Running it twice etiquette (1 Viewer)

[Psypher1000]

That said, I am AGAINST running it twice. It is not forbidden in my game but I don't encourage it.

Fully on board with your take, Viet. If I'm not comfortable with running it only once, I guess I shouldn't have shoved. If others want to do it at The Armory, they are more than welcome to. I don't advertise the option, though, and if I'm ever asked if I want to run it once my response will always be, "No thanks. Once will suffice."

(Welcome back, btw, and thanks for doing what you're doing w/those photo pages...can't wait to make a little booklet and to submit some photos/info for The Armory sets to you!).

 

[Poker Zombie]

At first I thought I wouldn't like running it more than once, but the first time it was offered to me, I accepted, and it was a blast. 2x the gamble in 1/2 the time.

Then I learned about Double Board... :coffee:

 

[jbutler]

At first I thought I wouldn't like running it more than once, but the first time it was offered to me, I accepted, and it was a blast. 2x the gamble in 1/2 the time.

Not only is it twice the gamble, it's twice the gamble with half the vig.

There are plenty who are super, super nitty about the rake/time charge/drop in casinos and those people would be well advised to run it as many times as possible since the players are charged the same vig no matter how many times the board is run.

So in that sense, every time more than once that the board is run, you're saving money.

 

[viet rounder]

I agree with all of this except the recommendation. Running it multiple times is definitely sometimes an indication that someone is underrolled for the game and that is definitely true for some of the regulars in the games I play.

But recognizing that they should be exercising greater financial discipline, I think it's actually more generous to allow someone in their circumstances have a better shot at getting some money back from the pot. Not surprisingly, these are the people who typically get their money in bad, so I don't mind giving them a chance to stay in the game.

Of course, another option is not playing in a game in which people are underrolled, but frankly I don't think such a game would be available here or anyplace else.

Of course. I'm certainly fine with anyone doing so. To be honest, it's really about slowly down the game with some players. Good thing is no one really does it at my game. As you suggested no one underolled is invited to our game. At the end of the day my game is all about having fun over financial gain.

 

[MegaTon44]

Of course. I'm certainly fine with anyone doing so. To be honest, it's really about slowly down the game with some players. Good thing is no one really does it at my game. As you suggested no one underolled is invited to our game. At the end of the day my game is all about having fun over financial gain.

This is my thought process too. When I host my home game, the dealer is working for tips, so it benefits him to get a lot of hands in (he's very loyal and I like to take care of him). If 2 experienced players are in a hand and ask to run it more than once, that's cool. Process goes quickly.

However, it's the players who are less experienced, buzzed/high, who ultimately end up responding "Huh? How does that work". After a 30 second explanation and an additional 15 seconds of them tanking, they agree. Then, they don't understand why they just won 1/3 of the pot. On top of that, the dealer is forced to take extra time to chop up the pot in a less traditional manner. A few times a night is fine, but when this occurs 2+ times an orbit, it does slow action down considerably (and you would be surprised how many times the full explanation must occur before running it).

I also don't prefer to have those in the hand know what the other has before offering to run it more than once. I've seen it more often that players table their cards and discuss it. I have no problem protecting the shorter stacked players and running it multiple times to keep the action going. However, if my opponent is a 2:1 dog because he called my jam with a 4 flush, I don't really care to run it twice. In fact, I never request it and never accept it unless it truly benefits the game. If he hits it, oh well, pay him off and move on. I play a low variance style for a reason, and that is not to give higher variance players more opportunities to hit their draws.

 

[H|Q]

Not only is it twice the gamble, it's twice the gamble with half the vig.

There are plenty who are super, super nitty about the rake/time charge/drop in casinos and those people would be well advised to run it as many times as possible since the players are charged the same vig no matter how many times the board is run.

So in that sense, every time more than once that the board is run, you're saving money.

I thought I remembered a casino charging to run it more than once.

 

[jbutler]

I thought I remembered a casino charging to run it more than once.

I guess I can only say for certain that Borgata doesn't and neither do the Bike or Commerce in LA. I don't remember if they even allowed running it twice in Vegas last time I was there. It's been a while.

