Cash Game What Do You Think of This? (1 Viewer)

[MoscowRadio]

Tonight we were playing a .50/1 cash game and I want to get some other people's opinions on this scenario.

We're down to five players and we're just wrapping up the night. Those who are down are looking to gamble and those are up are rocks. Hero is not involved in the hand. It is between a competent LAG who is down roughly $120 for the night and a fishy, loose, passive player who is down about $50. The LAG raises it up to $7 and Mr. Fish pushes in his stack of $41. The LAG, who covers, tanks and then finally calls and turns over and Mr. Fish turns up . LAG asks Fish how many times he wants to run it and Fish blatantly states that he refuses to run it more than once.

Here's my question: do you think that maybe, considering AQ is going to win approximately 74% of the time here, Mr. Fish should have allowed the LAG to run it more than once? Maybe it was just the way he said "Nope. One time only", but it kind of rubbed the LAG the wrong way. I just thought it was a little peculiar since the fish was so far ahead.

What do you think?

 

[slisk250]

After being sucked out by the poker room bot here a bazillion times, I think I see why the fish did that. I would have asked, "If I call can we run it twice?"

FWIW I would have ran it up to 3 times. When the shoe is on the other foot, then the fish might have a different view. Who won the hand?

 

[catalyzeme]

Running it more than once doesn't help or hurt anyone, it's just preference. Doesn't really make a difference that Mr. Fish was ahead. Maybe the guy doesn't like to run it multiple times. Nothing wrong with that. Being 100% clear is the best way to go too, last thing you want is someone saying "whoa wait, I thought we were running it twice" after they lose the hand. I support Mr. Fish 100% here.

 

[Ronoh]

Here's my question: do you think that maybe, considering AQ is going to win approximately 74% of the time here, Mr. Fish should have allowed the LAG to run it more than once? Maybe it was just the way he said "Nope. One time only", but it kind of rubbed the LAG the wrong way. I just thought it was a little peculiar since the fish was so far ahead

No matter how hard I try I can't begin to understand any of this. No one should ever feel obligated to run it more than once, nor should anyone be offended when refused.

Biggest head scratcher to me in this is the one made out to (maybe) be the asshole is shortstacked at $41 in a .50/1 game, it's the end of the night and the hand in question won't even get him back to even. There is a time to fight variance... end-of-the-night-gamboooool-to-get-unstuck (especially when shortstacked to begin with) is not that time.

 

[Mental Nomad]

Here's my take on the situation:

Like others said, it really doesn't matter that he's ahead for purposes of running it twice... he'll always win 74% of the money, long-run. All it does is reduce the variance, going from win/lose to win/lose/draw - often with more "draw" than win or lose.

But whether you're ahead or behind on the odds makes a big difference to whether someone is amenable to running it twice. Some people want to run it twice when ahead, because they hate the idea of a single suck-out taking all their money. Others like to run it twice when behind, perhaps figuring that they're a loser, but if they have more than one shot to draw out, they might limit their losses.

I'm with Ronoh's thinking - if you're gambooling on the "last hand" and shoving to either recoup or avoid having to linger for cash-outs, you shouldn't really want to to average out the result. You should want to hit it or shit it. But that's me.

Last thought: I think it's how AQ said it that probably ticked AJ more than what he said. Psychologically, it doesn't matter why AJ wants to run twice and AQ doesn't... what matters is that they have opposing desires. AQ has the lead and, to AJ, probably has some sort of perceived "power" because of it. AJ may not understand that running it twice makes no difference in the odds. So just saying, "nope, one time only," especially if dry or emphatic, may come off as authoritarian or even punishing, which could set off AJ. On the other hand, AQ said something like, "no, I'd rather run it normally - once. I want to win it or lose it and call it a night. If you out-draw me, it's all yours, no hard feelings..." it would be unlikely to set off AJ.

 

[Ben]

Mr. AQ is well within his rights. The only way this is remotely prickish is if he ALWAYS wants to run it twice and for some reason turns it down this time. Even then, meh.

Also, LOL at running it twice for a pot of <100 bb. I'd turn that down just as a matter of principle.

 

[MoscowRadio]

I think you totally nailed it, Nomad. It might have also irked the LAG because they had gotten it all-in several times and LAG had always been ahead but allowed Mr. Fish to run it as many times as he wanted. I do agree with everyone that AQ was just trying to get close to even with only a few hands left.

