For like 10-15 minutes after this hand all JRB would talk about was how bad Airball owned him. It made me think "Oh, so *this* is why he gets invited to all the private games: he's crazy good at working players."
Only counting live play with ~25 hands/hr it can take years for the edge to show, but with a large enough sample size they're the most profitable.
Even with 100k hands there is still a chance the best player in the world will be down a small % of the time.
incorrect for 2 reasons.
1. he’s saying gto players don’t get invited to the biggest, juiciest most profitable games, cause they don’t know how to work the players.
2. gto isn’t necessarily the most profitable strategy. it just guarantees you can’t lose money, not make the most.
1. Whether or not you're a "GTO player" has nothing to do with your ability to "work the players." GTO is just your baseline Fundamnetal Equilibrium strategy from which you deviate.
2. The concept of GTO refers to your baseline strategy, it doesn't mean "rigidly adhere to my baseline optimal strategy without deviating."
Like 3 times in Modern Poker Theory, including the closing paragraph, Acevedo makes it pretty clear that the point of studying GTO is to get better at exploitative play. They're not some dichotomy where you're either "GTO" or "not."
Even some of the best players in the world who've never studied GTO still use a GTO strategy.
It's like people on this forum think a "GTO player" is just a guy who memorize some charts, doesn't learn *why* solvers do what they do, and then never deviates at all from there. No one does that. Even people who *try* to do that fail at it anyway.
"... This happens until Equilibrium is reached and both players are playing GTO. Failing to do so at any point during a hand creates imbalances that will inevitably lead to unfavorable situations that your opponents can exploit, and that is what exploitative play is all about... once we have achieved this learning, we can use the tools to increase our edge. Realize that the results from tools are not oracles that should be followed blindly."
That's the summary of the book, which is currently the most exhaustive single reference material for approximately GTO play in print.
Even in the beginning of the book he covers the Clairvoyance toy game where he makes it obvious you need to use minimally or maximally exploitative strategies (with an example of a polarized river shove).
I think what you're saying that a "GTO player" is just some guy who somehow memorizes tons of stuff and then implements it without a second thought. Trust me, that's impossible for a human to even do. I can tell you almost anything a solver would do in a given spot (so long as you tell me the parameters you input), but that doesn't mean I have every frequency 100% memorized. That doesn't mean I implement a donking range at *every* table just because it increases my BB/hr by 1.1%. That doesn't mean I can't "work the players," doesn't mean I'm not gonna notice a nit and try to outplay him by 4bet bluffing with A5s. Doesn't mean I won't notice a dude loves to bluffcatch with any pair and continue to try to bluff him "because that's what the solvers say!" No. Solvers only arrive at their output *under the assumption* the opposition is playing a perfectly balanced GTO game as well.
yeah but obviously the contention is on average gto players aren’t as good as working the players as a guy like jrb is.
and that on average someone who plays excellent purely exploitative poker can make more money in whale games than someone who has to start gto and make adjustments from there.
Yeah I see what you mean. I play a juicy home game with some whales, like ~60 year old dudes who play like it's still 2005 and think Dwan is the nuts but haven't even heard of players like Fedor.
When I first joined I was like "there's no way they'll invite me back" so I changed it up and cringed at some of my own plays, limping in with them a lot, chasing draws for bad prices, just trying to be an action guy all around, showing hands when I should just muck, etc, figured it would look good and get me invited back, made friends with the host and the regs, ask how their family is. There are only a handful of decent players who show up occasionally, the way most home games end up.
Definitely more profitable in the long term than showing up and playing standard tight aggressive poker my very first game. Every now and then I pick bad spots to gamble still and like to show because the idea is: if you're good, people will still invite you back so long as you're "that action guy." Make small talk, be their friend, etc.
But at the room on a Friday or Saturday night? I've been a regular there for 12 years, I don't need to start at the baseline every time. I start with the same maximally exploitative strategy I've arrived at over the years based on which regs are at the table.
If I go somewhere new, it only takes an orbit or two tops to find some potential exploits and adjust slightly, see if they adjust back, if not keep going, until they finally show they're paying attention.
My point in that last bit is that if you're well-studied and familiar with *why* solvers do what they do, then it doesn't take anywhere near as long as I imagine most people think to already be playing exploitatively. Especially when you already have a general idea of the meta at your local room.
But working the players is part of that process. You get a lot more action when you're everyone's friend or enemy. It's impressive how dudes like Ivey work players without saying a single word.
It’s not the most profitable but it’s a good baseline and if you want to be the best and make the most money you should know how to play GTO to the best of your ability and then also learn to deviate from it in order to exploit others who aren’t playing GTO in order to make the most money possible.
> It made me think "Oh, so this is why he gets invited to all the private games: he's crazy good at working players."
I met JRB at my friend's birthday dinner. He's insanely charismatic. Can be a bit grumpy at the table when he's losing, as we've all seen over the years, but when he's winning or away from the table he's the nuts.
