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

[FBMike]

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.

[FBMike]

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.

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.

[FBMike]

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.

[Wintermute]

[ 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.

[sy_or_bust]

[ 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.

[gergery]

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

[FBMike]

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.

[Notorious G.O.B.]

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

[blumpkin22]

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.