Run it Once, Twice, or Three Times? (2 Viewers)

[ChipFinderSK]

I don’t buy these “wasting everyone’s time comments.” I think it’s just an excuse people use when they don’t like something. You read the same comments about rabbit hunting, which takes two seconds. Running it a third time takes literally one second for the third river, and how much longer does it take to divide a pot three ways instead of two? Ten seconds? I’ve seen people waste more time on a slow roll.

Fair point: three times shouldn’t add that much more time in splitting the pot.

But plenty of people aren’t great at counting the pot, which only gets worse when needing to split the pot in thirds instead of halves (and could require a recount). It also makes it more likely that the pot will need to be split in the first place (unless someone wins all three runs), needs to break a large denom to make equal stacks, and that one of the runs will result in a chop - and now we could be talking about 1/6 of a pot. And if you’re playing Omaha or other games with 4+ cards, it will often take more than 10 seconds just to figure out who won each run.

All of that can be avoided by running it once, if using the “needs a winner” rationale.

And FWIW, I don’t care about rabbit hunting, although it can get annoying if someone wants to do it all the time.

 

[Legend5555]

I honestly don't really care about ev in that situation. Before you start quoting facts and figures please try to understand that I don't really care, in that instance. I'm ok (not really) with running it twice if it keeps someone happy/in the game. I'm thinking more about image than what I really think about their request, especially in a have with friends. But, if I'm all in the pot, and, they want to run it twice, I'll ask if we can run it 3 times, best two or of 3 takes it. I like my chances of taking the pot, and, several times the opponent says "just once" is fine.

So you are the one pushing it? And likely making other people lose out on their EV more than yours. How nice of you.

 

[Legend5555]

I don’t buy these “wasting everyone’s time comments.” I think it’s just an excuse people use when they don’t like something. You read the same comments about rabbit hunting, which takes two seconds. Running it a third time takes literally one second for the third river, and how much longer does it take to divide a pot three ways instead of two? Ten seconds? I’ve seen people waste more time on a slow roll.

But when it happens over and over it adds up over the course of the night.

 

[Gunnar]

Depends really on the game, you don´t want to scare the fish if they ask for a multi run then I accept, I like running it twice or three times in big pots. But I only accept multiple runs before seeing the cards, if you show me your cards Im running it once most times.

 

[Darson]

Is this a matter of etiquette? I have never thought about it as an etiquette thing - personally I never ask but others often do. If I'm asked and have a made hand then I'll say once (assuming they're chasing) - if I'm chasing then twice.

 

[JustinInMN]

Depends really on the game, you don´t want to scare the fish if they ask for a multi run then I accept, I like running it twice or three times in big pots. But I only accept multiple runs before seeing the cards, if you show me your cards Im running it once most times.

I don't think revealing cards beforehand matters and in fact, if one player is drawing dead, obviously no point in multiple runs.

 

[KHarp1]

So you are the one pushing it? And likely making other people lose out on their EV more than yours. How nice of you.

No, I'm not the one pushing it. Reread. I prefer once, if they ask for twice I'll counter with 3 times, best of takes pot. Usually ends up running just once.

How many people are going to their usual friendly poker night calculating their EV in relationship to how many times someone is going to ask to run it twice? That's somewhat a ridiculous statement. We waste more time holding cards while we hear someone coming back from the restroom than any multiple boards.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

No, I'm not the one pushing it. Reread. I prefer once, if they ask for twice I'll counter with 3 times, best of takes pot. Usually ends up running just once.

Hey, I read it a few times and its pretty unclear, I don't know if you care or not, and I don't see where you say you prefer once. Or why you'd counter the running it twice if you didn't care about ev?

 

[upNdown]

I'll counter with 3 times, best of takes pot.

Hmm. Not sure I’ve heard of that one. So if you run it 3 times and he wins one board and you win two boards, he’s not getting 1/3 of the pot? Doesn’t that kind of defeat the purpose of reducing variance?
Or is it just your purpose to not run it multiple times?

 

[KHarp1]

Exactly. I made my decision when I went in, I'm ok with however it turns out running it once.

 

[upNdown]

Exactly. I made my decision when I went in, I'm ok with however it turns out running it once.

Totally fair

 

[jpietrella]

Sounds like you all just need to get more players that don't suck at math in your games.

 

[Frogzilla]

Sounds like you all just need to get more players that don't suck at math in your games.

dealers who try to do it in their heads seem to make a lot of mistakes in my experience. It’s more accurate to count down the stacks, bring them in, then chop.

running three times is a little more involved than just splitting into three instead of two. Its an all-in situation and usually heads up. And maybe lots of low denoms.

Splitting two ways:
1) Both pull bet back.
2) smaller pot in middle split into two

Splitting three ways:
1) Both stacks counted down to see who covers whom and how much short stack is
2) entire short stack pulled into pot
3) bet counted out of large stack and pulled into pot
4) larger pot split into three

It’s certainly doable and all those steps is quick for competent players and dealers but saying hey, the three ways is kind of a waste of time is fair.

 

[jpietrella]

but saying hey, the three ways is kind of a waste of time is fair.

Agree to disagree. I also think that if you don't have at least one person confident enough to do everything you outlined above, you shouldn't be running anything more than once.