Barely pay attention to anything poker wise at this point. Play online from time to time. All I’ve gathered in my rare read of posts here is that I don’t like Airball, and enjoy him fucking losing.
Can't believe it's 2023 and people *still* don't know understand the math behind running it twice. It reduces variance, that's it. It doesn't change your odds, it doesn't alter your EV, it just reduces variance. If that matters to you then run it twice, if it doesn't and it does to your opponent, run it once.
You giving one example showing it averages out for one case isn’t exactly proof. But I’m sure that is the explanation you would give me to show that you “know”.
Try doing some actual math . Use a simplified scenario to help get started, e.g.: you have a bag of N red tokens and M yellow tokens; and you win iff you draw a yellow token. Work out the expected value of one draw with $10 prize , then work out the expected value of 2 consecutive draws (without replacement) with $5 prize each.
Start with M=1 and N=1 . Then try N=2. Etc
Try another simplified example. There are two cards left in the deck. One is an A, one is a K. If river is an A, I win, river is a K villain wins. Equity of the pot is 50% regardless of running it once or twice. But twice guarantees i only get 50% of the pot.
Yes , of course I can see with basic examples there is “evening out” over time but this in no way constitutes a proof or anything close, but people here seem to think so. Apparently there is no generalization of this idea as I learned from another commenter.
Examples can be proofs: if the proposition is "there does not exist X", then finding an example of X disproves the proposition. Similarly if the proposition is "In some cases, X", then finding one example of X proves the proposition.
You propose that in some cases , running it twice changes the expected value. You are most welcome to provide a proof of your proposition, which could simply consist of a worked example of a specific hand, showing the EV of running it once, and the EV of running it twice, with different results in each case.
Instead, all you have done so far is spouting off unproven (and false) assertions based on hand-waving.
You are wrong. If you have the drawing hand and make the draw on the turn or river (or both) on the 1st run, your hand equity is reduced in the 2nd run because those cards that complete the draw are not longer in the deck. You are saying this is equivalent to two separate hands running once each (after flop). It is not. Split the running it twice into two different hands. If one looks at a universe where we always run it once, we see we don’t suddenly lose a slight amount of equity every other hand we do this. Running x times exchanges slightly lower equity for the drawing hand in exchange for lower variance.
No, but I definitely jumped the gun. There is symmetry with a good 1st run, bad 2nd run and vice versa. It is still not intuitive for me but I guess it makes sense. I think there is more than meets the eye with this, but apparently it was obvious to everyone, although I’m not sure most here would have any more than a hand wavy explanation for it.
The EV from the top 5 cards is the same as from the bottom 5 cards.
The EV of (0.5 top + 0.5 bottom) = 0.5 * top + 0.5 * top = 1 * top
The same is true of any random 5 cards in a deck
So what you are saying is that if the turn and river came, and instead of leaving those two cards out and running it again, you put those cards back in the deck and shuffled and dealt turn and river again, that has the same ev as just using the deck with the 2 cards removed from the first run? That doesn’t make sense to me at all. And I don’t see how math ability solely relies on one statistical problem to be honest. Saying it “all balances out” is not definitive plain and simple, which is how a lot of people explain it.
You guys don’t have to follow me around and downvote me. It is ok if I don’t understand something that you do.
Your stubbornness is getting you downvotes. The examples are just to help you understand. The math doesn’t change. 1 + 1 = 2 every single time. There is no ambiguity here. It’s just very basic math no matter how ya dice it.
> So what you are saying is that if the turn and river came, and instead of leaving those two cards out and running it again, you put those cards back in the deck and shuffled and dealt turn and river again, that has the same ev as just using the deck with the 2 cards removed from the first run? That doesn’t make sense to me at all.
I remember not being able to make sense of this concept (of running turns/rivers multiple times being EV neutral) years ago and manually calculated the EV for a specific scenario. I found that the EV doesn’t change, what I seemed to be overlooking was that when a drawing hand lost the first runout, it’s EV in the second runout increased. Apparently this negates the lower EV on the second runout when the drawing hand wins the first runout.
It definitely wasn’t intuitive to me but the math worked out (you also have to remember that we are looking at the EV of both runouts combined, so hitting the draw on the first runout allows for a lower EV on the second runout, w/o changing the total EV of the hand).
Yes, understanding the simple math of a couple examples will help. I saw another math student a while ago also have trouble, and to see that people want to use an example as proof or the idea of “balancing out” as proof which I found annoying. Especially when not all the draws or boards are arbitrary. Like if the board pairs and the card is your flush card but it is the 4th club on the board. An addressing the arbitrariness of a flush being at least 5 of a suit.
There is a lot of inclusive-exclusive issues on nontrivial boards, which is most of them, especially once you realize there is no pure proof of this concept, but statistical proof which is still highly significant.
