Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

I was playing a 2/5 PLO8/b and flopped the nut king high straight. My opponent flopped the top set. Flop was KQ9 rainbow. He had KKxx and I had JT98. He leads out(heads-up) and I re-raise the pot, it was like a $450 reraise.

This will put him all in, so he asked me if i wanted to run them twice. I had never done it before and I agreed. I won the first run and he hit boat on second run.

So we split the pot. Are there any advantages, say when your opponent has no re-draws, or certain situations in which one person has an advantage to run them twice?

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

[ QUOTE ]
I was playing a 2/5 PLO8/b and flopped the nut king high straight. My opponent flopped the top set. Flop was KQ9 rainbow. He had KKxx and I had JT98. He leads out(heads-up) and I re-raise the pot, it was like a $450 reraise.

This will put him all in, so he asked me if i wanted to run them twice. I had never done it before and I agreed. I won the first run and he hit boat on second run.

So we split the pot. Are there any advantages, say when your opponent has no re-draws, or certain situations in which one person has an advantage to run them twice?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the odds are exactly the same whether you run it once or five times. The only difference is the variance.

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

I'd say you should always run it twice if your opponent wants to. Ahead or behind it lowers your variance, and if I don't gain any EV by increasing my variance, then I'm pretty much always willing to lower it.

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

That doesn't make any sense. It won't lower the variance of a losing hand in the sense you think it will. You'll lose more if you run a worse hand twice (obviously).

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

It's not obvious to me. Say you're a 30/70 dog, the more times you run it the closer you come to winning exactly 30% of the time. Variance could be good or bad for you on this particular hand, but you don't know before the dealer puts down the cards.

Now, if you were always getting your cards in with the worst of it, obviously you wouldn't want to run it twice, as variance would be your only chance to show a profit.

What of this do you disagree with?

edit: Also, if you would lose more running it twice with a worse hand, that means you'd have to win more running it twice with a better hand.

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't make any sense. It won't lower the variance of a losing hand in the sense you think it will. You'll lose more if you run a worse hand twice (obviously).

[/ QUOTE ]

No you wont, you will lose EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT as expected in the long term no matter how many times you run it. Running it multiple times will not under any circumstances change the EV. Please do not argue this point as it's 3am and I don't want to bust out the math on you.

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

It's all equal in terms of EV as mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

That said, I know one guy who has a large BR relative to the limits he plays and he never runs it twice or thrice. His reason is that if his opponent is variance adverse, he has a chance to put him on tilt by increasing his risk.

~ Rick

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

Question: when you run it twice, do you shuffle the first turn/river back into the deck before running it the second time? Without replacement, the EV will change.

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

I'd say this sort of thing would be the only reason to ever not run it twice. Trouble is that most games are gonna be much more profitable with happy folks in them then angry folks, so usually I think the best move is to oblige.

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

I don't think anybody ever shuffles again, because that would always be a horrible deal for somebody.

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

You can only tell the advantages/disadvantage by running the numbers.

If it gets run once, his expectation is E=.35*$100=$35, which assumes a $100 pot. The real expectation would be E=.35p, where p is the size of the pot. However, you can also just say E=35%, so I'll use those numbers from now on.

If it gets run twice, his expecttion of a win goes way down: E=35%^2=12.25%.

You expectation of a win goes way down too: E=65%^2=42.25%.

The expectation of a tie goes from 0% to 100%-12.25%-42.25%=45.5%.

With these numbers we can compare both expectations.

His comparison is E1=35% and E2=12.25%+(1/2*45.5%)=35%, where 45.5% has to be divided by 2 because it will be a split pot.

As you can see, the expectation stays the same. What changes is that the pot gets split nearly half the time. That's what everybody means by less variance when it gets run twice, because it ends up tied so often, which is impossible if run once. In fact, of the 3 outcomes, a tie is the slight favorite over you winning both runs.