 

[courage]

I agree it can slow down the game but most of my players are clear about what they want to do and we have a pro dealer to move things along.

Also, it's not always the high variance players looking to draw out. It benefits the nut peddler also if their hand is vulnerable.

5 Card Omaha hand from this past weekend, $1/1 game, I've run good and have $1100 and cover. I go to bathroom and return to the table to find 4 players all in for monster pot. I look at my cards to find double-suited aces with 4 Broadway cards. For about 20 seconds I sat there wondering if I was actually gonna fold this hand and never say a word. I'd worked hard to build a win. I have 50% equity vs 2 players but vs 4 it's way less. Then I realized they weren't my cards; a player had slid their hand over for me to view (she was already all-in). I wished her luck then one player wanted to run it once and of course promptly sucked out with KQQX heart flush when they never should have been in preflop with heavy action.

 

[Marius L]

I like running it 1-3 times. I have to say I'm not consistent, but usually just asks the other guy what he wants and we come to an agreement we are both happy with pretty fast. If I'm playing underrolled I prefer running it 3 times as oposed to 2, regardless of my equity in the hand, if its OK with the other guy.

Different from you guys though, we usually reveal our hands before we decide how many times we will run it. I dont see the problem with this as both the players still get the option to decide what they want to do. If they can't come to an agreement then obviously it's ran only once. Have never had a problem with this in the games I have played in. Can you guys give me some examples of angle shooting in a situation like this? To me it's just a way of decreasing the variance, and usually the math shouldnt change by any susbstancial amount regardless of how many times you run it.

I dont see the need for strict consistency as long as players are not specifically targeting certain villains in some way or another, like always running it once against a certain player because he would tilt and reload if he looses it all for example. That would seem like bad form, but since most the players I play with are friends also outside of poker this has never been a problem.

 

[guinness]

Amateurs new into running it 2x always want to see cards first to make a decision. Veterans know better, its a simple yes or no and either answer is acceptable. Don't show cards first, its very straightforward when the table is experienced. You shouldn't be taking up peoples time who are not in the hand by complicated angles regarding equity and a decision. A simple yes or no without showing is optimal (and expected) if you do it at experienced tables.

 

[BGinGA]

At the cash game I used to deal at regularly, the host had a hard-fast rule that pots could only be run once or thrice, never twice. Made no difference if players showed their hand(s) before or after deciding (or never, since being a cash game there was no must-show rule), but it was always decided immediately and the board(s) dealt out quickly. Everybody understood and accepted the rule, and we never had any problems with that approach -- which always resulted in a winner (so typically always a tip for the dealer!).

 

[bentax1978]

which always resulted in a winner

Just to be that guy, each player could win one of the three run-outs and tie on the third run-out and there wouldn't technically be a winner.

But despite my jackass comment above, I totally get the 1 or 3 times rule.

 

[guinness]

At the cash game I used to deal at regularly, the host had a hard-fast rule that pots could only be run once or thrice, never twice. Made no difference if players showed their hand(s) before or after deciding (or never, since being a cash game there was no must-show rule), but it was always decided immediately and the board(s) dealt out quickly. Everybody understood and accepted the rule, and we never had any problems with that approach -- which always resulted in a winner (so typically always a tip for the dealer!).

This is just a special consideration at a specific game that is governed by the host who owns the kickball. The only problem is that is doesn't transfer to better playing skills when you go to other places on planet earth that do running it multiple times.

 

[courage]

Different from you guys though, we usually reveal our hands before we decide how many times we will run it. I dont see the problem with this as both the players still get the option to decide what they want to do. If they can't come to an agreement then obviously it's ran only once. Have never had a problem with this in the games I have played in. Can you guys give me some examples of angle shooting in a situation like this?

We usually reveal at my game also. What's not been discussed is "doing business" or "making a deal" which at a home game is nice since the game could die if players go broke quickly. Close equity hands like a nut straight vs a set + flush draw may get all in on the flop and just decide to chop or play for $xxx. It's also slightly relevant in case a player is getting free-rolled (nut straight vs nut straight with redraw to flush or boat for example). In those cases I don't blame the player getting freerolled who wants to run it once.