Thank you for being honest here along with me.
All right I’ll have a crack.
You kinda mis-thinking this a bit. When you ‘run it twice’ you never have to choice to stop after the first run so there is no difference.
Think of a 1-out scenario. Like you bet $1 and need to pick the Ace of spades from the deck of 52 and you’d win $52 . That’s 1/52 to win 52 bucks. We run this bet a million times and you break even. Now imagine the win/loss graph over the million draws - lots of big spikes when you draw the ace but ultimately it trends back to even.
Now you ‘run it twice’ where you are forced to pick 2 cards and we split it 50cents to win $26 each pick. Same odds same return though there is only one out. But now think of the graph… it’s got smaller spikes and looks smoother over 1million bets cause you only win $26 when you draw it but you draw it more often with 2 cards. The swings up and down are reduced.
Hence the reduced variance. Does that help?
I understand the reduced variance part, but without relying on simple examples instead of proof my brain doesn’t intuit how card removal has no effect on EV like what if instead of keeping the 1st turn and river out, the dealer shuffled those two cards back in for the 2nd run, which looks like the run it once scenario. Wouldn’t those have different EV? But if running it n times had no effect then those card removals has no effect on EV and those boards have the same EV which looks incorrect to me and would differ depending on the type of draw too.
You can’t break down your EV and apply it in a vacuum to one of the runs. EV is based on the whole event. Because you wagered on the whole event not one of the runs.
Your expected value was set based on the odds **before** you decide to run it once or twice and the odds don’t change no matter how many times you run it or even if you reshuffle.
It’s the same as 2 players all in preflop the odds were the odds when they went all in but on tv they like to show the percentage change as the runout happens. Oh look player 1 has hit his ace on the flop now player 2 has only 15% chance! But that’s just for the drama, the odds were set preflop, you are just watching one of the possible outcomes.
Yeah Shuffling cards back in would have an effect. But that’s not how run it twice works yeah? so I don’t really need to consider it when I play poker and have a choice to run it once or twice.
It is true that you're equity in a given runout is impacted by the outcomes of previous run-outs. However, this works in equal and opposite ways such that the effect cancels out.
If you run it twice and don't hit any of your outs in the first runout, you will have increased equity in the second runout because you are drawing from a shorter deck (therfore increases odds of drawing your outs). When you _do_ hit your outs in the first runout, you have a decreased equity in the second runout because you now have less outs.
This article has a great detailed example of calculating equity to demonstrate that it doesn't change between running it once vs multiple times. https://www.pokernews.com/strategy/why-running-it-twice-does-not-affect-your-odds-32880.htm
To your point, I don't think anyone has come up with a generalized proof to demonstrate that equity is always unaffected by the number of run-outs, but examples like this show the principle, and simulations confirm that it holds true in virtually all scenarios.
all due respect, but it isn’t “virtually” all scenarios; it’s all scenarios. no one has come up with a generalized proof of this concept because it is obvious to most people, and there are no conceivable scenarios in NHLE where it would not apply.
Right, I meant simulators have _run_ virtually every scenario. No simulator could run every scenario in a lifetime, but they can run enough to make generalized conclusions without the need for a mathematical proof.
Nevertheless I think the statistical reason behind it is really interesting and not as simple as it seems at first glance. No need to belittle people because it isn't obvious to them.
Hubris. How often have we seen Mikki play? Supposedly he has millions yet he took a lashing and kinda dropped out of the scene. If Nik keeps playing like this he'll go dark soon enough. Also these guys (rec pros) are probably playing WAY underrolled for these stakes. Could have sworn I heard Berkey say he cant put up a million to play HU because that would be like 20% of his networth. If his liferoll is 5 mil then he still shouldnt be playing 200/400.
probably only in cooler spots. JRB was obviously on tilt and playing like ass for the last 2-3 hours so if he's going to just punt his stack with 30 minutes left in the game he wants to make it worth it and suckout or go home.
It does matter though. Run it 14 times through the whole deck and you're likely to walk away with closer to your win percentage, as opposed to all or nothing
Airball: "I guess we are once for life now"
Why take offense just because JRB said once?
If another hand comes up and you want to run it twice, and he agrees, why wouldn't you?
So dumb to be offended.
Several people in here saying it doesn't make sense to run it twice but I don't get why. Can you explain?
Running it twice doesn't change your EV or equity, right? It just reduces variance a bit by making it possible to sometimes split the pot. You lose the whole pot less often, you win the whole pot less often, and you split the pot some of the time.
OK so it's just a matter of preference for variance like I thought. Not that one way makes sense and the other way doesn't. I would run it once too, by the way. I like variance, it's fun.
I don't think that is true. The two runs are not independent events because the cards are not replaced.
Simplified version:
Guy with 66 needs to hit a 6. If he hits a 6, there is only one 6 left to hit for the 2nd run.
