using a bit of logic... how could the overpair possibly lose 3 times? the underpair has, for all intents and purposes, 2 outs! wouldn't it be a bit of a sucker bet for the underpair to accept running it 3 times?
I would guess it would only be allowed in the private high stakes games.
Yes, I was thinking more of the private LOW stakes games that I currently go to. :smilie: Last time I played, a player put in a live straddle and everybody else in the table became so confused and he won a big pot! Now "running it twice" will really screw them up! >:D
using a bit of logic... how could the overpair possibly lose 3 times? the underpair has, for all intents and purposes, 2 outs! wouldn't it be a bit of a sucker bet for the underpair to accept running it 3 times?
The underpair can win with a straight or flush. This is what almost happened when Matusow had an open-ended straight draw with his 10-10. He proceeded to win on the second run with a set. The case 10 had not been seen, so had they agreed to run it a third time, one can see how an underpair could have won all three times. From the point of view of an overextended addict with an underpair who is facing an 80% chance of ruin, running it three times would reduce his risk of ruin to 51.2%.
Episode was alright...Nothing too special. Matusow was his usually mouthy self,although was still playing very well. But what I'd really like to talk about was how Jamie Gold finally loosened up and started to play some actual poker. He seemed more willing to bluff and raise with hands that he would never have before. I particularly liked his lay down when he flopped top pair and Matusow had the aces. As soon as Matusow bet out on the flop Gold folded, and he was the only one who hit the queen. Ramdin however fell prey to Matusows well played pocket aces when the nine on the river gave him two pair, to which he lost a nice sized pot. I've got to say though I'm definitely glad Daniel is done commentating, he never shuts his flippin' mouth! And where the hell is Phil Ivey????
Just seeing Sheiky smash Matusow's sunglasses made the episode for me (which was otherwise kinda boring). I loved how Gold instantly felt responsible! And Matusow looked like he was about to cry over his sunglasses, which he said you can't find anymore:
PokerKai, a member of our forum (haven't seen him since the switch of server though), wrote a brief blog entry of running it twice.
I still lurk every now and then. If you draw a pentagram on the ground, clap twice and shout my name 3 times I appear. Although if you all would get an avatar more like Blonde Fish Id definitely show up more often.
I read an article on Poker Pro indicating that 2000 world champ Chris Ferguson will be on High Stakes Season 3 but whats interesting...it will be his first cash game ever.
The underpair can win with a straight or flush. This is what almost happened when Matusow had an open-ended straight draw with his 10-10. He proceeded to win on the second run with a set. The case 10 had not been seen, so had they agreed to run it a third time, one can see how an underpair could have won all three times. From the point of view of an overextended addict with an underpair who is facing an 80% chance of ruin, running it three times would reduce his risk of ruin to 51.2%.
I would be very interested in seeing the EV calculations of running it three times vs two. EV should be the same, I suppose, but it seems counterintuitive to me.
I would be very interested in seeing the EV calculations of running it three times vs two. EV should be the same, I suppose, but it seems counterintuitive to me.
EV is the same Variance is less. That's the nature of the beast.
i will believe it when i see it! 2 outs. 3 times. no comprendo. don't force me to work it out. my brain hurts already.
I thought you were the "Bill Chen" of this forum! In the overpair vs. underpair example with $300,000 in the pot, the underpair will win 1 out of 5 times, which includes straights, flushes and not just "2 outs."
EV = $300,000 (80% - 20%) = +$180,000.
Think of "running it twice" as splitting the pot into two $150,000 pots.
EV = $150,000 * 60% + ($150,000 * 60%) = +$180,000
Running it three times is the same as splitting the pot into three $100,000 pots.
EV = $100,000 * 60% + $100,000 * 60% + $100,000 * 60% = +$180,000.
The player with the overpair has the same high +EV no matter how many runs there are, but if he is risk-averse to the all-or-nothing outcome, then he may be willing to run it more than once to reduce his risk of losing the whole $300,000.
The player with the overpair has the same high +EV no matter how many runs there are, but if he is risk-averse to the all-or-nothing outcome, then he may be willing to run it more than once to reduce his risk of losing the whole $300,000.
I haven't made my point clear. Yes he can hit straights and flushes (maybe, depending on the other players suits) to win. *** But *** he effectively has 2 outs. Maybe 2.01. If he uses up his outs in winning one hand, they aren't able to be outs anymore in the next hand. Does that make sense?
I haven't worked it out but go through the scenarios where he could win all 3. If he wins the first one by spiking a set, his outs drop dramatically - pretty much in half I'd say. Now he's at around 9% to win the 2nd one. If he wins the first 2, his odds in the third one are definitely NOT 18% - he'd be lucky to be at a fraction of 1%.
My position is, by splitting the pot into 3, he is almost 100% guaranteed to lose 1/3 of the pot. He's 18% to win any given 1/3, maybe 9% to win a second 1/3. Am I looking at this incorrectly?
Ok that's it! My brain is officially fried. I pass the baton back to you, Buddy.
p.s. I'm not sure where your 60% comes from. 80 and 20 I can see but I'm not sure why you subtract them there.
I thought when u run it twice the re-shuffle the deck at that point each time, so if u run it on the river, u play it out then shuffle the burns back and run it again, u don't reshuffle the mucked folds, so if there were no reshuffling then I guess the outs'll drop, but if u did reshuffle then yes is EV would be the same result pending ur ahead at that point.
Why didn't someone start a running it twice thread instead of using this thread? I thought this was a CPF commentary on each episode of season 3? Personally I'm stoked for Ep.4 cuz Gold is gone and u get some new blood in the game, I just wish that the runner up in the WSOP would go too and get Ivey in his seat.
i watch the show sometimes when i have a chance and i just have to say that Jamie Gold is looking awful out there. he clearly does not feel comfortable playing that high of stakes in poker.
Comments
http://pokerkaiedmonton.blogspot.com/2006/11/session-263-ev-of-running-it-twice.html
Gold: "I feel like that was my fault."
Sheik: "It was. Now, shuffle up and deal."
Instant classic.
I still lurk every now and then. If you draw a pentagram on the ground, clap twice and shout my name 3 times I appear. Although if you all would get an avatar more like Blonde Fish Id definitely show up more often.
EV is the same Variance is less. That's the nature of the beast.
I thought you were the "Bill Chen" of this forum!
EV = $300,000 (80% - 20%) = +$180,000.
Think of "running it twice" as splitting the pot into two $150,000 pots.
EV = $150,000 * 60% + ($150,000 * 60%) = +$180,000
Running it three times is the same as splitting the pot into three $100,000 pots.
EV = $100,000 * 60% + $100,000 * 60% + $100,000 * 60% = +$180,000.
The player with the overpair has the same high +EV no matter how many runs there are, but if he is risk-averse to the all-or-nothing outcome, then he may be willing to run it more than once to reduce his risk of losing the whole $300,000.
I haven't worked it out but go through the scenarios where he could win all 3. If he wins the first one by spiking a set, his outs drop dramatically - pretty much in half I'd say. Now he's at around 9% to win the 2nd one. If he wins the first 2, his odds in the third one are definitely NOT 18% - he'd be lucky to be at a fraction of 1%.
My position is, by splitting the pot into 3, he is almost 100% guaranteed to lose 1/3 of the pot. He's 18% to win any given 1/3, maybe 9% to win a second 1/3. Am I looking at this incorrectly?
Ok that's it! My brain is officially fried. I pass the baton back to you, Buddy.
p.s. I'm not sure where your 60% comes from. 80 and 20 I can see but I'm not sure why you subtract them there.