It depends on your philosophy of variance, but I like it when I only lose a hand 12.25% of the time and can still win it 42+% of the time. However, I won't trade my 35% equity as the dog for an almost 60% chance to win or tie, even though the numbers say I should, in order to lower variance. I guess that means I don't like to gamble when ahead, but like to gamble when behind.

HTH.

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

I've only seen the burn and dealt cards thrown in the muck. I suppose it would make a difference (I have to think about that one), but I've never seen reshuffling.

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

advantage is the true odds are more in play, disadvantage is that you might lose $$ if the other guy hits at the end. also it's intimidating if your known as someone who doesn't accept deals.

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

Obviously you are not somebody who put in 5 years studying economics like I did.

This doesn't make your approach wrong, just different.

What I was trying to say is I get more utility (an economic concept) from "making a deal" while ahead than I get when behind.

It's not right or wrong, in my opinion, but how you view maximizing your utility. If I have a 35% chance to put somebody on tilt, rather than a 12% chance, I take the 35%. Perhaps I wasn't clear about the gambling aspect, but your post shows me why the tilt factor should have been part of my thinking and explains why I gamble from behind.

Thank you for letting me elaborate and explain the missing part of my reasoning when behind.

However, I do see your point when ahead. "No deal", when ahead, is aggressive.

I'll have to think about that one for awhile. Essentially it comes down to (utility values aside or held constant) a situation where I'm a 65% favorite, and have some chance to put my opponent on tilt, if I refuse the deal and win.

I'm generally inclined to assign close to 0% to "tilt factor" variables in this situation, but I now see this is wrong.

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously you are not somebody who put in 5 years studying economics like I did.

This doesn't make your approach wrong, just different.

What I was trying to say is I get more utility (an economic concept) from "making a deal" while ahead than I get when behind.

It's not right or wrong, in my opinion, but how you view maximizing your utility. If I have a 35% chance to put somebody on tilt, rather than a 12% chance, I take the 35%. Perhaps I wasn't clear about the gambling aspect, but your post shows me why the tilt factor should have been part of my thinking and explains why I gamble from behind.

Thank you for letting me elaborate and explain the missing part of my reasoning when behind.

However, I do see your point when ahead. "No deal", when ahead, is aggressive.

I'll have to think about that one for awhile. Essentially it comes down to (utility values aside or held constant) a situation where I'm a 65% favorite, and have some chance to put my opponent on tilt, if I refuse the deal and win.

I'm generally inclined to assign close to 0% to "tilt factor" variables in this situation, but I now see this is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is pure gold, from the standpoint that you gloat about your education in economics, and then present the most rambling, fucktardedest post I've ever read. Truly fitting of an economist. Thanks for the chuckle.

By the way, nobody's allowed to use the word "fucktardedest" without a footnote attributing the word's origin to me.

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't make any sense. It won't lower the variance of a losing hand in the sense you think it will. You'll lose more if you run a worse hand twice (obviously).

[/ QUOTE ]

No you wont, you will lose EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT as expected in the long term no matter how many times you run it. Running it multiple times will not under any circumstances change the EV. Please do not argue this point as it's 3am and I don't want to bust out the math on you.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no disagreement here. You lose double the expected loss from one run...hence, more.

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

If you are a good player and can handle variance, then you never want to run it twice.

in addition to the other points, it also encourages your opponents to play back at you more since they know their variance will be lower, and it also lets them see what hands you are playing giving some info away.

-g

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

I thought my explanation made sense to people who don't try to quantify the concept of utility.

Let's say Wintermute would rather gamble, on the margins, than not, all else being equal. We could then say that Wintermute gets a lot of fun or whatever out of gambling at the margins. We don't necessarily know why Wintermute gambles at the margins, we just know from observation that he does. Obviously, Wintermute gets more utility (because of fun or whatever reason) from betting in marginal situations than from checking. This utility function is not quantifiable mathematically, although it would be in theory.

I try to keep economics out of discussions, except when I think this "I'm a gambler" utility function comes into play.