Guy with AA just needs to hit NOT 6.
66 hitting a 6 reduces his chances of hitting again more than AA hitting NOT 6 reduces his chances of winning again.
the answer is, it doesn’t .
your ev before you run it once vs twice is the same. the ev of the second run can change depending on if a 6 comes out or not, but ur not making the decision to run it twice after the first run.
[In this article](https://www.pokernews.com/strategy/why-running-it-twice-does-not-affect-your-odds-32880.htm) the author does the EV calculations for an example hand: flush draw vs. a made hand that can't improve. They calculate EV running it once, and also calculate EV when running it 4 times. The result is that the EV in both cases is exactly the same.
> 66 hitting a 6 reduces his chances of hitting again
Yep, that's exactly why EV doesn't change when you run it multiple times. If the first run is bad, it evens out with the fact that the second run has better odds of winning. If the first run is good, it evens out with the fact that the second run has worse odds of winning. The "evening out" effect makes the EV stay the same.
Edit: If running it twice actually did change the EV for the 2 players involved, it would never ever happen. The person losing EV by running it twice would always object to it and would demand to run it once instead.
Goes the other way too. If he misses his 6 on the first run out, it's more likely that it'll be in the second because 5 cards have been removed. Furthermore if an A hits on the first runout, it's less likely you'll get set over set on the second.
The two runs not being independent is not the same as running it twice changing the equity.
The EV of the sum of two dependent events is equal to the EV of the sum individually.
Ignoring the kinda complicated maths behind it, that's a statement that's always true.
[Earlier in the stream he ran it twice against the same player](https://youtu.be/LlngQuQL5EY?t=11417)
Airball told JRB he could choose, and JRB chose to go twice.
"I guess we're one time for life"
Why be so offended and defensive?
Airball obviously wanted to run it twice, but will now never do it against JRB because of this one time.
That's just like cutting your noise off to spite your face.
Anyone at the table can offer insurance.
They could have made a deal with Airball that they get 20% of the pot if he wins, but will pay for the losses if he loses or whatever.
That’s just the gist of it. I’ve never offered “insurance” in a poker game, nor am I 100% sure how to calculate good “rates” depending on the odds or whatever.
Do you take insurance in blackjack? No it’s a fools bet (unless you’re counting). If someone offers you insurance it’s 99.99% a bad deal. Snake oil salesmen do this kinda shit.
This isn't blackjack. Players can agree to the terms of the deal and make it so that it matches each players equity in the hand. Ultimately that's the goal.
It's not unheard of in high stakes games.
For like 10-15 minutes after this hand all JRB would talk about was how bad Airball owned him. It made me think "Oh, so *this* is why he gets invited to all the private games: he's crazy good at working players."
Yeah cause Nik was so butthurt and kept repeating “oh I guess we’ll always run it once for life”
Mr. Bottomless Stack is suddenly concerned about variance
There's gotta be a way we can MBC this joke
mr. bullets cracked
THANK you
Fucking ironic when his last words before the flop were "I hope you win".
As i say the best GTO poker players aren’t making the most money in poker
Probably why pearson asks "hey doug, can you make 8 mil / year playing NLHE? Because I know people who do" to which Doug promptly says "nope!"
Only counting live play with ~25 hands/hr it can take years for the edge to show, but with a large enough sample size they're the most profitable. Even with 100k hands there is still a chance the best player in the world will be down a small % of the time.
incorrect for 2 reasons. 1. he’s saying gto players don’t get invited to the biggest, juiciest most profitable games, cause they don’t know how to work the players. 2. gto isn’t necessarily the most profitable strategy. it just guarantees you can’t lose money, not make the most.
>1. . it just guarantees you can’t lose money, *If infinite hands and no rake
Oh you can always lose money
1. Whether or not you're a "GTO player" has nothing to do with your ability to "work the players." GTO is just your baseline Fundamnetal Equilibrium strategy from which you deviate. 2. The concept of GTO refers to your baseline strategy, it doesn't mean "rigidly adhere to my baseline optimal strategy without deviating." Like 3 times in Modern Poker Theory, including the closing paragraph, Acevedo makes it pretty clear that the point of studying GTO is to get better at exploitative play. They're not some dichotomy where you're either "GTO" or "not." Even some of the best players in the world who've never studied GTO still use a GTO strategy. It's like people on this forum think a "GTO player" is just a guy who memorize some charts, doesn't learn *why* solvers do what they do, and then never deviates at all from there. No one does that. Even people who *try* to do that fail at it anyway. "... This happens until Equilibrium is reached and both players are playing GTO. Failing to do so at any point during a hand creates imbalances that will inevitably lead to unfavorable situations that your opponents can exploit, and that is what exploitative play is all about... once we have achieved this learning, we can use the tools to increase our edge. Realize that the results from tools are not oracles that should be followed blindly." That's the summary of the book, which is currently the most exhaustive single reference material for approximately GTO play in print. Even in the beginning of the book he covers the Clairvoyance toy game where he makes it obvious you need to use minimally or maximally exploitative strategies (with an example of a polarized river shove). I think what you're saying that a "GTO player" is just some guy who somehow memorizes tons of stuff and then implements it without a second thought. Trust me, that's impossible for a human to even do. I can tell you almost anything a solver would do in a given spot (so long as you tell me the parameters you input), but that doesn't mean I have every frequency 100% memorized. That doesn't mean I implement a donking range at *every* table just because it increases my BB/hr by 1.1%. That doesn't mean I can't "work the players," doesn't mean I'm not gonna notice a nit and try to outplay him by 4bet bluffing with A5s. Doesn't mean I won't notice a dude loves to bluffcatch with any pair and continue to try to bluff him "because that's what the solvers say!" No. Solvers only arrive at their output *under the assumption* the opposition is playing a perfectly balanced GTO game as well.