 

[spikeithard]

once or three times. 2 times is for amateurs. need to see blood

 

[Mental Nomad]

I could totally see the in-game history making a difference, here.

It also just occurred to me that Mr. Fish (AQ) may not understand that running it twice makes no difference in expectation... and may actually be thinking that Mr. LAG had been taking advantage of him all night. <shrug> Even Fish don't like getting played... even if it's only in their imagination.

 

[MoscowRadio]

While we're on the subject, I figured I should ask this question: who do you allow to decide whether or not to run it more than once? If I'm ahead then I generally allow the person who is behind to decide on whether they want to run it once or three times, but it is ultimately up to whoever is ahead, right?

 

[catalyzeme]

While we're on the subject, I figured I should ask this question: who do you allow to decide whether or not to run it more than once? If I'm ahead then I generally allow the person who is behind to decide on whether they want to run it once or three times, but it is ultimately up to whoever is ahead, right?

Both players have to agree to run it multiple times. If you want to forfeit your opinion and let the other person decide, that's totally fine, but if either player wants to run it only once then only once it is.

At least that's what I always assumed, and how we play at my table.

 

[Mental Nomad]

Since it makes no difference in the average outcome, I don't think it matters.

I put it in the same camp as two players agreeing to chop a pot or a tournament - if both agree, so it goes.

 

[mipevi]

As has been stated, players involved should decide how many times to run it (the host allowing multiples), but not feel obligated to run it more than once. I usually just ask the other player how he wants it done, and then we do that. While running it more than once doesn't affect the expected values, it can be good for the game if a player would get up and leave when stacked... At the end of the night, that's no longer a factor.

Always let the fish decide if just to keep them happy, sharks don't care either way. :

 

[SixSpeedFury]

Now if you want to run it multiple times, how much must there be in the pot for you to come to that decision?

 

[Mental Nomad]

All that seems to matter is that someone is all-in and the cards have been flipped up, but I suppose if the pot is small it would be awkward to waste everyone else's time...

 

[Luk_nuts]

Most of the time I suggest myself running it more than once.

Recently got it in on 54Thh with the 25hh vs KdKh. We ran it 3 times and I bricked on all 3 of them

 

[snooptodd]

I almost never run it twice, and there's a strategic reason. I play against a lot of people who play draws aggressively, and I don't want them to think "If I push with this hand, I can win if he folds, or if he calls, there's a pretty good chance I'll win half the pot." Long run the math is the same, but if people know I'm not going to run it twice, then that could affect their aggression factor against me.

The rare times I do consider running it more than once is if I'm ahead on the night, and playing against a player who is stuck (and who is often stuck in games I play in) and I'm only going to lose about 25% or less of my stack. And I'll never suggest it, but will say "okay" if asked just to make that player feel like I'm not being cutthroat.

 

[trever]

Is running it twice something that you can decide about hand by hand (sometimes yes, sometimes no) or is it like chopping blinds where you can chop or not, but have to stand by whatever choice you made every time.

 

[Luk_nuts]

Is running it twice something that you can decide about hand by hand (sometimes yes, sometimes no) or is it like chopping blinds where you can chop or not, but have to stand by whatever choice you made every time.

You can decide at each and every situation.

 

[Bloody Marvelous]

The player being asked if he wants to run it more than once is the one who makes the decision. Some cardrooms don't allow running the board multiple times, if the cardroom in question does allow it, all players involved in the hand must agree. (Though I can see a 3way all-in where two players decide to run it twice. In that case the board is run more than once for the side pot, should the third player win the main pot on the first board).

 

[10centguitar]

After being sucked out by the poker room bot here a bazillion times, I think I see why the fish did that. I would have asked, "If I call can we run it twice?"

FWIW I would have ran it up to 3 times. When the shoe is on the other foot, then the fish might have a different view. Who won the hand?

We play where a deal cannot be made until the person calls.

If you put me all in on the turn, then i must call then ask for a deal.

 

[10centguitar]

Also if deals are allowed, a good dealer will wait to see if someone wants to make a deal.

I usually ask for a deal if it is an extreme case, where they are behind have gone for the suckout by calling with really bad odds.
Sure in the long run they will always lose with bad pot odds to call but if it is your stack then I choose to keep playing.

I have saved my own butt many of times with a deal in all-in situations.

However, I always run it 3 times if I ask or am asked to make a deal. Never twice.
If I am ahead, i will almost always win 2/3 of the pot. Not half.

