Author Topic: Running it twice  (Read 2474 times)

hectorjelly

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 13
Running it twice
« on: June 20, 2018, 03:48:09 PM »
Hi Guys,

Quite a esoteric rule question incoming, but it causing our cardroom a lot of grief at the moment.

At the moment we allow players to run it twice once the pot is over €300. As it stands, if the short stack wants to run it only once we allow the larger stacks to run the sidepots twice, but award the main pot to whomever wins the first runout. Some of the players have said that if the shortstack loses the first runout they should be allowed to also have the main pot included in the running it twice. I'm reluctant to allow this as I realise we will then be incorrectly awarding the amounts, but would like to know what the industry standard is for this situation.

Many thanks...


Dave Miller

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Lead dealer / rules guru for World Free Poker
    • Poker For Roulette
Re: Running it twice
« Reply #1 on: June 20, 2018, 08:58:09 PM »
I think it’s OK for the main pot to be included in running it twice if the short stack loses, provided the side pot players have agreed to that before the run outs begin.

In fact, I fail to see any reason why such a deal would be prohibited.
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown.
But how much does it cost to knock on wood?

hectorjelly

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 13
Re: Running it twice
« Reply #2 on: June 21, 2018, 12:33:47 PM »
The reason we don't allow it is that if we do we will be incorrectly awarding the pots. To take an extreme example, lets say three players get all in in holdem.

Player A has a flush and $100
Player B has a set and $200
Player C has a straight and $200

Which leaves the main pot of $300 with all contestants, and a side pot of $200 with player B and C

If the pot is run once then the main pot of $300 can either go to player A or B, player C will never win this as a straight is never going to beat a flush. Player C's equity is 34% of $200. If we allow the main pot to be run twice if the shortstack loses the first run out, his equity becomes 34% of $500.
Running it twice should not change the equities.

I'd love if someone could point out a flaw in this logic!


Dave Miller

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Lead dealer / rules guru for World Free Poker
    • Poker For Roulette
Re: Running it twice
« Reply #3 on: June 21, 2018, 01:44:51 PM »
If the pot is run once then the main pot of $300 can either go to player A or B....
Um, doesn’t a flush ALWAYS beat a set?

I’m not following your logic.
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown.
But how much does it cost to knock on wood?

hectorjelly

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 13
Re: Running it twice
« Reply #4 on: June 21, 2018, 02:35:02 PM »
They get all in on the flop, so there is the turn and river to come. A set will sometimes outdraw a flush.

Dave Miller

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Lead dealer / rules guru for World Free Poker
    • Poker For Roulette
Re: Running it twice
« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2018, 05:41:31 AM »
And sometimes a straight (or flush) will turn into a straight flush. What does it matter?

Unlikely? Try something easier to accept: all three players have flopped sets when the money goes in and the deal is made. Any one OR TWO could improve to quads. Hell, run it twice and ALL THREE could have quads.

Again, why does it matter what happens or when?


All that matters is this: an agreement was made before knowing the results: if the short stack, who didn’t want to run it twice, loses the first run out, then his hand is dead and both pots are eligible for a chop if the other side pot player wins the second run.

Why is this so difficult?
« Last Edit: June 23, 2018, 05:46:19 AM by Dave Miller »
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown.
But how much does it cost to knock on wood?

Dave Miller

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Lead dealer / rules guru for World Free Poker
    • Poker For Roulette
Re: Running it twice
« Reply #6 on: June 23, 2018, 05:51:32 AM »
By the way, I meant to address this earlier...
Player C's equity is 34% of $200. If we allow the main pot to be run twice if the shortstack loses the first run out, his equity becomes 34% of $500.
Running it twice should not change the equities.
I defy you to show me a rule that discusses “equity”.
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown.
But how much does it cost to knock on wood?

hectorjelly

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 13
Re: Running it twice
« Reply #7 on: June 23, 2018, 02:19:55 PM »
The reasoning behind a cardroom allowing a pot to be run more than once is that it doesn't change the equities, all it does is reduce the variance which is in the interests of a cardroom. Its not possible for one player to get gaining an advantage by choosing to run it twice or not, in the long run it makes no difference. However as I illustrated in the above example, a savvy player could take advantage of the situation. In any case the cardroom will be making a technical error and misawarding part of a pot.

hectorjelly

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 13
Re: Running it twice
« Reply #8 on: June 23, 2018, 02:25:03 PM »
And sometimes a straight (or flush) will turn into a straight flush. What does it matter?

Unlikely? Try something easier to accept: all three players have flopped sets when the money goes in and the deal is made. Any one OR TWO could improve to quads. Hell, run it twice and ALL THREE could have quads.

