Showing cards when all in (and before decided how many times to run it) do you show?
Bug bearer of mine is people not showing cards . I often shout "cards over!" as you would in a tournament but not eve
backstairs, good for you that you seem to have the mental resources to devote to completely irrelevant poker questions. I guess you must have all the real poker strategy locked down. Equivalent solutions:1 Always run once2 Always run twice3 run once if the first card you look at is red, twice if black4 opposite of 35 run twice if a National League team won the most recent World
A man who knows what he's talkinga bout
No-one KNOWS. They have theories on how best to apply their strategy based on their reasoning.
In this case, yes we know. It’s math. The strategies for deciding whether to run it once or twice are all equivalent because running it once and running it twice are mathematically equivalent. It makes no difference to your EV which one you choose, so any strategy for determining whether to run once or twice will likewise give equivalent EV.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In this case, yes we know. It’s math. The strategies for deciding whether to run it once or twice are all equivalent because running it once and running it twice are mathematically equivalent. It makes no difference to your EV which one you choose, so any strategy for determining whether to run once or twice will likewise give equivalent EV.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah ok, I'm not going to enter this conversation again.
Just skimmed this thread, are people really arguing in 2026 that running it more than once has an impact on how you'll win or lose in the long run?
Just skimmed this thread, are people really arguing in 2026 that running it more than once has an impact on how you'll win or lose in the long run?
Nope it runs much deeper than that. It's a fundamental disagreement around belief systems highlighting dogmatism at it's finest.
Self appointed poker experts who are so constrained by their tunnel vision, they are unable to conceive of a world where someone loves Math, but can also use their imagination to help them navigate the constraints that a consuming belief in it places you under.
Nope it runs much deeper than that. It's a fundamental disagreement around belief systems highlighting dogmatism at it's finest.Self appointed poker experts who are so constrained by their tunnel vision, they are unable to conceive of a world where someone loves Math, but can also use their imagination to help them navigate the constraints that a consuming belief in it places y
2+2 can equal 11, but it doesn't change the statistics.
Nope it runs much deeper than that. It's a fundamental disagreement around belief systems highlighting dogmatism at it's finest.Self appointed poker experts who are so constrained by their tunnel vision, they are unable to conceive of a world where someone loves Math, but can also use their imagination to help them navigate the constraints that a consuming belief in it places y
I can see this point to some extent in general poker discussions. The math is too complex and our information is too limited to actually calculate the correct mathematical decisions at the table to maximize EV. Does that mean solvers and math are useless? Of course not; they are a good study tool after the fact to help us see what we should have done in a given situation and can help us develop heuristics to enable us to make better decisions in game.
This case, though, is a very specific discussion where math is simple and obviously applies. Our EV is identical if we run it once or twice. There’s no room for discussion, intuition, or whatever you want to call it. It’s no different than if we face a pot sized shove on the turn and have only a flush draw with no SDV - math says fold. No room for intuition there either.
BTW, in THEORY, intuition or whatever is unnecessary. Math can theoretically be used to maximize EV in poker. It’s just too complex for mere humans to do it unaided at the table. An analogy is a baseball player catching a fly ball. If we knew the speed and direction of the ball off the bat, the distribution of ambient wind speeds and directions, the ambient temperature, pressure, and humidity, and probably some other factors I overlooked, in theory we could calculate exactly where the ball will land and simply run to that spot without the need to watch the trajectory of the ball. Theoretically you could program a robot (assuming it can move fast enough) to catch fly balls. Obviously real baseball players don’t catch fly balls by solving differential equations in their head and running to the spot. They use “instinct” or “experience” or whatever you want to call it to track the trajectory of the ball and make the catch. That doesn’t mean that math isn’t applicable, however. The same is true in poker.
I can see this point to some extent in general poker discussions. The math is too complex and our information is too limited to actually calculate the correct mathematical decisions at the table to maximize EV. Does that mean solvers and math are useless? Of course not; they are a good study tool after the fact to help us see what we should have done in a given situation and ca
We still want to see what we're up against before deciding to run it 4 times or something
We still want to see what we're up against before deciding to run it 4 times or something
Why? If both options are equivalent, why does “knowing what you’re up against” matter?
Let’s assume another simpler game. We both flip, hide our flip from each other and I give you two options:
Option 1 - If my flip is heads, you win.
Option 2 - If our flips are the same (both heads or both tails) you win.
You get to pick whether to play option 1 or 2 on each play. Would it matter if you had to choose before you flipped your coin or if you were allowed to flip your coin and “see what you’re up against”?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why? If both options are equivalent, why does “knowing what you’re up against” matter? Let’s assume another simpler game. We both flip, hide our flip from each other and I give you two options:Option 1 - If my flip is heads, you win. Option 2 - If our flips are the same (both heads or both tails) you win. You get to pick whether to play option 1 or 2 on each play. Would it matt
Afaic, I can think of these reasons
1) If my hand is dead, there is no point.
2) If my opponent is on a draw I only want to run it once in order to maximise my chances of a scoop.
3) If my opponent has me crushed but I still have outs to the nuts, I want to run it up to 3/4 times.
Does this make sense?
Whilst the Math may not change (for each runout). The number of runouts can clearly affect your chances of a return.
Afaic, I can think of these reasons1) If my hand is dead, there is no point.2) If my opponent is on a draw I only want to run it once in order to maximise my chances of a scoop.3) If my opponent has me crushed but I still have outs to the nuts, I want to run it up to 3/4 times.Does this make sense?Whilst the Math may not change (for each runout). The number of runouts can clear
correct
Afaic, I can think of these reasons1) If my hand is dead, there is no point.2) If my opponent is on a draw I only want to run it once in order to maximise my chances of a scoop.3) If my opponent has me crushed but I still have outs to the nuts, I want to run it up to 3/4 times.Does this make sense?Whilst the Math may not change (for each runout). The number of runouts can clear
Running it any number of times has no effect in any of these situations. Obviously that’s true when we (or our opponent) is drawing dead. For simplicity assume our opponent is on a flush draw and we shove the turn. Now, he has 9 outs and we know 8 cards (4 on the board plus our two and his two). Let’s assume (again to make the math easier) that the pot is $44.
Running it once, we win with probability 35/44. Our expected pot share is $35.
Running it twice, we scoop if villain misses both rivers and chop if he hits one. We lose when he hits both. We scoop with probability 35/44 x 34/43 =1190/1892. We lose with probability 9/44 x 8/43=72/1892. We could do a calculation for chopping, but the easy way is to recognize that our win, loss and chop probabilities must add to 1 so we can immediately state the chop probability as 630/1892. Now our expected pot share for winning is 44x1190/1892 or 1190/43. For chopping it’s 22x630/1892 or 630/86 which equals 315/43. Adding 315//43 to 1190/43 gives 1505/43=35, exactly the same as running it once.
The math is exactly the same if we are on a flush draw; we just would have an expected share of $9 instead of $35 like we did when it was our opponent on the draw.
What you are failing to account for is that we have a better chance to not lose our stack if we RIT, but we also cut the payoff in half when we do hit our out. The long term payout from repeated application of similar spots comes out the same regardless.
Would you rather get $1 guaranteed or $2 when you flip a coin and it lands heads? Long term, you are indifferent. The difference is variance - if you run it twice (or more) you reduce variance, but you don’t end up winning (or losing) any more than running it once
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Running it any number of times has no effect in any of these situations. Obviously that’s true when we (or our opponent) is drawing dead. For simplicity assume our opponent is on a flush draw and we shove the turn. Now, he has 9 outs and we know 8 cards (4 on the board plus our two and his two). Let’s assume (again to make the math easier) that the pot is $44. Running it once,
The math maybe the same, the dynamics of the game are not.
Why should we care about the dynamics of the game? The goal is to win money isn’t it? That’s why I play poker anyway. I would agree in some meta-game situations. For example, if there’s a fish who wants to RIT and would get angry and leave if we don’t, then by all means RIT and make the fish happy. But that’s not what I’m talking about here. If the fish wants to run it normally, that’s ok too - do that. Bottom line is that it doesn’t affect our EV either way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why should we care about the dynamics of the game? The goal is to win money isn’t it? That’s why I play poker anyway. I would agree in some meta-game situations. For example, if there’s a fish who wants to RIT and would get angry and leave if we don’t, then by all means RIT and make the fish happy. But that’s not what I’m talking about here. If the fish wants to run it normally
no. It's about wondering if you want to risk it all or just run it 4 times with your big draw. What kinda game is it? Will there be reloads, would you rather spread the luck?
And to make this judgement you need to see what yer up against.. is opponent on a 3 outer so perhaps it would be best to run it 3 times so you'll probably win 2 of them??? Or do they have a monster draw and perhaps you want to run it once so if they miss they miss. Gotta see this stuff before the decision is made.
And they say poker is dead.
Running it any number of times has no effect in any of these situations. Obviously that’s true when we (or our opponent) is drawing dead. For simplicity assume our opponent is on a flush draw and we shove the turn. Now, he has 9 outs and we know 8 cards (4 on the board plus our two and his two). Let’s assume (again to make the math easier) that the pot is $44. Running it once,
Just for once, instead of providing crude examples that back the notion that Math is the great equaliser when we 'Theoretically' run the situation an infinite amount of times, can you think about the situation in the moment instead?
I know this is part of a meme. But... do they?
I find the live arena is only getting softer.
I have millions of hands that these new kids will never have. Feels like a catbird seat on-ending.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It is absolutely getting softer and I am and will continue to be perched firmly on that seat 
I am finding it increasingly easier to put certain players (By the book, Math, Premium Hands only, Solver driven.....) on a hand BECAUSE of the way they play and the fact they can't conceive of a world outside of the fixed strategy they employ.
The number of times that I have heard 'You played THAT hand???, You floated with THAT hand???' - Damned right I did bud, and you continued betting right into me.