I have no interest in chopping - I want a clear winner and a clear loser, so, my opinion is running it twice is a complete waste of time. Max pain.

You want to run it more than once? Run it three times. Not confident in your pot splitting capabilities? Run it once.

 

[Legend5555]

Exactly. I made my decision when I went in, I'm ok with however it turns out running it once.

And that's fine. But best 2 out of 3 is the most angle shooting thing I've ever heard of when it comes to running it multiple times. Especially if you are ahead.

 

[upNdown]

And that's fine. But best 2 out of 3 is the most angle shooting thing I've ever heard of when it comes to running it multiple times. Especially if you are ahead.

I mean I think the concept is stupid, but if it’s just a complicated way of saying “I only run it once,” no big deal.

 

[Legend5555]

I mean I think the concept is stupid, but if it’s just a complicated way of saying “I only run it once,” no big deal.

The issue is that there are plenty of people dumb enough to agree to it. So offering it is an angle.

 

[allforcharity]

Just wondering

Do most people allow running multiple times only when it's heads up at showdown, or do you allow it when there are more players at showdown? Does your opinion change if there are multiple side pots?

 

[Legend5555]

Not going to let it go. It's scummy to offer it. Even more so in a friendly game.

 

[BGinGA]

Run it X, benefits/disadvantages:

"Don't run it, just chop" -- max speed, minimal variance (but the favored hand loses equity)

"Don't run it, equity chop" -- zero variance

"Run it once" -- increased speed, maximum pain/variance

"Run it twice" -- less variance (but with potentialy no winner and thus wasting time)

"Run it 3 times" -- more reduced variance (four possible outcomes), but less quick

"Run it 3 times, 2 wins scoops" -- less friends (screwing your neighbor has consequences)

 

[Taghkanic]

"Don't run it, just chop" -- max speed, minimal variance (but the favored hand loses equity)

"Don't run it, equity chop" -- zero variance

Wait, what? I’ve never seen these first two options used.

I certainly hope these are only for cash games. If this is not a joke.

And even in cash they strike me as inviting potential collusion. (Two players team up to push their victims out of developing pots, then agree to chop? Am I missing something here?)

 

[Chris Manzoni]

I like running it once in a casino - but if someone asks to run it twice that's fine with me, I always say "whatever you want is fine". I want a happy table.

In my home game, I'm a lot more likely to bring up running it twice, even though we are micro-stakes. Whatever the other player wants I'm always fine with. I'm happiest when my friends are happy.

 

[upNdown]

Run it X, benefits/disadvantages:

"Don't run it, just chop" -- max speed, minimal variance (but the favored hand loses equity)

"Don't run it, equity chop" -- zero variance

"Run it once" -- increased speed, maximum pain/variance

"Run it twice" -- less variance (but with potentialy no winner and thus wasting time)

"Run it 3 times" -- more reduced variance (four possible outcomes), but less quick

"Run it 3 times, 2 wins scoops" -- less friends (screwing your neighbor has consequences)

I don’t love the chop or equity chip options, probably for the same reasons I don’t like running it twice -
1) if there was anybody else’s money in that pot, even a small blind, by agreeing to chop, you’ve pretty much agreed to steal the other people’s money.
2) going all in or calling all in should have consequences. It’s mostly the same argument as “there should be a winner,” but less vindictive - just don’t take those actions lightly; don’t put all your chips in the middle unless you’re serious.

 

[TheBigTater]

Just wondering

Do most people allow running multiple times only when it's heads up at showdown, or do you allow it when there are more players at showdown? Does your opinion change if there are multiple side pots?

I've never seen it run multiple times anytime except a head up situation.

 

[Frogzilla]

Running it twice is usually quicker than running it once.

 

[jpietrella]

Running it twice is usually quicker than running it once.

 

[BGinGA]

if there was anybody else’s money in that pot, even a small blind, by agreeing to chop, you’ve pretty much agreed to steal the other people’s money.

Not sure I agree with your assessment there.

Once a player folds, it's no longer "other people's money". The money belongs to the pot, and the folded player has given up his right to compete to win any of it -- he's already lost it, by the decisions he made.

Imo, collusion (aka a form of stealing) only occurs if an agreement was made to first include and then force others out before chopping the collective proceeds.

If it happens to eventually get to heads-up naturally, and then two players subsequently agree to minimize potential losses by chopping or running it X times, that's not 'stealing'.

 

[TheBigTater]

Running it twice is usually quicker than running it once.

Yeah i got to say that's pretty much physically impossible.

 

[Frogzilla]

Yeah i got to say that's pretty much physically impossible.

Costs extra time to deal runout and chop what’s in middle (if split), but chopping middle should be faster than counting down the all-in stacks (if chopped, everyone gets to pull it back, easy)

 

[KHarp1]

The issue is that there are plenty of people dumb enough to agree to it. So offering it is an angle.

The level of ignorant statements still surprises me on here...because I don't want to say "no" to running it once from the angler that's trying to not go bust after going all in, I'm an even bigger angler? That's the most stupid thing I've heard today, but, there's still a lot of day left.

Well, the day was early, I just read the parts about quicker to run two boards than one, and, about how it's not fair to the other money that was in the pot...