Effect of running it twice? (1 Viewer)

[boltonguy]

There was a discussion on the Hustler Live thread about running it once or twice and if there was any impact. Last night on the Hustler Live stream, Randall Emmett (who I just cant stand BTW) made a comment as he kept jamming flush draws on flop that he was expecting to regularly chop and running it once breaks his game a bit. So I wanted to dig into this. I'm trying to do math below and would appreciate any feedback and/or correction.

Let's look at the choice between running it once or twice in a classic "coin flip" scenario: AKs all-in pre versus 22 (not shareing any of the same suits as AKs). Equilab has this match at 50.08% for AKs and 49.92% for 22, so let's round and go with 50/50.

So in a HUP game with stacks of 100BB, player 1 dealt AKs and player 2 dealt 22, all the money gets in pre. Player 1 RFI, player 2 jams and player 1 calls. Is there an impact on the outcome to running it once or twice? Let's look at this from player 1's perspective with no blinds just to make the math easier:

In this scenario, player 1 has called 100BB to win 100BB. She has 50% probability of winning 100BB and 50% probability of losing 100BB. So Ev = Pwin*Value = Plose*Value = 100*0.5 - 100*0.5 = 0. So it looks like in a coin flip situation the EV is 0.

If we diagram it out using H(eads) and T(ails):

H = win 100BB, Ev = 50BB, p = 50%
T = lose 100BB, Ev = -50BB, p = 50%
Ev = 0

When we run it an even number of times, such as twice, we introduce the possibility that the players will tie and chop the pot. This doesnt change the expected value but it does change the probability distribution of the outcomes. If we diagram again using H9eads) and T(ails):

H = HH, Player 1 wins both boards = 100BB, p = 25%
H<
T = HT, players chop = 0BB, p = 25%

H = TH, players chop = 0BB, p= 25%
T<
T = TT, Player 1 loses both boards = -100BB, p = 25%

The Ev in this case is the sum of all the expected values * their probabilities and is still equal to zero.
However, we see that the probability of winning the entire pot has decreased from 50% when running it once to 25% when running it twice; conversely, the probability of losing one's entire stack has also decreased from 50% to 25%. This is because in a coin flip scenario the players will chop 50% of the time.

So while the EV doesnt change, because we introduce the possibility of chopping, the probability of the outcomes does change (no we chop half the time) and we see a game where players can call flips (which is probably exciting for the audience) with less risk of losing their stack.

So if you are ahead in a non-flip situation, while agreeing to run it twice wont change the odds of specific cards coming, you will introduce the possibility of chopping and will decrease the probability that you will drag the whole pot. Thoughts?

 

[shorticus]

Yes

 

[CDC]

Running it twice don't change the EV...it only helps a bit in reducing variance...
Your example is perfect, when run it once you either lose or win: high variance where the EV was 0.
Run it twice, higher chance for split pot, closer to your EV.
If above scenario happens 50 times, your EV will be closer to 0, and when you run it twice, basically the scenario happens 100x) ...the law of large numbers prevails...

 

[Legend5555]

Running it now than once just causes the final equity (outcome) of the hand to approach the true equity the more times you run it. That's all.

Where it does "change" (heavy quotes) things is let's say there is a set over set scenario where the lower set only has one out. If they run it multiple times, he can never win the whole pot. But again, this just gets things closer to the real equity.

 

[Legend5555]

Bart Hanson talks about this at length in his free CLP podcast from last week and had a video up on his channel about it too.

 

[grebe]

ignoring what's in the pot already gives you bad input. In actuality, you are likely to have dead money in the pot, where both players have a positive ev.

Also, it's different if it's not a coin flip. In the case of a flush draw, you are around 1:3 to hit....so the ahead player should not run it twice...he should run it 1 time or 3. Twice just gives your opponent two tries to chop 50/50.

 

[OfficerLovejoy]

very comprehensive summary.

In short - nothing changes in terms of ev.

 

[OfficerLovejoy]

Also, it's different if it's not a coin flip. In the case of a flush draw, you are around 1:3 to hit....so the ahead player should not run it twice...he should run it 1 time or 3. Twice just gives your opponent two tries to chop 50/50.

no.

 

[grebe]

no.

Your comprehensive discussion has convinced me I am wrong. Thanks for the enlightenment.

 

[Legend5555]

Your comprehensive discussion has convinced me I am wrong. Thanks for the enlightenment.

Your decision on how many times to run it should not depend on your or your opponents equity. How many times you run it doesn't change anything it terms of overall EV. The best and pretty much only reasons IMO for running it more than once are variance reduction, to keep a game alive if people don't have reload money, and to make losing players happy.

 

[OfficerLovejoy]

very comprehensive summary.

In short - nothing changes in terms of ev.

Your comprehensive discussion has convinced me I am wrong. Thanks for the enlightenment.

Can't explain it better than Bart does.

 

[grebe]

Your decision on how many times to run it should not depend on your or your opponents equity. How many times you run it doesn't change anything it terms of overall EV. The best and pretty much only reasons IMO for running it more than once are variance reduction, to keep a game alive if people don't have reload money, and to make losing players happy.

It would be an interesting math problem that I am not going to do today....to do the math based on the possible outcomes of the runouts to see what the odds would be to hit overall if you ran it three times. e.g. if you missed the first two, your odds would be very high to hit the third, as you still had 9 outs but there are less cards in the deck. If you hit the first board for the flush, what are the odds you could hit another? etc.

 

[navels]

Bart Hanson talks about this at length in his free CLP podcast from last week and had a video up on his channel about it too.

Bart seems to talk about this every chance he gets

 

[Legend5555]

It would be an interesting math problem that I am not going to do today....to do the math based on the possible outcomes of the runouts to see what the odds would be to hit overall if you ran it three times. e.g. if you missed the first two, your odds would be very high to hit the third, as you still had 9 outs but there are less cards in the deck. If you hit the first board for the flush, what are the odds you could hit another? etc.

While this is true, it doesn't matter long term because you could easily bet on the other side of it in another situation in the future.

 

[Legend5555]

Bart seems to talk about this every chance he gets

With good reason. No matter how often he explains it, people still don't get it.

 

[ChaosRock]

With good reason. No matter how often he explains it, people still don't get it.

Very true and you beat me to it. I was about to post the exact same comment.

 

[Goldfish]

 

[Highli99]

I’ll run it infinite times or simply accept equity payment.

 

[Legend5555]

I’ll run it infinite times or simply accept equity payment.

I'm a bit surprised no one has ever tried to implement equity payout online for players that get it in before the river. If nothing else, it would be fun to watch people go crazy thinking it's doing them any good.

 

[navels]

This is all fine and good but just saying my preference is to rip the band-aid off and move on.

 

[Highli99]

I'm a bit surprised no one has ever tried to implement equity payout online for players that get it in before the river. If nothing else, it would be fun to watch people go crazy thinking it's doing them any good.

I believe there is at least one platform that does. Possibly GG?

 

[upNdown]

Everything I believe about running it twice, I learned from Bart. So I’ll just leave you with this: Randall Emmett is an annoying buffoon.

 

[Coyote]

I 'd love to know what the rules are (if there are any universal rules, that is).
If an all-in bet is called, do the players have to turn their cards face-up?
I 've read (in Harrington's books) that this is only obligatory in tournaments, not cash games.

In cash games, once an all-in bet is called:
If players don't have to and do not reveal their cards, running it twice is fair.
If they have to reveal their cards, then running it three times instead of two is the fair thing for the player who is ahead. IMHO.

 

[Legend5555]

I 'd love to know what the rules are (if there are any universal rules, that is).
If an all-in bet is called, do the players have to turn their cards face-up?
I 've read (in Harrington's books) that this is only obligatory in tournaments, not cash games.

In cash games, once an all-in bet is called:
If players don't have to and do not reveal their cards, running it twice is fair.
If they have to reveal their cards, then running it three times instead of two is the fair thing for the player who is ahead. IMHO.

 

[Coyote]

That's how I feel, man.

 

[shorticus]

I 'd love to know what the rules are (if there are any universal rules, that is).
If an all-in bet is called, do the players have to turn their cards face-up?
I 've read (in Harrington's books) that this is only obligatory in tournaments, not cash games.

In cash games, once an all-in bet is called:
If players don't have to and do not reveal their cards, running it twice is fair.
If they have to reveal their cards, then running it three times instead of two is the fair thing for the player who is ahead. IMHO.

 

[Mojo1312]

@Jimulacrum did a nice write up about this subject.

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/my-journey-as-a-professional-poker-player.58520/post-1389296

 

[OfficerLovejoy]

I 'd love to know what the rules are (if there are any universal rules, that is).
If an all-in bet is called, do the players have to turn their cards face-up?
I 've read (in Harrington's books) that this is only obligatory in tournaments, not cash games.

In cash games, once an all-in bet is called:
If players don't have to and do not reveal their cards, running it twice is fair.
If they have to reveal their cards, then running it three times instead of two is the fair thing for the player who is ahead. IMHO.

Bart explains it quite well in the video linked above why knowing the hands does not make a difference at all.
He's referring to a situation where someone agreed to run it twice and then changed his mind after he saw his opponents cards.
His conclusion after doing some math was, that it did not make any difference whatsoever and that this guy did not get any advantage at all.
I suck at math and still could follow along his reasoning, so I'm in the "there is no difference-camp".

 

[CrazyEddie]

I'm a bit surprised no one has ever tried to implement equity payout online for players that get it in before the river. If nothing else, it would be fun to watch people go crazy thinking it's doing them any good.

Well, it would be doing them good if they value reducing variance. ... but I understand what you meant, a lot of people would somehow think that it was somehow improving their EV ("making them more money" if they aren't familiar with / don't understand what EV means).

 

[CrazyEddie]

This is purely a matter of preference / aesthetics, but I would never want to run it twice (or more). Running it twice is a way to reduce variance, to simultaneously minimize both your losses and gains. IMHO that's all part of bankroll management, and you should do your bankroll management away from the table. Once you're sitting, you should (again, this is a matter of preference) revel in the huge swings inherent in the game. Are you there to scrape out your +2bb/100 hands or are you there to play poker ?

This sounds gambley, and fishy, and exploitable, but the point is that it's not. Running it once or twice or ten times doesn't change you from a thoughtful, practiced, competent player into a sucker or vice versa. It's only a matter of variance, and variance can (and should be) managed away from the table but indulged at the table.

If nothing else, being fake-gambley at the table will encourage the other players to be gambley as well, in ways that do effect their EV, in your favor.