Besides if you let a sucker catch something, they are usually grateful. And go on to lose the 1/3 against you later anyways.
Keep the fishy players happy and save yourself from their suck-outs when they make outrageous calls.

 

[10centguitar]

Also if deals are allowed, a good dealer will wait to see if someone wants to make a deal.

I usually ask for a deal if it is an extreme case, where they are behind have gone for the suckout by calling with really bad odds.
Sure in the long run they will always lose with bad pot odds to call but if it is your stack then I choose to keep playing.

I have saved my own butt many of times with a deal in all-in situations.

However, I always run it 3 times if I ask or am asked to make a deal. Never twice.
If I am ahead, i will average a win 2/3 of the pot. Not half.
And if I am behind i get more chances than I deserve. Very rarely am I way behind like the weaker opponents are to me.

Besides if you let a sucker catch something, they are usually grateful. And go on to lose the 1/3 they won against you later anyways.
Keep the fishy players happy and save yourself from their suck-outs when they make outrageous calls.

 

[10centguitar]

Tonight we were playing a .50/1 cash game and I want to get some other people's opinions on this scenario.

We're down to five players and we're just wrapping up the night. Those who are down are looking to gamble and those are up are rocks. Hero is not involved in the hand. It is between a competent LAG who is down roughly $120 for the night and a fishy, loose, passive player who is down about $50. The LAG raises it up to $7 and Mr. Fish pushes in his stack of $41. The LAG, who covers, tanks and then finally calls and turns over and Mr. Fish turns up . LAG asks Fish how many times he wants to run it and Fish blatantly states that he refuses to run it more than once.

Here's my question: do you think that maybe, considering AQ is going to win approximately 74% of the time here, Mr. Fish should have allowed the LAG to run it more than once? Maybe it was just the way he said "Nope. One time only", but it kind of rubbed the LAG the wrong way. I just thought it was a little peculiar since the fish was so far ahead.

What do you think?

If the player doesn't want to make a deal, then that should always be respected.

 

[Richard Cranium]

I almost never run it twice, and there's a strategic reason. I play against a lot of people who play draws aggressively, and I don't want them to think "If I push with this hand, I can win if he folds, or if he calls, there's a pretty good chance I'll win half the pot." Long run the math is the same, but if people know I'm not going to run it twice, then that could affect their aggression factor against me.

This is my line of thinking on running it more than once. I don't want people to think they can call because they'll have more than one shot if behind to win part of the pot.

As a general rule, you guys only allow people to make deals after the call is made? So no asking before hand something like "if I call, will you run it twice / three times?"

 

[10centguitar]

This is my line of thinking on running it more than once. I don't want people to think they can call because they'll have more than one shot if behind to win part of the pot.

As a general rule, you guys only allow people to make deals after the call is made? So no asking before hand something like "if I call, will you run it twice / three times?"

Exactly. Only after the call is made. That way is doesnt effect anyones decision. Less colusion.

I personally make the deal with chasers because i find they will chase longer shots against me later. They end up playing even weaker, and i take more of their money

Of course this isnt every situation but more the most part where i play.

If i ask to run it more than once, and they say no, i just act polite and say "i usually dont either, just thought you might have wanted to" Or some crap like that

 

[10centguitar]

This is my line of thinking on running it more than once. I don't want people to think they can call because they'll have more than one shot if behind to win part of the pot.

As a general rule, you guys only allow people to make deals after the call is made? So no asking before hand something like "if I call, will you run it twice / three times?"

People sometimes get around it by saying run it three times? And the dealer will say "you will have to call before you can ask for a deal" but the player wanting the deal will get a read on the player that bet as to whether or not they would run it more than once.

Also, just to clarify, there are maybe 2 deals a night max where i play. It seems like there are a lot by how im talking but in reality it happens fairly little

 

[jbutler]

@10centguitar are you trying to absorb this thread and make it your own by sheer volume?

 

[10centguitar]

@10centguitar are you trying to absorb this thread and make it your own by sheer volume?

lol no sorry for blowing it up.

Im new to the forum, (joined awhile back but never got on until recently.)
and just excited that there are people who actually discuss this stuff.

 

[courage]

You can decide at each and every situation.

Not exactly. If you and I play together every week and you only want to run it multiple times when you're behind, or make a deal for less when crushed, I'll demand consistency or resort to running it once no matter what. As long as you're consistent per player or for the game then it's usually cool.