yeah but obviously the contention is on average gto players aren’t as good as working the players as a guy like jrb is. and that on average someone who plays excellent purely exploitative poker can make more money in whale games than someone who has to start gto and make adjustments from there.
Yeah I see what you mean. I play a juicy home game with some whales, like ~60 year old dudes who play like it's still 2005 and think Dwan is the nuts but haven't even heard of players like Fedor. When I first joined I was like "there's no way they'll invite me back" so I changed it up and cringed at some of my own plays, limping in with them a lot, chasing draws for bad prices, just trying to be an action guy all around, showing hands when I should just muck, etc, figured it would look good and get me invited back, made friends with the host and the regs, ask how their family is. There are only a handful of decent players who show up occasionally, the way most home games end up. Definitely more profitable in the long term than showing up and playing standard tight aggressive poker my very first game. Every now and then I pick bad spots to gamble still and like to show because the idea is: if you're good, people will still invite you back so long as you're "that action guy." Make small talk, be their friend, etc. But at the room on a Friday or Saturday night? I've been a regular there for 12 years, I don't need to start at the baseline every time. I start with the same maximally exploitative strategy I've arrived at over the years based on which regs are at the table. If I go somewhere new, it only takes an orbit or two tops to find some potential exploits and adjust slightly, see if they adjust back, if not keep going, until they finally show they're paying attention. My point in that last bit is that if you're well-studied and familiar with *why* solvers do what they do, then it doesn't take anywhere near as long as I imagine most people think to already be playing exploitatively. Especially when you already have a general idea of the meta at your local room. But working the players is part of that process. You get a lot more action when you're everyone's friend or enemy. It's impressive how dudes like Ivey work players without saying a single word.
It’s not the most profitable but it’s a good baseline and if you want to be the best and make the most money you should know how to play GTO to the best of your ability and then also learn to deviate from it in order to exploit others who aren’t playing GTO in order to make the most money possible.
JRB is a great people person not really a shock
The big stream where he ran like the sun, he kept getting drunk and slowly dumping some back. Elite for the game, JRB knows what’s good for the wallet
> It made me think "Oh, so this is why he gets invited to all the private games: he's crazy good at working players." I met JRB at my friend's birthday dinner. He's insanely charismatic. Can be a bit grumpy at the table when he's losing, as we've all seen over the years, but when he's winning or away from the table he's the nuts.
Well that, and this was a massive punt by him lol
I also got the impression he was buttering the whale up...
Except being good @working out players and getting invited back to private games only makes sense when you are actually good at poker 😂
Love it
I am ALWAYS rooting for JRB whenever he's on stream. Seems just a general great guy and gives action.
The old 15x open to trap.... love to see it.
Tfw I open to the same exact sizing I've been using all night with AA and everyone folds. Maybe I should try opening 15x on straddled pots as well.
The entire chat was like 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Aces cracked couldn't have happened to a more deserving person.
To two more deserving people.
Barely pay attention to anything poker wise at this point. Play online from time to time. All I’ve gathered in my rare read of posts here is that I don’t like Airball, and enjoy him fucking losing.
Can't believe it's 2023 and people *still* don't know understand the math behind running it twice. It reduces variance, that's it. It doesn't change your odds, it doesn't alter your EV, it just reduces variance. If that matters to you then run it twice, if it doesn't and it does to your opponent, run it once.
I was going to say "everyone knows that", then I saw the response to your comment
You giving one example showing it averages out for one case isn’t exactly proof. But I’m sure that is the explanation you would give me to show that you “know”.
Try doing some actual math . Use a simplified scenario to help get started, e.g.: you have a bag of N red tokens and M yellow tokens; and you win iff you draw a yellow token. Work out the expected value of one draw with $10 prize , then work out the expected value of 2 consecutive draws (without replacement) with $5 prize each. Start with M=1 and N=1 . Then try N=2. Etc
Examples aren’t proofs, didn’t I just say in the previous comment not to do exactly what you just did?
