Running it more than once.

[Dobbler1]

For a while, I would always just run it once. I figured that I made my bed, so whatever my equity, I should lie in it. After some second thoughts, I realized that if I'm ahead in a pot, running it multiple times decreases variance, and thus is to my benefit, while when I'm behind, I'm better off hoping I get lucky and to keep variance as high as I can. In other words run it once.

First off, is this sound reasoning, or is there something I'm not considering? Second, do you prefer to run it more than once, and if so, why?

 

[veltins]

Running it twice is actually decreases the variance , no doubt about that at all.Its good to play less varience way so that can enjoy as well as have proper bank roll management

 

[Dobbler1]

Running it twice is actually decreases the variance , no doubt about that at all.Its good to play less varience way so that can enjoy as well as have proper bank roll management

Okay, but if you're behind, the chances of sucking out once are greater than your chances of sucking out twice, right? Low variance is on your side if you're behind, isn't it?

 

[monkeytilter]

Your logic looks right to me, although the "benefit" of low variance you mention is only short term so should not really be of concern.
I think pick one way or the other and stick to it so you are consistent (once less thing to mentally process etc.), personally I run it once, variance doesn't "worry" me as I understand the games I'm in and correctly rolled for them.

 

[BelFish]

This option will be useful for those who have low psychological stability. That is, it will protect some players from tilt by reducing the variance...

 

[Dobbler1]

Ok, I'm not so much worried about the psychology for the sake of this discussion, but more the math. Let me see if this makes sense. If I have AA against KK, I'm a roughly 80% favorite before the flop. If you asked me "How often would you like to be all-in AA against KK preflop?", my answer would be "As often as possible", right? That would be obviously to my mathematical benefit. Inversely, if you asked me "How often would you like to be all-in with KK against AA?" my answer would be "As rarely as possible". Isn't running it multiple times giving you the chance to make this decision? Or am I thinking about it wrong?

I know that probabilities aren't intuitive to people, and it's easy to get it wrong. That's why I'm harping on this a bit.

 

[Dobbler1]

Also, using the AA/KK as an example, if I have the AA and it's run twice and the first time hits a K, there's only one king left, giving me much higher odds for the second run. If a K doesn't hit the first run, it barely moves the needle on his odds of hitting. Isn't that right?

 

[ga25x]

I just never do it. It just doesn't make any sense for me to do it.

 

[Station_Master]

I always run twice on pokerstars (if my opponent has this clicked too). It reduces variance which is useful and less chance of a bad beat affecting my mental state.

In the long run it doesnt make too much difference as equities are the same.

I would never buy the all-in insurance as that has cost associated (unless exceptional circumstances like super deep with whale and wanting to keep covering him)

 

[fundiver199]

Running it more than once does not change the math at all. It only reduce variance. If you have 20% equity in a $20 pot, then you will collect $4 from that pot on average, regardless how many times you run it. If you have 80% equity in a $20 pot, you will collect $16 on average. And so so and so forth. Apart from reduced variance, which can be good for bankroll management, the difference is purely psycological.

If you run it once, you either get nothing or $20. And if your long term expectation is $16, then nothing is a big negative deviation. Whereas if your long term expectation is only $4, then nothing is only a small negative deviation, so it dont affect you as much emotionally. You are kind of expecting, that your KK will most likely lose to AA, so when it actually happen, you dont get as emotionally upset about it, as when your AA lose to KK.

Its true, that when you are behind, you will rarely win the entire pot when running it twice. But you will get a decent amount of chops, which is already a good outcome, when you were behind. And reversely when you are ahead, you will rarely lose the entire pot, but you will regularly need to settle for a chop. Which is not a great outcome, when you were a favourite to win.

If you want to use running it twice in a tactical way, then running it only once makes sense, if you think, your opponent will tilt, if they lose, and then also rebuy. And of course that you yourself will not tilt. If on the other hand you think, they will likely leave, if you bust them, and they are a bad player, then by all means run it twice and increase the chance, they will stay and keep playing.

 

[D0nk3y Hunt3r]

Running it more than once does not change the math at all. It only reduce variance.

Yes.

Apart from reduced variance, which can be good for bankroll management, the difference is purely psycological.

Reduced variance is a kind of big thing to be apart from
Everything we do in poker is about reducing variance.

Its true, that when you are behind, you will rarely win the entire pot when running it twice. But you will get a decent amount of chops, which is already a good outcome, when you were behind.

Well it's a matter of having a chance to win this at least once with a good luck or to go with most expected outcome.
When I'm behind I push for do it once, because it increases variance, which can lead to better short term result. Yes, in long term it shouldn't matter, though one need to think also about pot sizes:
- let's say there is this one big spot we're taking part in for 500bb deep: you can have a chance for all, or nothing vs probably nothing long term,
- and there are many usual spots for 60-90bb, assuming that you still have such stack, which won't hurt so much as the big one.
I would prefer to decrease variance especially for this one big spot. Going twice, given various probabilities, usually ends in worse outcome.

Some story on the side: I was in interesting spot few days ago: my AQ vs Q9 on Q high flop, villain is 13% underdog to the river, suggests run it three times, I say sure, why not, I'm ahead by much, and this will makes variance go my way anyway, according to math . First run, villain catches 9, Second run, villain catches 9. Third run, villain catches straight. Hail to GG .

 

[cracker]

I don't like these gimmicks, run it 2 times 3 times or even straddles. What ever happened to regular straight-up poker.

 

[Dobbler1]

If you have 20% equity in a $20 pot, then you will collect $4 from that pot on average, regardless how many times you run it. If you have 80% equity in a $20 pot, you will collect $16 on average.

Ok, but my bank account isn't filled with the average amount of money I collect, it's filled with actual money, right? The whole point is that when variance is decreased, then the actual outcomes more closely line up with the mathematically average expected outcomes, and if that's true, then the inverse would also be true. If both of those things are true, then I think my point stands.

 

[Dobbler1]

How about this. There are 6 players in the AA vs. KK situation. That means are 40 cards left in the deck. If you have AA, and you could run it 8 times (getting all the remaining cards on the board), wouldn't you?

 

[Mureahko]

Totally depends on the situation and pot. If I was in a pot of 10k or more I'd definitely want to run it twice to at least to save half of my money, no matter how big is the pot.