That's why I brought it up, not to trot out credentials. Besides, 5 years of Econ is nothing in the Econ world, where you are somebody's "boy" with just a master's degree.

I've participated in theoretical discussions on general poker theory issues on 2+2, where I have come at it from an economic perspective, especially where somebody prefers gambling over playing it safe.

I think it is a valid way to approach problems.

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

You wager the same amount of money, with the same odds. I believe you are missing something here.

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

This is one of the most idiotic posts I've read in a while. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to computing the EV and variance in the different scenarios (running once vs. multiple times).

In my opinion it is not initially obvious that the expected values in the different scenarios are identical, although with some combinatorial reasoning it does become obvious in hindsight.

The discussion on whether running it once vs. twice can induce tilt in one of the players is interesting, I suppose, but I think that results of all-in situations contribute far less than, say, realizing you were bluffed out of a pot.

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

I seems to me that you would need a lot of dead money in the pot for this to be a good deal.

When is running it twice a good deal and when is it a bad deal?

It seems like you are trying to split up the dead money that is in the pot. If I was playing above my bankroll, I would take this deal in a heartbeat.

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

The trouble with this is that there just aren't enough all in situations, but they account for a huge amount of your results. You can really be bent over by variance if your allins preform a standard deviation below what you'd expect... Granted, I'm a big pussy when it comes to nl cash games, but still I think you'd have to be significantly over bankrolled for this scenario to not be somewhat attractive.

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

[ QUOTE ]
I seems to me that you would need a lot of dead money in the pot for this to be a good deal.

When is running it twice a good deal and when is it a bad deal?

It seems like you are trying to split up the dead money that is in the pot. If I was playing above my bankroll, I would take this deal in a heartbeat.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is this such a difficult concept? Instead of being in one pot for, say, $100 you are just saying let's play the exact same hand twice for two $50 pots. So if you have 70% equity in the $100 pot ($70) then you have 70% in both $50 pots ($35 each = $70). No change in equity (EV). However, since you are now playing two smaller pots instead of one larger pot, the discrete outcomes are +100, +0, and -100 instead of only +100 and -100. Therefore the variance is going to be lower.

To see an illustration, roll a die and draw two graphs. In the first one, go up if you get 4-6 and down if you get 1-3. In the second graph go up if you get 5-6, down if you get 1-2, and just stay flat if you get 3-4. Roll the die 20 times and draw the two graphs. Obviously in expectation neither graph will go anywhere. But you should see that the variance in the first graph is much greater than in the second one.

So the only reason to run it twice or not is if you want or dont want variance. Basically, if you can stand the variance better than your opponent then you don't want to run it twice because you are then punishing your opponent for his aversion to variance. If you can't stand the variance then you will want to run it twice.

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

[ QUOTE ]
Question: when you run it twice, do you shuffle the first turn/river back into the deck before running it the second time? Without replacement, the EV will change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect Sir, the EV *over* however many times you run it will never change, although the EV from one particular run will change, over the full amount of times you run it, the average is the EV of just running it once.

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you are a good player and can handle variance, then you never want to run it twice.

in addition to the other points, it also encourages your opponents to play back at you more since they know their variance will be lower, and it also lets them see what hands you are playing giving some info away.

-g

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree with this. There are times when you want to make deals and times when you dont. If you are known as a player who doesn't make deals, players may be more passive with you, if you do make deals, players may be more willing to shove with you on the flop with their draw. Whichever turns out to be good who knows, but if I only have 1 buyin and have to make it last, then i'm going to be happier shoving with the guy who wants to run it 3 times. Who this profits depends on who has the value.

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

I understand the HOW, I am just working on the WHY, WHO and WHEN.

If I can't stand the variance, then I shouldn't be in the game. Maybe that answers my own question, you run it twice or three times to keep someone in the game that shouldn't be in there in the first place.