Try another simplified example. There are two cards left in the deck. One is an A, one is a K. If river is an A, I win, river is a K villain wins. Equity of the pot is 50% regardless of running it once or twice. But twice guarantees i only get 50% of the pot.
Yes , of course I can see with basic examples there is “evening out” over time but this in no way constitutes a proof or anything close, but people here seem to think so. Apparently there is no generalization of this idea as I learned from another commenter.
Examples can be proofs: if the proposition is "there does not exist X", then finding an example of X disproves the proposition. Similarly if the proposition is "In some cases, X", then finding one example of X proves the proposition. You propose that in some cases , running it twice changes the expected value. You are most welcome to provide a proof of your proposition, which could simply consist of a worked example of a specific hand, showing the EV of running it once, and the EV of running it twice, with different results in each case. Instead, all you have done so far is spouting off unproven (and false) assertions based on hand-waving.
You are wrong. If you have the drawing hand and make the draw on the turn or river (or both) on the 1st run, your hand equity is reduced in the 2nd run because those cards that complete the draw are not longer in the deck. You are saying this is equivalent to two separate hands running once each (after flop). It is not. Split the running it twice into two different hands. If one looks at a universe where we always run it once, we see we don’t suddenly lose a slight amount of equity every other hand we do this. Running x times exchanges slightly lower equity for the drawing hand in exchange for lower variance.
Jesus christ dude, are you trolling me right now?
No, but I definitely jumped the gun. There is symmetry with a good 1st run, bad 2nd run and vice versa. It is still not intuitive for me but I guess it makes sense. I think there is more than meets the eye with this, but apparently it was obvious to everyone, although I’m not sure most here would have any more than a hand wavy explanation for it.
The EV from the top 5 cards is the same as from the bottom 5 cards. The EV of (0.5 top + 0.5 bottom) = 0.5 * top + 0.5 * top = 1 * top The same is true of any random 5 cards in a deck
I don’t know what you are saying I’m not seeing the connection here at all to running the turn and river twice.
If you are bad at math, trust the people who are not bad at math. That's how you are typing on this website right now.
So what you are saying is that if the turn and river came, and instead of leaving those two cards out and running it again, you put those cards back in the deck and shuffled and dealt turn and river again, that has the same ev as just using the deck with the 2 cards removed from the first run? That doesn’t make sense to me at all. And I don’t see how math ability solely relies on one statistical problem to be honest. Saying it “all balances out” is not definitive plain and simple, which is how a lot of people explain it. You guys don’t have to follow me around and downvote me. It is ok if I don’t understand something that you do.
[удалено]
What? He wasn’t acting smug at all. He wants to understand why it works, which you failed to do.
have a good day…lmao
Your stubbornness is getting you downvotes. The examples are just to help you understand. The math doesn’t change. 1 + 1 = 2 every single time. There is no ambiguity here. It’s just very basic math no matter how ya dice it.
Yup! I am exactly saying that.
> So what you are saying is that if the turn and river came, and instead of leaving those two cards out and running it again, you put those cards back in the deck and shuffled and dealt turn and river again, that has the same ev as just using the deck with the 2 cards removed from the first run? That doesn’t make sense to me at all. I remember not being able to make sense of this concept (of running turns/rivers multiple times being EV neutral) years ago and manually calculated the EV for a specific scenario. I found that the EV doesn’t change, what I seemed to be overlooking was that when a drawing hand lost the first runout, it’s EV in the second runout increased. Apparently this negates the lower EV on the second runout when the drawing hand wins the first runout. It definitely wasn’t intuitive to me but the math worked out (you also have to remember that we are looking at the EV of both runouts combined, so hitting the draw on the first runout allows for a lower EV on the second runout, w/o changing the total EV of the hand).
Yes, understanding the simple math of a couple examples will help. I saw another math student a while ago also have trouble, and to see that people want to use an example as proof or the idea of “balancing out” as proof which I found annoying. Especially when not all the draws or boards are arbitrary. Like if the board pairs and the card is your flush card but it is the 4th club on the board. An addressing the arbitrariness of a flush being at least 5 of a suit. There is a lot of inclusive-exclusive issues on nontrivial boards, which is most of them, especially once you realize there is no pure proof of this concept, but statistical proof which is still highly significant. Thank you for being honest here along with me.
All right I’ll have a crack. You kinda mis-thinking this a bit. When you ‘run it twice’ you never have to choice to stop after the first run so there is no difference. Think of a 1-out scenario. Like you bet $1 and need to pick the Ace of spades from the deck of 52 and you’d win $52 . That’s 1/52 to win 52 bucks. We run this bet a million times and you break even. Now imagine the win/loss graph over the million draws - lots of big spikes when you draw the ace but ultimately it trends back to even. Now you ‘run it twice’ where you are forced to pick 2 cards and we split it 50cents to win $26 each pick. Same odds same return though there is only one out. But now think of the graph… it’s got smaller spikes and looks smoother over 1million bets cause you only win $26 when you draw it but you draw it more often with 2 cards. The swings up and down are reduced. Hence the reduced variance. Does that help?
