dealing twice when all in

greg raymer likes to deal it twice or more when allin. i rarely will do this deal with anyone. both of us can be right for our own reasons. do you all know what i am talking about. and our reasons. this would be a good post for the theory forum but i like it here as its a pot or no limit situation.


for those that dont know what dealing twice is. it is when two players are in, and there is no more betting, and there are cards to come. so they make an agreement to deal the finishing cards twice. this way it helps even out swings in the money. the hand thats a favorite can get a second chance if it gets drawn out on, and the other hand gets two tries at improving. its strictly a fair deal for all. but may or may not be a smart move.

I would look at it like insurance in blackjack. You have a very good possibility of breaking even on the deal, but most of the time "very good" is not 50%. Insurance might give you peace of mind, but it also gives you the worst of it.

In a pot-limit game (5/10 blinds)I was in about 4 months ago a player wanted to split the pot before the flop. It was a heads up betting war between two large stacks (at least 5K each) and after about a few reraises everyone in the game figured that it was Aces aganist Aces. One player wanted to just split up the money and not have a flop - thus avoiding the chance of one winning with a flush. This is conceptually about the same thing as dealing twice to even out draws. A discussion arose because some players said the casino will not allow it etc.


To finish the story, one player had kings and the other Aces. The player with kings refused the offer and called with his remaining stack after the flop. He lost. He was a bit unbalanced and I had dubbed him twitchy face. I have not seen him since.


Have any other players been involved in a similar situation in pot-limit as opposed to no-limit. Are there any "set rules" about this?

I would think that Ray Zee would know and would appreciate his comments on this. Thanks.

My view is: generally, dealing twice is bad for your image because people will think that if they get all-in against you, their chances of getting or "rescuing" something will be better. They start to lose their fear of getting in a big confrontation with you, which is terrible news in pot limit. This argument particularly applies if you can afford the game better than your opponents; you should seek to increase their fear of a big confrontation.


Secondly, a related point, people like to deal twice to reduce the swings they suffer. But if you're adequately bankrolled and have a positive expectation in the game then you should not have to worry about swings so much anyway, and being known to be willing to deal twice just gives people the impression that you can't really afford the game (even if you can). And that makes you look weak.


However, I do think that there are situations where dealing twice is OK. One is that if you're playing with a bad player, yet one who is not afraid to put his money in, dealing twice lets you reduce the chance that he will get lucky on a couple of hands and either win all your money (by which I mainly mean all the money you have with you that session, not your entire bankroll), or win so much that he quits. You get a better chance to wear him down with superior play.


A second situation is where you are playing in a game that is really too big for your (session) bankroll but which is worth a shot because there are some really bad players. In such a situation it may be worth dealing twice to improve your chances of staying in action, although see above about giving a weaker image.


A third situation is that agreeing to deal twice is seen as a sort of courtesy in some games, and you might want to be seen as courteous, either because you think courtesy is a good thing in itself, or because you want the game to be seen as a friendly one, perhaps to keep new and/or players in.


So in general I think dealing twice is a bad thing for your image, and if you're adequately bankrolled it is poor play to become a habitual deal-twicer. If you make a habit of playing in games where you are inadequately bankrolled and dealing twice to reduce the danger, I think you are taking a very dangerous course.


Oh no!! Not again!

Ray, I think I know your point, and it's probably in line with what OhNo wrote. I agree that is an issue. I first heard that side presented by a very tough British player at the WSOP. He said he never deals because he wants everybody at the table to be afraid of going broke against him. It makes sense.


Maybe I'm wrong in some games and not in others.


I just hate variance too much, maybe.


Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

perhaps I'm wrong, but believe that if betting has forced other players out, the no deal can be made

One of the most common reasons cited by good players for not doing deals (such as by "Ohnonotagain" above) is that the they want to discourage people from wanting to tangle with them. If your opponents are generally pushed around too easily, then it makes sense to not do deals with them, since you want to keep encouraging them to make that mistake (the assumption here, which is a fine one I think, is that people will be less inclined to get involved when they know they won't be able to "do business"). However, what if your opponent's weakness is that he calls big bets to easily. You want to encourage him to err in this fashion, and this is a reason *to* run the cards multiple times. The same goes for the table as a whole. If you're in a game where people are weak-tight, you probably should not do business (assuming you can take the fluctuations). But if you're in a game where the way you make money is by people paying off too much, then this is actually a reason to do business. My point is that the image you want to have depends on whom you are playing against.


Also, it is often customary for players to ask that you turn your cards over before discussing if they want to do a deal. For this reason, you should consider whether you are in or out of position as another consideration. This is because if you are out of position you will have to show your cards anyway and gain information about your opponent's hand. And of course this is a reason to be less inclined to make a deal when you have position


-Dan

could not disagree about image, but in terms of the math of the situation, best hand most likely to win both times


just another case of not allways doing the same thing==thus others will not know what to expect==that's fundamental

I've always thought of dealing twice as a form a insurance. On one hand, it's certainly a better deal than what the house man or rail will offer. On the other, it tends to grow and eventually slow down the game. I've never liked it for that reason, and because it can promote collusion that has killed some pretty good action.

in the pot and no limit games most places allow any deals between players when there is no more betting. but it does slow the game some.

dealing twice gives no one an edge on that hand.the same with insurance if the price is fair.

i would be very selective about doing it. i believe you win much too much money by people making bad folds, and them thinking its ok to get in with you, it takes away some of that.

just read many of the posts on the forums, people worry more about variance than about maximizing their winnings. in big betting games, many of the players just wont go broke without big hands. but give them a chance to call and get a big portion of their money back if they are wrong in their call and you got problems.

Your first paragraph is a fair point which people sometimes cite in favour of dealing twice, although I think in reality having your play/bets feared/respected is more important.


As far as showing cards goes, it's usually, or at least more often, the player who is worried that he is behind that suggests dealing twice. The etiquette is usually that player A (anxious) says "Shall we deal it twice?", B says "What have you got?", A says "Top two and a gutshot", "top set" etc., and then B decides whether to deal twice. It is very rare for A to lie, in my experience (although I did see a fantastic argument in LV once when someone did). My point being that if the other guy is asking to deal twice, you can often find out most of his hand anyway, before, or even without, showing yours. Sometimes the player suggesting it won't say what he's got, but usually he has to, to try to get the other player to agree. I have seen the other players' cards without showing mine more than a few times in this kind of situation, although of course you often have to show your hand to take the pot!


Oh no!! Not again!

In the US this is true (at least LV, I haven't been elsewhere), but in London it's not allowed because of the gaming laws.


Oh no!! Not again!

I definitely agree with this. I'll give a concrete example. On the last day of a trip to the WSOP 2 years ago there was a big PLO game which I decided to play in because there was a very bad player in it. But I was only going to play with my winnings from the trip (I'd already got the cashier's cheque I'd brought back from the cage). My winnings weren't that much at all in relation to the blinds, so I had two smallish buy-ins.


Now a lot of people were dealing twice in the game, and since I wanted to keep playing long enough to tangle with the bad player, I decided that I would do it, too.


However, there was one player in the game, Freddie Deeb, who was playing very fast, who would not deal twice at all, and made it very clear. I can tell you, I played so differently against him than against the other players! It was because I wanted to stay in the game so much, and he was the most likely to bust me out. In fact, because he was probably the loosest player, he would have been the most profitable to call if I had had the courage.


In the end, I did call him (I bet, he raised me all in after the flop), and his bare aces (no draw) beat my top pair, flush draw and straight draw. I'd probably made at least a couple of bad folds before that where I had him beaten because of the fear of getting busted.


I was shortstacked for slightly artificial reasons there, but I think there are plenty of players in the biggish pot limit games at tournaments who are either close to broke or close to having no more money available on the trip, who suffer from the same problem I had. Against them, I am really sure you should not deal twice, and make sure they know it. Also, keep an eye out for players who refuse to deal twice and later start doing it. They are probably running low.


Oh no!! Not again!

But the price for insurance is (almost) never fair. You're basically getting 2 to 1 odds on a 4 to 13 shot. How skewed does the count need to be to justify that bet?


How unsure must you be that you're not getting the best of it to justify two deals in poker?

never take insurance unless its the correct price. and dealing twice is always the correct price as its a fair deal.

if I am a 10.5-1 favorite over someone, (he has say 4 outs) I think I am the one who is really buying the insurance. If the pot is $1000, and $915 is roughly my equity, I think I should be willing to take a little less (say $900.) So if you deal twice, or three times, I think the big favorite, if there is one, should give up some edge. JMHO

Should??


Why SHOULD anyone ever give up any edge? Certainly there are good reasons to do it sometimes, but should seems like much too strong of a word.


Plus, when you deal multiple times, there is no way for either player to give or take any edge therefrom. It's mathematically fair, whether you want it to be or not. I guess we could deal twice and the favorite could also agree to give the underdog $10 if he still wins both times.


;-)


Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)