Angle shooting can happen intentionally or unintentionally by not showing hands. Players are all-in. "I have the nuts and a redraw." "Me too." If there's no showdown and a deal is made, hands should be shown.

 

[bergs]

I've got the process down with Guinness now where we repeatedly bark POT at each other and without communicating verbally we both know we're running it twice. We split and we each get 75 cents after risking $800+. Doesn't slow the game down at all and we get to skip that year's cardiology appointment. Easy peasy.

 

[BGinGA]

This is just a special consideration at a specific game that is governed by the host who owns the kickball. The only problem is that is doesn't transfer to better playing skills when you go to other places on planet earth that do running it multiple times.

Meh, that first statement is true for every single game example you can conjure. The second statement, however, is pure elitist bs.

 

[Marius L]

Amateurs new into running it 2x always want to see cards first to make a decision. Veterans know better, its a simple yes or no and either answer is acceptable. Don't show cards first, its very straightforward when the table is experienced. You shouldn't be taking up peoples time who are not in the hand by complicated angles regarding equity and a decision. A simple yes or no without showing is optimal (and expected) if you do it at experienced tables.

I agree that new players will slow down the game. Not only when it comes to running it once or twice but in general. I dont see how this has anything to do with showing or not showing the cards in a spot like this though. I think it's just more about what has become the norm and standard in the homegames one play in. Flipping ones cards over before you say once or twice doesnt really take a lot of time if you are used to doing it that way.

 

[AWenger]

I dont see the problem with this as both the players still get the option to decide what they want to do.

@Marius L I didn't understand the issue myself, at first, until a couple hands like the examples below happened at a 1/2 NLHE game I played in. It was a home game, but a serious game. The average stack size was typically around $250-$500 as the night went on. Most, but not all, players were agreeable to run boards multiple times when all-in. In these examples, players are all in (just assume pre-flop for this example only), assume pot is same for each example below, and they're deciding to run it once or twice (or 3 times, if allowed). Player B was fairly new to the game, and may not have played in too many games where they ran boards multiple times.

Example Hand 1 -- Player A has KK, Player B has QQ. Player B asks to see Player A's cards, A obliges, B sees he's behind with QQ, and they both agree to run it multiple times.

Example Hand 2 -- Player C has JJ, Player B has QQ. Player B asks to see Player C's cards, C obliges, B sees he's ahead with QQ, and now Player B says just run it one time. Player C says - 'hey Player B, you just ran it twice when you were behind, but now that I'm behind, you say run it once!? Come on, lets run it multiple times" Player B doesn't budge and says run it once.​

It just came off as poor etiquette on Player B, and I think most players at the table agreed.

After that hand happened, I recall one player in particular would tell newer players -- I'm not showing my cards, make your decision to run it multiple times or not irrespective of what my cards are. I tend to abide by this thinking.

Side note - I think Player B later came to understand it how it was poor etiquette as well, and he turned out to be a good guy, it just rubbed people the wrong way at the time.

 

[abby99]

@Marius L I didn't understand the issue myself, at first, until a couple hands like the examples below happened at a 1/2 NLHE game I played in. It was a home game, but a serious game. The average stack size was typically around $250-$500 as the night went on. Most, but not all, players were agreeable to run boards multiple times when all-in. In these examples, players are all in (just assume pre-flop for this example only), assume pot is same for each example below, and they're deciding to run it once or twice (or 3 times, if allowed). Player B was fairly new to the game, and may not have played in too many games where they ran boards multiple times.

Example Hand 1 -- Player A has KK, Player B has QQ. Player B asks to see Player A's cards, A obliges, B sees he's behind with QQ, and they both agree to run it multiple times.

Example Hand 2 -- Player C has JJ, Player B has QQ. Player B asks to see Player C's cards, C obliges, B sees he's ahead with QQ, and now Player B says just run it one time. Player C says - 'hey Player B, you just ran it twice when you were behind, but now that I'm behind, you say run it once!? Come on, lets run it multiple times" Player B doesn't budge and says run it once.​

It just came off as poor etiquette on Player B, and I think most players at the table agreed.