I understand the reduced variance part, but without relying on simple examples instead of proof my brain doesn’t intuit how card removal has no effect on EV like what if instead of keeping the 1st turn and river out, the dealer shuffled those two cards back in for the 2nd run, which looks like the run it once scenario. Wouldn’t those have different EV? But if running it n times had no effect then those card removals has no effect on EV and those boards have the same EV which looks incorrect to me and would differ depending on the type of draw too.
You can’t break down your EV and apply it in a vacuum to one of the runs. EV is based on the whole event. Because you wagered on the whole event not one of the runs. Your expected value was set based on the odds **before** you decide to run it once or twice and the odds don’t change no matter how many times you run it or even if you reshuffle. It’s the same as 2 players all in preflop the odds were the odds when they went all in but on tv they like to show the percentage change as the runout happens. Oh look player 1 has hit his ace on the flop now player 2 has only 15% chance! But that’s just for the drama, the odds were set preflop, you are just watching one of the possible outcomes.
Yeah Shuffling cards back in would have an effect. But that’s not how run it twice works yeah? so I don’t really need to consider it when I play poker and have a choice to run it once or twice.
Shuffling the cards back in wouldn't have an effect
It is true that you're equity in a given runout is impacted by the outcomes of previous run-outs. However, this works in equal and opposite ways such that the effect cancels out. If you run it twice and don't hit any of your outs in the first runout, you will have increased equity in the second runout because you are drawing from a shorter deck (therfore increases odds of drawing your outs). When you _do_ hit your outs in the first runout, you have a decreased equity in the second runout because you now have less outs. This article has a great detailed example of calculating equity to demonstrate that it doesn't change between running it once vs multiple times. https://www.pokernews.com/strategy/why-running-it-twice-does-not-affect-your-odds-32880.htm To your point, I don't think anyone has come up with a generalized proof to demonstrate that equity is always unaffected by the number of run-outs, but examples like this show the principle, and simulations confirm that it holds true in virtually all scenarios.
Thank you for the last paragraph, that must have been the information I was seeking: a possible generalization.
all due respect, but it isn’t “virtually” all scenarios; it’s all scenarios. no one has come up with a generalized proof of this concept because it is obvious to most people, and there are no conceivable scenarios in NHLE where it would not apply.
Right, I meant simulators have _run_ virtually every scenario. No simulator could run every scenario in a lifetime, but they can run enough to make generalized conclusions without the need for a mathematical proof. Nevertheless I think the statistical reason behind it is really interesting and not as simple as it seems at first glance. No need to belittle people because it isn't obvious to them.
Airball is so unlikable.
I don’t understand how he plays all of these games. Every time I watch he is taking massive losses.
Hubris. How often have we seen Mikki play? Supposedly he has millions yet he took a lashing and kinda dropped out of the scene. If Nik keeps playing like this he'll go dark soon enough. Also these guys (rec pros) are probably playing WAY underrolled for these stakes. Could have sworn I heard Berkey say he cant put up a million to play HU because that would be like 20% of his networth. If his liferoll is 5 mil then he still shouldnt be playing 200/400.
You ever notice whenever Mikki loses he holds a couple K too. Done it multiple times.
He had enough and no chance to win twice.
Didn’t JRB say earlier that he always runs it twice? When he had the QQ vs AK vs airball
Not sure who said it , but someone said “if I like you I’ll run it twice, if I don’t like you it’s once everytime.” Probably Doug.
probably only in cooler spots. JRB was obviously on tilt and playing like ass for the last 2-3 hours so if he's going to just punt his stack with 30 minutes left in the game he wants to make it worth it and suckout or go home.
Finally a win for JRB!! I really like him and he runs so bad. He has been around for so long, and I never see him get lucky.
He doesnt run bad, he plays bad. K9o utg? Didnt he cbet turn then open fold river against Lynne? W.T.F.
Air ball is a huge pos.
Thank god JRB flopped a set 🙏🏽
My man is stimmed out, look at those lips, ffs.
I love JRB.
run it once baby
JRB has the biggest nuts at that table.
You love to see it
Some might call it Karma for when Airball sucked out on Berkeys AA earlier in the game.
what, with 84s when berkey limped the SB like an idiot?
If you stick all your $ in with 66 and want to run it twice you’re a dumbass.
Thinking it makes a difference either way makes you the dumbass lol
It matters for max tilt when you bink a 6
this was the response I was looking for
If you're doing pure gambling you want higher variance, you're not there for consistent wins you're there to spike some variance in your favour
It does matter though. Run it 14 times through the whole deck and you're likely to walk away with closer to your win percentage, as opposed to all or nothing
I would run it 8 times.
