a bit more to consider, as I remember doing this same thing in live table, and running once/twice according to stack size dynamics, and some people would think I am deliberately running once vs them and would get offended (fish would get offended) so that changed my calculation for that type of situations.

Those seem like good reasons, thank you!

Fish benefit from increased variance. After all, a fish is basically just like any player at a casino table game. He is making -EV decisions and hence cannot win long term. The best he can hope for is to make some profit in the short term. Higher variance makes this more likely. Therefore the fish should want to run it once. The fish is your opponent; what is good for him is generally bad for you, so all else being equal, you should want to run it twice vs a fish.

Of course this is completely theoretical. As others have said, game dynamics really are the most important factor, and keeping the fish happy is certainly a major consideration. I’d just run it however the fish wants.

Actually, what is "bad for you" is pissing off the fish over a decision that has no effect on your EV.

Don't be a misreg.

Higher variance doesn't mean they have higher profit. It is literally the same EV.

Running it once is generally good for making the game deeper, forcing rebuys, and potentially making someone tilted.

But you should do what makes this fish happy.

Did you read to the end of my post? I pretty much concluded that running it however the fish wants is likely the best play in actual practice. The reduction of variance is favorable for the +EV player and an increase of variance is better for the -EV player (short term only, since there is no difference in EV, it works out the same long term). This is why casinos have maximum bet sizes on table games. From an EV perspective the casino is indifferent as to whether one player makes a single bet for $1 million at a blackjack table versus having multiple players make 100,000 bets of $10 each. The latter case, though, represents an almost certain profit for the house, while the former is a gamble.

In like fashion, you should want to reduce variance vs a fish, but (unless you are under rolled) your desire to reduce variance should take a back seat to keeping the fish happy and losing.

Of course higher variance doesn’t increase the fish’s profit. The fish will lose - long term. But fish don’t really think long term. If they did, they would stop playing. Fish keep playing because they sometimes do have winning sessions. Increased variance allows fish to have winning sessions more often. Fish should therefore want to run it once. It really doesn’t matter for the winning player who is facing the fish, but most players do like to reduce variance, so at least marginally, winning players probably should prefer RIT, but this is trumped by the desire to make fish happy and keep them playing. Certainly, do whatever the fish wants.

The person you're replying to never said they have higher profit by running it once.

They said that they have a higher likelihood of being profitable by running it once.

Which is true.

Barry Greenstein (Ace on the River) had (has) a reputation of never running it twice because he wanted that to be known so that he got more folds on a close EV situation. Of course, he probably rarely played against fish.

I like running it twice, because the fish is less likely to double up or bust. When either of those two happen they are more likely to leave the table which I would prefer not to happen. Also, being deep stacked can be dangerous if you have an aggressive player on your left. I am sometimes the best player at the table, but I usually just assume I am not in which case it is preferrable to be playing at around 100BBs than having a 200BB stack while another reg has the same stack. I'm mostly targeting the fish and they tend to have smaller stack sizes.

This can be seen intuitively by imagining running it a million times (impossible but just an exercise), that the distribution of profit will converge to a single point. That is, zero variance. Running it once will result in a distribution of profit with 2 points (ignoring push pots), thus yielding a higher probability of profit for the player that is behind, and conversely higher probability of loss for the player that is ahead.

Basically, the risk adjusted return increases for the player ahead because EV is constant, while variance decreases for more runs.