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

You can tell when a poker player is math-pilled by how he depends on a solver that tells him to play premium hands only.

This is why poker will never be dead.

Not entirely sure what you mean, but I would say that Poker will never be dead because chaos is an integral part of it, and now matter how the human mind may try to perfect it, we never will.

It has no affect on your chances of a return if you mean your long term EV.

Then you should be easily able to tell us how knowing what you are against changes your chances of a return.

What is meant by chances of a return anyway. But please tell us how knowing changes anything.

If you are drawing dead you are still drawing dead. If you had stone cold and unchangable nuts you still do. If you were flipping 50:50, you still are. The only difference is now you know where you stand. But that doesn't change your chances.

If you are drawing to a better hand than your opponent, it makes sense to draw more times, or have you not surmised that?

Why? Spell out the logic you are using. But remember drawing more times might give you more chances to suck out but when you do you suck out for less and less each extra run.

You need to not only think about chances to when or lose but how much ot little each one is for.

So walk us thru your incontrovertible logic but include both sides of the equation and show how your return is improved because of what you know after seeing what you are against.

I'm not about to walk you thru anything.

If you can't see it already, especially after it was spelled out pretty clearly about 6 posts ago, there is no point.

You and backstairs are reasons why poker will never be dead.

I know some people like to imagine Schrödinger’s cat but I like to imagine that in a thread like this Dunning and Kruger had a Reese’s moment.

If you got two (or more) chances to draw out and win the WHOLE pot, then yes, you would be right. But that’s not how it works.

Simple example - you have KK and get it in on the turn. Board is K773 (suits irrelevant) and your opponent shows 77. Obviously you have one out. Let’s assume &600 in pot

Now there are three possible things that can happen:

1. No king on either river. You lose, but had you run it once, you also lose. No difference in the result between once and twice, so we can ignore this possibility

2. You get a king on the second river. You win $300. Had you run it once, you would have lost, so in this case you’re up $300.

3. You get a king on the first river. You win $300. Had you run it once, though, you would have won $600, so while you may not feel like it emotionally (you’re happy to have sucked out), you are down $300 versus what you would have been had you run it once.

Obviously, scenarios 2 and 3 are equally likely, and we can ignore scenario 1. Thus, we are equally likely to gain $300 or lose $300 when running it twice. It’s a wash,

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was truly trying to help you because you are wrong. If you actually walk thru your logic step by step considering both effects that RIT or more have (% of time you win and how much a win is worth), you might eventually see that our logic that is matters what you are up against is flawed.

Your long term amount you win doesn't change based on what you are against and how many times you run it.

OTOH, your variance does change but it changes exactly the same no matter what you are against.

You THINK or FEEL things change because you "know" where you are at due to seeing what you are against. But the choice to RIT or not doesn't impact anything differently. This is because there literally is no right answer. Every choice has the same return/EV in the long run. Sure there is an optimal choice for every decision. But unless you know the cards to come (not the cards already out), you can't know ahead of time what that optimal choice is.

If there was a legal way to know the best choice, you would not have a choice. If your best choice was to RIT ofc YOU would pick RIT BUT your opponent would refuse to offer you that choice. Thus the information of knowing what you are against doesn't change the effect of your choice nor does it provide you information to make the best choice.

Consider if you have a choice run it once OR 10 times. You don't know it but you are drawing to 1 out. If you pick 1x your odds are ~ 43:1 to wind 100%. If you pick 10x your odds to win are ~4:1 (just keeping the math very simple) but you will only win 10% of the pot.

Same secnario but now the cards are face up so you know you have 1 out and 1 out only. But how does knowing that change anything? You run it only once you are still 43:1 to win 100% of pot. Run it 10x, you are 4:1 to win 10% of the pot.

Let's say the 10th run is the one you hit. Obv. the optimal choice for this specific deal is run it 10x. But you can't know that just because you know you have one out. The next time maybe you hit the one outer on the first run. Now your optimal choice is RIO but how do you know?

So seriously, walk yourself through your logic but apply the logic at every step and consider what the knowledge gained provides you. If you do it honestly, you will see that seeing that cards or not seeing that cards doesn't change the value of the choices.

With all due respect, there is no right and wrong, only opinions. I Appreciate you taking the time to try and explain, but using a word like thru triggered me and your post felt like a continuation of the diatribe that I've seen on this thread already.

We are looking at this problem through different lenses clearly. You are looking at it in terms of what the right thing to do is over the long term, myself I'm thinking about the moment and the possible outcomes in the next 60 seconds. By the time infinity comes and the Math plays out, I will long gone. But of course, I understand your position.

Here is what happened to me only 2 days ago. All in before the flop for about 3k, an all in which I called so quickly that my opponent was clearly rattled. He asked ME, do you want to run it more than once?. I said, only if you give me an idea of what you have. He turned over KK in an instant (I was holding QQ) and before exposing my hand I said twice, to which he happily agreed.

When I turned over QQ, he huffed. The first runout, was 9, 10, J but my straight did not complete. The second I hit quads, so we split the pot.

