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

Please re-read what I actually posted (and said). At no point, did I make any demands.....

"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."

He was rattled, I picked up on it and knew didn't have AA. I used that knowledge to allow him to basically say "Look here are my kings, I really don't want to lose my entire stack". From the time I called his all in, I made him believe I had AA.

Again like I said in the original post, he offered this information voluntarily when I asked for an 'idea' of what I'm up against. Asking him for an idea - I Wanted to know if he had a made hand already. That's all I asked for and he exposed his KK because he put me on AA. My play allowed me the advantage of knowing I was up **** street and would be happy for a RIT.

Poker is a complex game.

How is that a 'Dick Move' on my part?

" I said, only if you give me an idea of what you have."
Guess what...that is a demand. You said you only would consider it after he showed. But then (you decided not to include) the fact when he showed KK, you said "twice" (like now YOU get to unilaterally decide) and only then did you show your Qs

While, I almost never RIT (I like people knowing they face the full variance against me because unlike you, based on your own words, I can fully afford the variance against my roll) but here your Twice would not have meant anything until I agreed. Because you had changed the original offer to RIT. If I HAD been willing to RIT with you (under some specific conditions with specific players who I want to keep happy I will), I would now refuse based on your actions and I would never offer you RIT again.

Obviously you are fine with your actions. And maybe I am completely wrong but as I said in my OPINION it was a dick move to think you need to see my cards so you solely decide. If you need to see my cards before you will decide, then afford me the same courtesy.

Further

Fair enough, you have a point and I accept that.

When I sit at a table with 5 reg professionals I tend to use any advantage I can within the rules to improve my chances and in this instance, choosing to RIT make a difference to that outcome.

Depending on opponent's holding. that's what I base it on. Hate people that don't show

Everybody welcomes discussion on things that aren't irrefutable facts. Nobody should engage with people who deny facts.

You are right that I am being intolerant of those that disagree with me, but I'm being intolerant of those people because they are claiming things which are mathematically and objectively incorrect.

How many times you run it does not impact how much you win in the long run. That's all. There is nothing else to discuss.

You would think these learned scholars would do some outside reading to figure out why we keep calling them dumb for not understanding what has been explained to them multiple times. Instead backstairs and one card just keep coming in here are arguing their “opinions.”

He says admitting he will angle at will.

Let's not make the hole thread about me eh?:p

Or in fact whether I incorporate what you consider to angles in my game.

My persona does not require that you agree with me.

Now, getting back to topic. Are you able to accept that RIT in the hand that I described made a difference?

I get what OneCard is saying, kinda. He's wrong on the facts and thinking the math doesn't matter is an odd hill to die on. But I do get it.

I do something similar when I play lotto. I'll throw a few bucks at it when the jackpot seems large enough. I know it's -EV but it's more of an entertainment thing. I let the machine pick my numbers. If I have more than one of the same for the power/mega ball I'll back it up and have it choose again. I know in the long run that it doesn't make any difference (and I do play enough that I'm well into the long run), but rather than to win money I'm in it for the small thrill when I win a small prize. And a win today and another win in two months are more satisfying than a double win today. The thing is, I know what I'm doing and will explain it to anyone that asks. It's a purely emotional decision.

Really, Didace? This is more like your buddy that claims he completely understandsindependent variable events and then insists you put all your money on black on a roulette wheel because the board reads 15 reds in a row and he insists black is “due.”

Meh, I don't think he's that hard core about it. He just thinks he might help himself short-term and can manipulate people into doing it his way. Added in that he is predisposed to never losing an internet argument and we end up with this thread.

You are correct from an EV. It's best to hold off and not play but then wait till the jackpot is bigger and buy more tickets in that one draw. You are still spending the same as if you had played every week but this is a better way to do it.

Technically, (very very slightly) you actually now own more of the combinations in the that particular draw if you have 50 lines on.

Since most of the money is tied up in the jackpot that is very, very unlikely to hit for an individual, doing EV calculations to determine if you are in positive territory is pointless.

What is peeving me most is that contributors will take 10 minutes out of their day to write a lengthy post that backs their foundation of 'Math always plays out in the long run', but cannot bring themselves to accept that in the short run there IS a decision to be made which is outside of the 'Long Term Math' debate.

I will also add that whichever way you look at it. The 'Long Term' ideal (which of course is statistically correct if one had the time to play until infinity reaches) does not always play out in ones lifetime, because there is chaos and randomness which Math cannot control.

I don't believe that I've ever once argued that Math is incorrect, just tried to highlight that there is a world outside of it and those that bow down at it's altar without question may be missing out on another view.

It’s just hard to understand what your point is because it seems impossible to tell without omniscience which choice will be actually better in terms of the state of affairs that is instantiated given a specific position of cards. If you knew the answer to that you wouldn’t be playing poker.

As far as the long run or short run is concerned, the best decision is the one you would make not knowing where the cards are, since you don’t. That’s why people get mad at thinking like yours and call it results oriented, because you can’t know until after the fact.

I get it, it's hard to open your mind to a new possibility. It's also hard to be berated by those who are not able to and provide me with feedback like you're a troll or it's simply wrong.

I gave a clear hand example on this thread that demonstrated that deciding to RIT improved my chances of a return and there has not been a single acknowledgment of that fact.

If you’re referring to this story, it’s the perfect example of results oriented thinking and only being able to know if something helped you once all the cards are shown.

If I told you that you would in the first runout, but lose on the second, would you still want to RIT? If not, then you really haven’t shown a new way of thinking, just falling back into an age-old trap of considering whether a play was good based on whether it worked in a particular instance.

Fair, but even before the cars came out, my choice to RIT gave me more chances to win at the very least a split and a return from the hand.

This is a pointless debate isn't it.

Even my dogmatism has boundaries and I think I'm getting pretty close to the limiter. ��

The Math being discussed here actually controls for the chaos and randomness. I say this not to get you all riled up but to suggest that maybe this is the disconnect. Like literally it is baked into the equation in the same way that the randomness of a fair coin flip is baked into p = 0.5.

Seeing the cards before deciding did not provide any advantage. Running it twice as a 4:1 dog makes no difference in your return.

Did it change things in a particular deal, certainly might. Bit no one has claimed it never changes the outcome. In fact since everyone admits it r3duces variance it literally must have an impact sometimes. But you never know if this time is one of those times. Seeing the cards before deciding doesn’t change any of this.

So did seeing the cards before making a decision have an impact this time…nope unless you consider meta game.

Btw, using anything you can within the rules to gain an advantage is the literal definition of an angler.

In the short run it might help or hurt. You don’t know and seeing cards doesn’t help you know.

So why do it? In the long run it reduces variance and it does the same thing.

There is an old story about Bill Gates playing in some casino at 2/5 NL. Doyle went over and tried to get Gates to the big game. Gates replied he would but only if they raised the blinds to something like $20K/$50K.

He knew in the long term he would be beat but at that price the pros couldn’t afford if Gates had a little short term run good but he could afford short term run bad.

It gave you more chances to win less.

The st math is the same as the lt math. The difference is we know in the lt the math will always be right. In the st the math will only be right some of the time. But you claim you are able to make a better decision because you saw the cards. But you can’t explain how you know you decision was improved without referencing the ultimate outcome. That is results oriented thinking.

I folded pocket 4s preflop recently to a bet and a massive reraise. The reraise was enough I wasn’t getting correct odds to set mine. Of course flop comes 4-2-4 and the pocket Aces and AK suited with flush draw are all in. Did I make a bad decision even though with both players all in, I would have had correct odds to set mine? Nope, because even a set of 4s was very vulnerable so I needed quads AND I also needed both other players to be willing to stack off to get the right price.