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Question: when you run it twice, do you shuffle the first turn/river back into the deck before running it the second time? Without replacement, the EV will change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect Sir, the EV *over* however many times you run it will never change, although the EV from one particular run will change, over the full amount of times you run it, the average is the EV of just running it once.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is right. I tried to come up with a counterexample and couldn't.

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Question: when you run it twice, do you shuffle the first turn/river back into the deck before running it the second time? Without replacement, the EV will change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect Sir, the EV *over* however many times you run it will never change, although the EV from one particular run will change, over the full amount of times you run it, the average is the EV of just running it once.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is right. I tried to come up with a counterexample and couldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

An obvious way to see that Ribbo is correct is to simply imagine running it as many times as there are cards left in the deck (of course then you would also want to know all the dead cards to calculate the percentages correctly). Then you would always win exactly the EV of dealing it once but with zero variance. I think this is a fairly clear way to show that the variance goes down while the EV stays the same as you increase the number of cards dealt out without shuffling.

As an interesting side point, without shuffling appears to decrease variance faster, since in the all card limit you get a true zero variance situation. If you were to deal out the same number as the remaining cards, but shuffle every time in between, then obviously you wouldn't have a true zero variance result.

Notice that the best deal you could make as the favorite EV wise would be if you could get your opponent to split according to winning percentages and round off to favor the true favorite in the hand. This will obviously increase your EV. This offer could be called the variance reduction tax.

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

[ QUOTE ]
but if I only have 1 buyin and have to make it last,

[/ QUOTE ]

Then that doesn’t meet the criteria I noted of being able to handle variance

[ QUOTE ]
players may be more willing to shove with you on the flop with their draw

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it can cut both ways. But in general I think you would prefer more passive opponents rather than ones will aggressively play back at you, and make you guess whether they have draws or the nuts.


Someone ate their happy pill today – I think this is the first post you’ve disagreed with me where I haven’t made any “stupid assumptions” or “given horrible advice”. I’m very proud of you.

Perhaps its because the above advice is not mine, but is stolen from Ray Zee.

-g

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why is this such a difficult concept? Instead of being in one pot for, say, $100 you are just saying let's play the exact same hand twice for two $50 pots. So if you have 70% equity in the $100 pot ($70) then you have 70% in both $50 pots ($35 each = $70).

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely false.

[ QUOTE ]
No change in (EV).

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Magically, the correct end result.

Your explanation is typical of the idiots who think it is "obvious" the EVs are the same. If you initially think it's obvious, you are probably an idiot. If you don't think it's obvious, think it over, and then realize it was obvious, you are probably fairly intelligent.

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is this such a difficult concept? Instead of being in one pot for, say, $100 you are just saying let's play the exact same hand twice for two $50 pots. So if you have 70% equity in the $100 pot ($70) then you have 70% in both $50 pots ($35 each = $70).

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely false.

[ QUOTE ]
No change in (EV).

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Magically, the correct end result.

Your explanation is typical of the idiots who think it is "obvious" the EVs are the same. If you initially think it's obvious, you are probably an idiot. If you don't think it's obvious, think it over, and then realize it was obvious, you are probably fairly intelligent.

[/ QUOTE ]
WTF? If you're implying that once you draw the card for the first half pot you no longer have the same equity in the second half pot, that is correct, but irrelevant since before you draw the first card you still have 70% equity in BOTH halves. If you're talking about something else, explain. And don't call people idiots.

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

I don't know why this was hard for me to figure out, but I thought shuffling mattered to. Here's some math to prove that it doesn't (and that the ev doesn't change running it twice the standard way).

To simplify things let's say you have one out.

running it once: 1/44

run it twice, no shuffle: 1/44*.5 + (0/43*1/44 + 1/43*43/44)*.5

the second term = 43/1892 which reduces to, surprise surprise, 1/44.

run it twice, shuffle: 1/44*.5 + 1/44*.5

The thing that makes it clear that shuffling doesn't matter is once you understand that putting down the river, shuffling the cards, and putting down the river again, is exactly like playing the exact same hand on two different occasions. Obviously your EV for these two different hands won't change.

