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
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 th
I play a great deal and am pretty confident I'm not an angler, but you label me as you so wish.
I’m curious, would you run it twice if you had the KK and your opponent had the QQ?I have nothing against that, btw, just trying to follow what advantage you think you are gaining. The only considerations I would take in is that some people really want to RIT or maybe they will GII less loose if they know you don’t run it twice, and it reduces variance overall. Otherwise I don’
Nope. I only chose to RIT because I knew pre-flop my opponent had me crushed, he handed me the advantage to choose to RIT voluntarily and I jumped at it (but apparently this makes me an angler who can't afford variance).
Nope. I only chose to RIT because I knew pre-flop my opponent had me crushed, he handed me the advantage to choose to RIT voluntarily and I jumped at it (but apparently this makes me an angler who can't afford variance).
If I was at your table and witnessed you do this you wouldn't be running it twice against me. Players wise up to this very quickly unless they're thick as pigshit.
I play a great deal and am pretty confident I'm not an angler, but you label me as you so wish.
This is just another dumb rhetorical game. You label yourself as an angler and then not only deny the label that you gave yourself but insist that someone else applied it to you. If you didn't mean what you said, then simply correct or clarify it. If you did mean what you said, then why are talking back at someone for understanding you correctly?
You want to be taken both at your word and not at your word. The arguing is the goal.
[QUOTE=checkraisdraw;59322218]I’m curious, would you run it twice if you had the KK and your opponent had the QQ?
Apparently it makes no difference to your EV so they all say on here eh??
What they DON'T appreciate is that the dynamics of the game or the mood of the night might come into play. e.g. is it the kind of night where you'd want to hedge your bets (perhaps you don't have a ton of cash on you for rebuys) or is it the right time to set up a big one??
What kind of night have you been having so far, do you want to protect a big profit because you were just about to quit and now one time mad hand could spoil it all?? Or are you in a hole,, do you want to try and just win the big pot and get back to near even and if not then just call it a night??
Lots of decisions to be made that have nothing to do with EV overall, but they have a lot to do with the game. Andddddd to help me decide all the above i'd like to see what am up against and also let my opponent see mine and let's agree how many times, - if can't agree then it's once.
God, this thread hasn't grasped my original point at all has it!
What they DON'T appreciate is that the dynamics of the game or the mood of the night might come into play. e.g. is it the kind of night where you'd want to hedge your bets (perhaps you don't have a ton of cash on you for rebuys) or is it the right time to set up a big one?? What kind of night have you been having so far, do you want to protect a big profit because you were
It's all one big session.
Nope. I only chose to RIT because I knew pre-flop my opponent had me crushed, he handed me the advantage to choose to RIT voluntarily and I jumped at it (but apparently this makes me an angler who can't afford variance).
It’s not unfair and you’ve been conferred no advantage. Actually there are people that swear to the opposite, only running twice when ahead and not running twice when behind. Mathematically it makes no difference.
I can see that you believe there is some advantage to having more opportunities to suck out when you’re behind. Some people prefer the opportunity to be able to win outright once rather than two chances for half. On the flip side, the people that RIT when ahead think that they’d rather try to get at least half with a good chance to scoop.
If you notice, outcome-wise what you’re really talking about is variance, not any mathematical advantage for those given options.
This is just another dumb rhetorical game. You label yourself as an angler and then not only deny the label that you gave yourself but insist that someone else applied it to you. If you didn't mean what you said, then simply correct or clarify it. If you did mean what you said, then why are talking back at someone for understanding you correctly?You want to be taken both at you
Interesting, so please go ahead and point me to where I labelled myself as an angler?
[QUOTE=checkraisdraw;59322218]I’m curious, would you run it twice if you had the KK and your opponent had the QQ?Apparently it makes no difference to your EV so they all say on here eh??What they DON'T appreciate is that the dynamics of the game or the mood of the night might come into play. e.g. is it the kind of night where you'd want to hedge your bets (perhaps you don't
Not even a partial grasp I'm afraid.
It has however been a very informative illustration of how things go on this forum, for me anyway.
Maybe, just maybe if everyone is telling you the same thing, they are correct and you are not.
What they DON'T appreciate is that the dynamics of the game or the mood of the night might come into play.
Mood of the game, how you want the opponent to act, how you want to be viewed, etc are all valid meta game reasons. No one here has denied they exist and are valid things to think about. But again, that isn't what you have claimed. You have claimed that the info you get from seeing the cards is valuable.