Again, why does it matter what happens or when?


All that matters is this: an agreement was made before knowing the results: if the short stack, who didn’t want to run it twice, loses the first run out, then his hand is dead and both pots are eligible for a chop if the other side pot player wins the second run.

Why is this so difficult?

You have misunderstood the example, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Forget about the results of the hand, they will always be unknown. The point of running it twice is that the expected outcome of the hand doesn't change, but if you allow the situation I described to occur, you DO change the expected outcome of the hand. The example I gave is an extreme illustration of this, but the expected outcome will change in most scenarios.

Dave Miller

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Lead dealer / rules guru for World Free Poker
    • Poker For Roulette
Re: Running it twice
« Reply #9 on: June 23, 2018, 04:09:23 PM »
It looks like we’re going to have to agree to disagree, since I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown.
But how much does it cost to knock on wood?

BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 473
Re: Running it twice
« Reply #10 on: June 23, 2018, 05:20:29 PM »
At the moment we allow players to run it twice once the pot is over €300. As it stands, if the short stack wants to run it only once we allow the larger stacks to run the sidepots twice, but award the main pot to whomever wins the first runout.

House rules are fine so long as they are established before the game and are generally known to the players.

Some of the players have said that if the shortstack loses the first runout they should be allowed to also have the main pot included in the running it twice. I'm reluctant to allow this as I realise we will then be incorrectly awarding the amounts, but would like to know what the industry standard is for this situation.
Many thanks...

I know of no standard for this situation. 


BillM16

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 473
Re: Running it twice
« Reply #11 on: June 23, 2018, 05:49:44 PM »
The reason we don't allow it is that if we do we will be incorrectly awarding the pots.
Running it twice should not change the equities.
I'd love if someone could point out a flaw in this logic!

I don't see it that way.  If you were to allow running it twice to include the main when the first player has lost his first and only run, then the "equity" of that situation is well defined before the first run.  Assuming each of the three players has an equal chance of winning, then 33% of the time the first player will win and 66% of the time he will lose.  Therefore, 66% of the time the remaining two players will have 50% chance at the $500.  When the first player wins the main, the two remaining players have a 50% chance at $200.  Nothing has changed! These odds existed at the very beginning when the run decisions were made.  The odds will only change as the hands play out ... as expected.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2018, 06:06:54 PM by BillM16 »

hectorjelly

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 13
Re: Running it twice
« Reply #12 on: June 23, 2018, 06:11:57 PM »
The reason we don't allow it is that if we do we will be incorrectly awarding the pots.
Running it twice should not change the equities.
I'd love if someone could point out a flaw in this logic!

I don't see it that way.  If you were to allow running it twice to include the main when the first player has lost his first and only run, then the "equity" of that situation is well defined before the first run.  Assuming each of the three players has an equal chance of winning, then 33% of the time the first player will win and 66% of the time he will lose.  Therefore, 66% of the time the remaining two players will have 50% chance at the $500.  When the first player wins the main, the two remaining players have a 50% chance at $200.  Nothing has changed! These odds existed at the very beginning when the run decisions were made.  The odds will only change as the hands play out ... as expected.

In this scenario you would be correct, but the maths changes drastically when each player does not have an equal chance of winning, as outlined in my example above. The problem is that allowing the main pot to be ran twice ignores the fact that this pot was not heads up and the equities are very different.

Dave Miller

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Lead dealer / rules guru for World Free Poker
    • Poker For Roulette
Re: Running it twice
« Reply #13 on: June 23, 2018, 06:17:27 PM »
Bill -
Sounds like you agree with me.  ;)

...  If you were to allow running it twice to include the main when the first player has lost his first and only run, ...
I’d just like to clarify that the decision to include it is made before any run out begins.

IE: “If the short stack (who is only in the main pot and doesn’t want to run it twice) loses, then we’ll split the main pot if the side gets split.”
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown.
But how much does it cost to knock on wood?

hectorjelly

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 13
Re: Running it twice
« Reply #14 on: June 23, 2018, 06:55:27 PM »
It might help you to understand if you think through the equities of the players in various different scenarios

Scenario 1 - The entire pot is run once.
Scenario 2 - The main pot is run once, the rest twice
Scenario 3 - The main pot and the side pot are run twice
Scenario 4 - The main pot is run twice if the shortstack loses, once if he wins. The rest twice.

In three of these scenarions the equities for all players stays exactly the same...which is how it should be when you run it twice. In the final scenario the equities and expected outcome can vary wildly.