OK, I got a counterexample.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Question: when you run it twice, do you shuffle the first turn/river back into the deck before running it the second time? Without replacement, the EV will change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect Sir, the EV *over* however many times you run it will never change, although the EV from one particular run will change, over the full amount of times you run it, the average is the EV of just running it once.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is right. I tried to come up with a counterexample and couldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

An obvious way to see that Ribbo is correct is to simply imagine running it as many times as there are cards left in the deck (of course then you would also want to know all the dead cards to calculate the percentages correctly). Then you would always win exactly the EV of dealing it once but with zero variance. I think this is a fairly clear way to show that the variance goes down while the EV stays the same as you increase the number of cards dealt out without shuffling.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've got a set over set situation in hold'em. Say the board is such that no other draws can win the hand for the player who trails. Now, you claim that we deal out boards with the rest of the entire deck and the EV gets distributed as the percentages dictate. Not always: if one of the boards gives both players quads, then the underset will never win, yet we know he does not have zero EV. QED. Ergo, I am smarter than you, per se, as it were.


<font color="white">Of course this is wrong, it's just that the granularity of the number of boards the deck can deal out is not fine enough to catch the small EV that the underset has every time you run this. If you dealt the remainder of the deck out a few hundred times, you'd get the right EV. So I agree w/ you and Ribbo, the EV does not change. </font>

Re: OK, I got a counterexample.
 

Yeah, once you start adding the turn card in to the analysis things do get a lot trickier. If you want to take this "run it every way" approach, you actually have to run every river for every single turn card. That would be fun.

Re: OK, I got a counterexample.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Question: when you run it twice, do you shuffle the first turn/river back into the deck before running it the second time? Without replacement, the EV will change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect Sir, the EV *over* however many times you run it will never change, although the EV from one particular run will change, over the full amount of times you run it, the average is the EV of just running it once.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is right. I tried to come up with a counterexample and couldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

An obvious way to see that Ribbo is correct is to simply imagine running it as many times as there are cards left in the deck (of course then you would also want to know all the dead cards to calculate the percentages correctly). Then you would always win exactly the EV of dealing it once but with zero variance. I think this is a fairly clear way to show that the variance goes down while the EV stays the same as you increase the number of cards dealt out without shuffling.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've got a set over set situation in hold'em. Say the board is such that no other draws can win the hand for the player who trails. Now, you claim that we deal out boards with the rest of the entire deck and the EV gets distributed as the percentages dictate. Not always: if one of the boards gives both players quads, then the underset will never win, yet we know he does not have zero EV. QED. Ergo, I am smarter than you, per se, as it were.


<font color="white">Of course this is wrong, it's just that the granularity of the number of boards the deck can deal out is not fine enough to catch the small EV that the underset has every time you run this. If you dealt the remainder of the deck out a few hundred times, you'd get the right EV. So I agree w/ you and Ribbo, the EV does not change. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

I was assuming there was only one card left to come. I thought that was obvious. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages??? *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by FeliciaLee

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus, I guess I should expect this thread would have the largest number of replies. It's like this entire site is designed for a bunch of retards.

You shouldn't give a [censored] about this as long as there is an automatic shuffler. If it's shuffled by hand, the player with the lowest EV gets an advantage from running it twice. If it's run at least five times, it goes back to neutral.

So there you have it. Now can we lock this stupid fking thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you and RawTurkey cousins or brothers?

-g

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but if I only have 1 buyin and have to make it last,

[/ QUOTE ]

Then that doesn’t meet the criteria I noted of being able to handle variance

[/ QUOTE ]

It meets the criteria of being able to play poker, yet again stop just quoting other people and think for yourself. If some guy wants to play poker and has money, he will play poker.

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

[ QUOTE ]
stop just quoting other people and think for yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Much better. I feel properly insulted now.

-g

Re: Running it Twice.....what are the dis/advantages???
 

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say Wintermute would rather ramble

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP