Showing cards when all in (and before decided how many times to run it) do you show?

It’s good if you want to reduce variance. It’s absolutely neutral if you want to maximize your winnings

On a per hand basis, yes.

The extra information provides nothing. The EV is the same regardless.

had one last night, I had a set on the turn and was all in verses open ender. We flipped them on the turn and I decided to run it twice given the amount of outs he had (8). Thinking was if he hits it the first time at least that will be one less for the 2nd time. (remember I don't have to hit to win, all the bricks are on my team).

I ended up holding both times.

How does all of that change the EV?

Makes it more likely I won't lose my whole stack

You just prove why poker isn’t dead. Morons who think they are always right and don’t understand the math will always be the donators in this game.

Just gonna reiterate the first paragraph of my first post in this thread:

It's none of our business how many times you like to run it or for what reason. (It's in our vested interest that as many of your decisions at a poker table are as irrational and incongruent with mathematical principles as possible.)

JUST

CLEARLY

COMMUNICATE

WHAT

YOU

WANT

...and from there, it's none of *your* business what *their* preference is and for what reason.

And please for the love of god don't use your valued and important power as dealer to incorrectly enforce (or imply that you're enforcing) a rule that doesn't exist.

No HH will ever throw into question anything I'm saying as it's all beside the point.

Is that stack the last money you have to play poker with? If not, it’s irrelevant to your EV whether you lose your stack more or less often. You are focusing on losing your stack, but running it twice also makes it less likely that you will double up too. Hence the lower risk of total loss is counterbalances by the lower chance of a big win. You lowered your variance - fewer big wins and big losses, but you did nothing for your long term win rate.

Consider a game (admittedly a dumb one for your opponent) - you flip a coin. If it comes up heads, you win $300 from your opponent. If it comes up tails you lose $200. On any given flip, though, your opponent offers to instead just give you $50. Should you flip or take the $50? Assume that you’re going to play it over 10000 times.

Now, same scenario, except he only offers to pay $30 to skip the coin toss. Flip or not? What if he offers $70?

Not me. I make sure I have a made hand or outs before we're flipping them.

[QUOTE=stremba70;59238515]Is that stack the last money you have to play poker with? If not, it’s irrelevant to your EV whether you lose your stack more or less often. You are focusing on losing your stack, but running it twice also makes it less likely that you will double up too. Hence the lower risk of total loss is counterbalances by the lower chance of a big win. You lowered your variance - fewer big wins and big losses, but you did nothing for your long term win rate.

thank you, the penny has dropped.

But is there no milage in seeing what your up against before deciding?

not if you care about EV or long term win rate. RIO or RIT or RI 100 times, it doesn't change your EV at all. So how would seeing your opponents cards change that?

maybe if you care about variance or image or certain other meta-game factors like that. But in those cases you can decide what to do most of the time without seeing your opponents cards at all as well.

If you want larger stacks, RIO always so there are fewer chops and more rebuys. If you want a tougher image and people to call you light less often, RIO so that they know they are twice as likely to have to rebuy if behind. It doesn't matter what you have and what they have on any given hand, you're always going to be doing the same thing to reinforce the image you want to portray at that given time.

That is correct. It literally does not matter. Your EV will be the same either way. Running it multiple times reduces variance, but does not change the average result at all. If you would rather have smaller losses AND smaller wins, you are probably playing under-rolled, but it's fine. Thing is, it doesn't matter what you are up against, the math doesn't change.

Therefore, trying to have a "strategy" for when to run it once or twice is useless. Basically, if you want to scare your Vs, never RIT. If you want your Vs to be more willing to call because your bets are value heavy, always RIT.

Or, what dinesh said, but worded slightly differently.

dinesh, IMO the thread has long run its course.

I just don't believe there isn't an advantage to knowing what your facing or how many outs YOU have before making a decision to run it 1-4 times (or once or twice commonly)

So is it a case of too much information gives you an impossible decision?

boggles the mind

Yet another concept you cannot comprehend. At least you started this new discussion by claiming your ignorance up front,

Yeah it's one thing to ask for and and be open to an explanation of the math, but here we have someone who is outright rejecting it (on 2+2 of all places). There are plenty of places on the internet that cater to math and science denialists.

You can believe what you want. You can’t believe what you want and claim you are correct after repeatedly being shown you are not.

It is not an impossible decision. It is not too much information. The extra data doe#nt provide extra information of any meaning. It changes nothing.

But please keep believing what you want.

There must be other considerations apart from E.V.

What about just feeling it or what would piss off your opponent the most? or if you think you'd be happy to get half your money back and have a ton of outs (you have to see the cards to know you have a ton of outs).

Maybe if i'm dominated i'd rather just run it once and go for the maximum because there's no way in hell i'll hit my kicker twice (so running once is best). But if have loads of outs maybe 3 times is best.

All sorts of things to consider than just the maths - anyone think of that?

This is why poker is great.

Deja vu.

The other consideration is variance, as has been already pointed out. Run it twice (or more) if you want to reduce variance. Paradoxically, it seems that fish generally want to run it twice and reduce variance. This really is contrary to what is best for the fish. Fish will inevitably lose money to good players over the long term,. But they can hope to have some winning sessions along the way. That’s what keeps them playing. Higher variance would increase the probability of a winning session, so that would make the dish happier. It’s really no different than blackjack, craps, slots, etc. Nobody wins long term at those games. The best that anyone hopes for is a short term win made more probable by variance.

The better player should not care much (so long as he’s properly bankrolled) and should generally cater to what the fish wants to keep him happy and playing.

Thanks. The OP understands better now.

Why? It doesn't alter the play before the decision of how many times. And if anyone takes the huff then the default is that it's run only once.

this run it more than once faf started with poker on TV. If you watch some of the early stuff even the dealers had to be told how to do it.