After that hand happened, I recall one player in particular would tell newer players -- I'm not showing my cards, make your decision to run it multiple times or not irrespective of what my cards are. I tend to abide by this thinking.

Side note - I think Player B later came to understand it how it was poor etiquette as well, and he turned out to be a good guy, it just rubbed people the wrong way at the time.

I agree. Pick one and stick with it: Always RIT, never RIT, or defer to your opponent. IMO this is like chopping blinds.

 

[Meddler2]

No hard or fast rule at my game but 3x seems to be preferred. I can't recall last when it was ran just 2x. Sometimes we decide before cards are shown but sometimes only after. If i am super ahead i almost always offer 3x. However I appear to be in the minority here. It's a friendly home game afterall.

 

[Craig D]

I like running it 3 times if I'm ahead, and don't like it if I'm behind, but will do it if asked

Have Fun

 

[Pinball]

I prefer to run it always multiple times just to reduce variance

 

[Leonard]

Not having done an exhaustive review of the math, I'm inclined to doubt that changing number of outs on subsequent boards change your equity in a meaningful way. Using the the 1-outer example above, if you hit your draw on the first board, you are drawing dead on subsequent boards, but (because you have already hit), you are going to get paid some money and will always do better than your mathematical EV. If you miss on the first board, your odds are slightly better on subsequent boards, thus pushing your pay-out closer and closer to your actual EV. More runs equals payout closer to EV.

We almost never run it twice, but I'm generally willing to do so whenever asked. But because I am not accustomed to it, I almost never think to ask for it.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

I usually don't care, and if someone asks how many times I'll say "whatever you want", unless its the one guy I play with who will angle shoot, then its just once. Unless I'm super short, then its run it once and double up or ribeye. Nothing more annoying then chopping a pot when you are that short.

 

[Leonard]

I usually don't care, and if someone asks how many times I'll say "whatever you want", unless its the one guy I play with who will angle shoot, then its just once. Unless I'm super short, then its run it once and double up or ribeye. Nothing more annoying then chopping a pot when you are that short.

I agree. Running it twice for a small pot makes little sense. Too much work/time. My informal rule would be that the pot should be toughly 100 BB or don't bother.

 

[abby99]

Unless I'm super short, then its run it once and double up or ribeye.

Double up or enjoy a good steak? Mmm, steak!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[crussader]

I'm a little late to this party, but I couldn't let it pass without the following observation. Most people are saying don't show the cards until after the decision is made. However, if someone is drawing dead you're just wasting time. There shouldn't be any harm showing cards since all betting action has been completed. Run once, twice, three times. It's all personal preference. If the parties in the hand agree to run multiple times, fine. If they don't agree, fine run it once by default. The only real etiquette issue is that person who always wants to run it multiple times when they are behind and refuse to run it more than once when they are ahead. That will police itself. People will learn real quick and refuse to make deals with him.

Also, someone mentioned deals where the players agree to take some money back out the pot and then run the cards out for what was left in the middle. We had to ban that from our game, because we had people that would make crazy high bets just to drive out the competition in the hand, and then reduce the bet to a reasonable level. That's not fair to people who would have called at the lower bet level.

 

[Poker Zombie]

However, if someone is drawing dead you're just wasting time. There shouldn't be any harm showing cards since all betting action has been completed. Run once, twice, three times.

If you have the nuts, after all betting is complete you show. No "run it x times" discussion, no time wasted. If Player A is drawing dead and Player B isn't holding the nuts the discussion for running it is going to be very fast - faster than if I can see the percentages, and try to run the math. Therefore, making the decision pre showdown is going to be faster, because there is no decision to make. It's always Yes or No depending on who's involved, no calculations for cards required.

 

[crussader]

You can have someone drawing dead without holding the nuts.

 

[Poker Zombie]

My 3rd, 4th, and 5th sentences cover that situation.