Lol, just got this message from a mutual friend. I think she realizes people are seeing what a nutjob she is and wants me to take down my facebook post

I'm tempted to reply "don't light a match if you aren't willing to watch something burn"

But just going to ignore it and keep my post up on my page with my side of the story

I wouldn't take it down either unless she reached out to you herself. And even then maybe not. Given the track record that has been laid out, I don't really trust her intentions here.

I wouldn't take it down either unless she reached out to you herself. And even then maybe not. Given the track record that has been laid out, I don't really trust her intentions here.

She started all this by immediately calling a mutual friend after the hand, trashing me to people at the casino, posting in the florida poker group and probably her own facebook, etc

Claimed she wanted honest feedback from folks, then when she got it started blocking them, lol

Now that she realizes her tantrum blew up in her face, she doesn't even send an apology, she just wants to silence me because she realizes how bad she looks

She started all this by immediately calling a mutual friend after the hand, trashing me to people at the casino, posting in the florida poker group and probably her own facebook, etc

Claimed she wanted honest feedback from folks, then when she got it started blocking them, lol

Now that she realizes her tantrum blew up in her face, she doesn't even send an apology, she just wants to silence me because she realizes how bad she looks

What's funny is someone already created a fake profile named "anthony martina" to troll me, but I think it was already deleted and I didn't screencap it

Said things like I was 50% male 50% female, my website was PLODonkey.com and other such silliness.

I actually kinda cracked up at it, may have been one of her friends and not her.

But no, I don't want to stoop all the way to that level, please don't harass her online

I'm coming down to FL in April. But I'll be in Naples. And I'm not sure I could convince the wife to let me drive 3 hours to play in this game. I'll just have to settle for NLHE in Bonita Springs.

Running it twice isn't favorable for anyone. It's completely EV-neutral, whether you run it 2 times or 20 times.

I did the math on this ages ago, and running it x times is essentially getting you closer and closer to the perfect mathematical equity, the higher x goes. You're running x outcomes out of y total possible outcomes, where the result of running all y outcomes would be a precise equity split.

Think about how, say, the Pro Poker Tools simulator works. It's essentially running x either all the way to y, or up to 600,000 if y is too large. The result is your equity, approximated statistically instead of calculated theoretically.

Without digging too deeply into the algebra, think about it in terms of solely running the river in Hold'em multiple times, since the math there is much simpler. Suppose your opponent has 8 outs from the remaining 44 cards in the deck. The 36 other cards give you the win. You're 36/44 = ~81.8% and he's 8/44 = ~18.2%, in theoretical equity.

Skipping burn cards for this exercise (which are irrelevant to equity calculations), what happens if you run it the maximum number of times, the full remaining 44 in the stub? The pot gets split into 44 parts, and he gets 8 and you get 36. Zero effect on that hand's EV.

Paying even one more cent of rake for this would be a waste of money, unless you're up against risk of ruin or something.

This has always been my argument too, but there's something nagging in the back of my head as I suspect most people think of running it multiple times in a binominal distribution insted of a hypergeometric distribution. However I'm sure smarter people than I have done the math and I suspect the difference is negligible anyways, but I am interested in the theory behind it and too lazy to do the math myself. To be specific I'm interested in the difference between binominal and hypergeometric outcomes when one is massive underdog/favorite and when it's a coinflip. That has nothing to do with poker of course but I'm completely incapable of imagining the difference.

This has always been my argument too, but there's something nagging in the back of my head as I suspect most people think of running it multiple times in a binominal distribution insted of a hypergeometric distribution. However I'm sure smarter people than I have done the math and I suspect the difference is negligible anyways, but I am interested in the theory behind it and too lazy to do the math myself. To be specific I'm interested in the difference between binominal and hypergeometric outcomes when one is massive underdog/favorite and when it's a coinflip. That has nothing to do with poker of course but I'm completely incapable of imagining the difference.

Sorry. When you calculate odds on running it x times, you need to remove outs from previous "runs" (in the same hand) and not add each "run"'s percentage as they were equal. If you miss your out, you have higher odds on future runs as there are fewer cards remaining in the deck. If you hit your out on the first run, that's one less out on the 2nd (and future) runs.
But as someone already said, and it's what I believe as well, the more times you run it, the closer both get to the actual equity of their respective hands and less variance - but EV stays the same.

This has always been my argument too, but there's something nagging in the back of my head as I suspect most people think of running it multiple times in a binominal distribution insted of a hypergeometric distribution. However I'm sure smarter people than I have done the math and I suspect the difference is negligible anyways, but I am interested in the theory behind it and too lazy to do the math myself. To be specific I'm interested in the difference between binominal and hypergeometric outcomes when one is massive underdog/favorite and when it's a coinflip. That has nothing to do with poker of course but I'm completely incapable of imagining the difference.

For those who don't speak Mathhead, in probability, binomial means "with replacement" (i.e., you're reshuffling the used cards back into the stub between runouts) and hypergeometric means "without replacement" (i.e., the way RIT works in real life). The EV for both players is unchanged in both cases.

Using my 36:8 river example from earlier, the way I analyzed it was the normal way, without replacement (hypergeometric). Running it exactly twice:

For those who wanted some kind of mathematical evidence that running it twice is EV-neutral, this is one such data point. That 81.8% is the same approximate probability of Hero winning on a single runout (36/44 ≈ 81.8%), and it comes out exactly the same if you use the precise values instead of rounding. If anyone really wants me to strip out the specific values and algebraically prove the general case, I can do that too, but the explicit numbers are usually more helpful for non-math folks.

Switching between the two models does not change equity (and thus EV) at all. The only real effect is that Hero has a slightly greater chance of scooping and a slightly lower chance of splitting. On the other side, Villain has a slightly greater chance of splitting and a slightly lower chance of scooping. The favorite is more likely to scoop and less likely to split, and the underdog is less likely to scoop and more likely to split, but it all comes out in the wash.

The only difference is in variance, which is greater when you run it out multiple times with replacement than without. To see why informally, look at the extremes. With replacement, it becomes possible, though unlikely, for either player to win 44 consecutive runouts. Without replacement, it's fully impossible for Villain to win more than 8 out of 44 runouts (or for Hero to win more than 36 out of 44).