Can I ask you, in all seriousness, do you actually believe that I do not understand the more times you runout a Flop/Turn/River, the less I am competing to win each time?

Edit : The flop on the first left me open ended, my mistake, last night was a long session and before I hear it, I'm not someone who would make up petty shite in order to provide an example.

Imagine what you like, as I said before, Dogmatism and condescension at it's finest.

I stand by my original conclusion. There are those that rely on the Math for every decision based on the infinite outcomes, there those who are willing to see beyond that and go with what their instinct tells them in the moment.

Poker will never be dead precisely because both of the mindsets in this thread exist and will continue to battle for their beliefs until we reach infinity.

When and if, we do see infinity, we may see justification or instant woe.

Until then, it's all part of what makes life and Poker so interesting.

All that story real says is that neither you nor your opponent understood that it made no difference what hands you had. It was just as likely that you would have won the first run out and lost the second. Had that been the case, you would have lost half the pot versus just running it once.

If you’re saying that you want to run it twice to avoid large losses and minimize variance, then fine, I can’t argue. That will minimize variance. If that’s the case, though, then why not just RIT regardless?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can you actually hear yourself or the words that you choose to use? Of course it made a bloody difference LOL.

Yes I get that, thanks for pointing out the obvious.

Please try to understand, you can call it variance or anything you care to. My interest and decision was not based on giving me more chances to not lose my stack and thankfully chaos ensued. If I was holding AA I would have never run it twice. The decision was based on the knowledge I had that I was a massive underdog and I wanted double the amount of chances of hitting a Q in order to come out unscathed. Is that really so difficult to comprehend?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

Sometimes I think I know where you are coming from (short term considerations overwhelm long term implications for you, and maybe for opponents), but then you say things that make no sense like this:

Maybe one of those was a typo? I dunno.

RIT will decrease your variance (and your opponent's variance) whether you have AA or QQ vs opponents KK. Deciding on whether to RIT based on variance is perfectly sound, but that does not imply that you need to see cards to do it -- you don't, and seeing them doesn't matter at all. RIO will always maximize your variance (and his), and running it more times will always reduce everyone's variance more. Regardless of holdings.

Being on your last buyin for the night and trying to figure out how to maximize your chance of being able to last another hand/hour/whatever is also sound. You might want to see if you're ahead or behind (and by how much) before deciding whether to RIO and take your chances on a scoop or RIT to maximize your chance of chopping. Makes sense.

Wanting to see cards before deciding so you can tailor your response to maximize the chance of putting pressure on your opponent's bankroll is also a fine answer, though it relies on knowing his bankroll, and also maybe understanding how superstitious he is. If you had said "I wanted to see Vs cards to figure out whether he was ahead or behind, so I could pick whether RIO or RIT would better make him think twice about calling me next time", that would be very understandable, and would be (somewhat) outside the realm of math.

Saying whatever it is you said is confusing and nonsensical.

Sorry, bloody typo. Take out the first word not.

My apologies, long night.

I'm a retired recreational player. I will do everything I can to keep playing for as long as possible, that night.

Besides, if I lost 2 stacks in one night, I would face real world consequences....the wife's ire ��

The next 60 seconds is going to be part of the population that is the infinity. But you have no clue what part of that population. Knowing all the held cards doesn't change this. It doesn't let you make a better decision because all of the decisions are equal in the infinity result.

BTW, imo yours was a dick move in the hand you described. If you want to demand knowing his hand to make your decision (even though it doesn't matter, you do what you do) YOU show first and then say you only agree if he shows.

As to what you know about multiple runs. I seriously think your brain understands but you are allowing your emotions to make the decision and your emotions do not get this. The fact that you keep saying that knowing the cards can influence the correct decision shows this.

Fair enough we all our opinions.

At what what point did I 'Demand' knowing his hand?

He shat his pants because he thought I had aces and flipped his cards voluntary.

I see you swerved and decided not to answer my question. You will probably do it again.

Facts are now opinions here, dude!

2+2=4?

Funny and condescending at the same time. Bravo.

When I said opinions, I was actually referring to the opinion that mine was a dick move and it's basis that I had demanded to see the hand was factually incorrect.

Shame we have to descend into idiotic meme territory in a debate, sign of the times I guess.

In case you've not gathered, the funny part of your visual riposte is that the dude was actually the genius in the whole screenplay lol.

They do it because it lowers variance. It doesn't impact your equity. That's been proven about a billion times.

This is ****ing insane. Has to be a (pretty successful) troll. If you don't believe in mathematics then fine, such is you're right to do so. You are objectively wrong though the same as you can believe that the earth is flat.

So long as you don't start making public policy based on this stuff and impacting anyone else's lives, go think whatever you want.

You demanded to see his cards before you would consider RIT and then when he showed you still think you get to decide to RIT before showing your cards.

That is the clear reading f what you wrote. You insisted seeing his cards and then decided to RIT before showing your Qs. There is this old good for the goose good for th gander. If you want to see cards to decide you show yours and say you won’t choose until cards are up. Then you both decide. You prensented a one way street scenario.