Again...there are plenty of reasons to decide to RIO or RIT twice but claiming the information you get from seeing the cards changes the "correct" decision is what is being pushed against. You can decide to do whatever you want and Oppenent agrees to but seeing the cards don't provide any information that meaningfully should affect that decision.
e.g. is it the kind of night where you'd want to hedge your bets (perhaps you don't have a ton of cash on you for rebuys) or is it the right time to set up a big one??
This is now a variance justification. Which again is fine and variance does change by RIT but not due to the cards being seen.
How the night has run is results oriented thinking. But fine if you want to use it. But how does seeing the cards change how the night has been going?
do you want to protect a big profit because you were just about to quit and now one time mad hand could spoil it all?? Or are you in a hole,, do you want to try and just win the big pot and get back to near even and if not then just call it a night?? Lots of decisions to be made that have nothing to do with EV overall, but they have a lot to do with the game. Andddddd
And insisting you want to see the cards is fine. This isn't like choosing to chop or not based on what you hold. (That one is a always or never). No one has said you can't insist on seeing the cards before deciding. We are not even saying you can't do it for whatever reasons you want. The point being made is that while YOU think seeing the cards is valuable (which is fine for you) the reality is that that infomation doesn't impact what is the correct decision.
It is not what your thread started out saying (that was very different). It isn'tthat you want to see the cards to decide. It is your claim that the cards actually matter to the correct decision.
How can anyone say poker is dead with posts like this?
All we need now is a thread about how a player should fold aces pre-flop when it is going to be 5 or 6 players all in before the flop because their win percent is likely below 50 percent.
Anyone who knows me knows that I am all about Meta plays and understanding the meta game, but at the end of the day the math ultimately matters. Period.
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.
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 b
I know that this is teaching pigs to sing.......
You are setting up a strawman. A sad strawman. I am literally one of the last people on this earth who relies purely on the math when making many if my poker decisions. I definitely lean towards using reads and instinct. However the math still matters. But that is when we are talking about decisions with incomplete information.
That said, any player who wants to consider themselves knowledgeable still need to understand the math and in this case there is not decision to be made that can change the math. All actions are complete. Bets have been made and called. At this point the math is what it is. Nothing changes.
You are conflating the fact that poker is a game of incomplete information and therefore sometimes reads/instincts/etc. can make a difference (which is true), but in this case it is only the math that matters. Nothing you choose will change it.
That you do not understand this shows you have a lot to learn. You are only looking foolish by continuing.
But his opinion is that he knows better than everyone else despite it being explained multiple times, so who are the fools? Those of us stuck in dogma, duh!
I know that this is teaching pigs to sing.......You are setting up a strawman. A sad strawman. I am literally one of the last people on this earth who relies purely on the math when making many if my poker decisions. I definitely lean towards using reads and instinct. However the math still matters. But that is when we are talking about decisions with incomplete information.Th
Talking in bromides, including derision in your riposte or rebuttal and the continuous repetition of the tired rhetoric 'The Math Matters!' when non-one has claimed is doesn't could be considered pretty foolish.
LOL
Do you really need to be quoted the posts you made where you berate people for only looking at the math?
Either way, apparently you feel that explaining things to you or trying to educate you is some how insulting or "talking in bromides".
Here is a clue: in my opinion, the best thing another person can do for me is correct me when I am wrong. To me, I would rather be eventually right and understand why than be wrong and stuck on my original thesis defending something that is wrong. Apparently you feel different. You aren't looking to learn why, you are looking for affirmation for your views, not knowledge.
So I am done with you.
I am just glad people like you exist and continue to play poker. I hope to see you at the tables someday.
LOLDo you really need to be quoted the posts you made where you berate people for only looking at the mathEither way, apparently you feel that explaining things to you or trying to educate you is some how insulting or "talking in bromides".Here is a clue: in my opinion, the best thing another person can do for me is correct me when I am wrong. To me, I would rather be eventuall
LOL. I never said the Math does not matter, take a breath. That was my point and you could not quote me on it could you?
Even though you say I'm done with you then in your next breath hope to see me at the tables LOL.
I Hope that day at the table comes, because I relish laying against people like you.
mod: before this goes any farther, please review and follow our rules on contentious posting, in particular the following:
(f) Contentious Topics
There are other topics that are either the territory of conspiracy theorists, or just lead to loathsome behavior from emotionally invested participants, and in an effort to keep signal-to-noise ratio high and keep the forum free from inanity and namecalling, discussion of these topics is forbidden in CCP. If you feel the need to talk about these topics, there are generally other areas of 2+2 where their discussion is permitted. CCP-restricted topics include:
• Politics
• Religion
• Automatic shufflers are rigged
Appreciate it if everyone can back slowly away from any continued discussion about religion, thanks.