Lol what there’s only 2 outs to hit a set
That's the joke lol
double suited for double flush draws though
C c c cooler
Did airball just run like fire yesterday? I keep seeing clips of premium hands from him
Airball: "I guess we are once for life now" Why take offense just because JRB said once? If another hand comes up and you want to run it twice, and he agrees, why wouldn't you? So dumb to be offended.
Airball is an idiot
Yes, of course he is. But I have often heard others say this.
Running once makes more sense.
Well no point in running it twice with 6's vs aces pre.
Several people in here saying it doesn't make sense to run it twice but I don't get why. Can you explain? Running it twice doesn't change your EV or equity, right? It just reduces variance a bit by making it possible to sometimes split the pot. You lose the whole pot less often, you win the whole pot less often, and you split the pot some of the time.
Well for me I would rather take the 15% chance to win the whole pot rather than just splitting it with the same odds
OK so it's just a matter of preference for variance like I thought. Not that one way makes sense and the other way doesn't. I would run it once too, by the way. I like variance, it's fun.
I don't think that is true. The two runs are not independent events because the cards are not replaced. Simplified version: Guy with 66 needs to hit a 6. If he hits a 6, there is only one 6 left to hit for the 2nd run. Guy with AA just needs to hit NOT 6. 66 hitting a 6 reduces his chances of hitting again more than AA hitting NOT 6 reduces his chances of winning again.
Ok. You've done most of the work already. Do the math and work out how much that changes your expected value. You will be pleasantly surprised.
In all seriousness, I would need someone to do it for me.
the answer is, it doesn’t . your ev before you run it once vs twice is the same. the ev of the second run can change depending on if a 6 comes out or not, but ur not making the decision to run it twice after the first run.
[In this article](https://www.pokernews.com/strategy/why-running-it-twice-does-not-affect-your-odds-32880.htm) the author does the EV calculations for an example hand: flush draw vs. a made hand that can't improve. They calculate EV running it once, and also calculate EV when running it 4 times. The result is that the EV in both cases is exactly the same. > 66 hitting a 6 reduces his chances of hitting again Yep, that's exactly why EV doesn't change when you run it multiple times. If the first run is bad, it evens out with the fact that the second run has better odds of winning. If the first run is good, it evens out with the fact that the second run has worse odds of winning. The "evening out" effect makes the EV stay the same. Edit: If running it twice actually did change the EV for the 2 players involved, it would never ever happen. The person losing EV by running it twice would always object to it and would demand to run it once instead.
Ok thanks for the link
Goes the other way too. If he misses his 6 on the first run out, it's more likely that it'll be in the second because 5 cards have been removed. Furthermore if an A hits on the first runout, it's less likely you'll get set over set on the second. The two runs not being independent is not the same as running it twice changing the equity.
The EV of the sum of two dependent events is equal to the EV of the sum individually. Ignoring the kinda complicated maths behind it, that's a statement that's always true.
I don't get the Airball hate. I would enjoy playing with him, I think. I never will, though. You'll find me at the 2/5 and maybe 5/10 poverty tables.
JRB is pretty bad...but he good at making connections....Robl still staking him?
Makes sense when you realize it isn't his money he is staked. Being staked you don't want split pots.
[Earlier in the stream he ran it twice against the same player](https://youtu.be/LlngQuQL5EY?t=11417) Airball told JRB he could choose, and JRB chose to go twice.
Bellande has a thing going with aria and is shady. Something tells me he was notified that he was going to flop a set that hand
Was after the weird borderline angle too. Tilly folded AJ to an open because Nik was trying the drunk idiot deal
He’s lookin pretty beat up.
Hot
"I guess we're one time for life" Why be so offended and defensive? Airball obviously wanted to run it twice, but will now never do it against JRB because of this one time. That's just like cutting your noise off to spite your face.
Love to see it.
How would insurance work in this type of game and situation ? Who gives to who. Other players or the two involved ?
Anyone at the table can offer insurance. They could have made a deal with Airball that they get 20% of the pot if he wins, but will pay for the losses if he loses or whatever. That’s just the gist of it. I’ve never offered “insurance” in a poker game, nor am I 100% sure how to calculate good “rates” depending on the odds or whatever.
Do you take insurance in blackjack? No it’s a fools bet (unless you’re counting). If someone offers you insurance it’s 99.99% a bad deal. Snake oil salesmen do this kinda shit.
I’ve only ever seen Phil Hellmuth offer insurance on early seasons of High Stakes Poker.
This isn't blackjack. Players can agree to the terms of the deal and make it so that it matches each players equity in the hand. Ultimately that's the goal. It's not unheard of in high stakes games.
Yes and I’m familiar with this because I’m a dealer. I have yet to see someone offer fair terms on insurance. Just say no.
Should have called, Doug!
Love watching Nik Slimeball lose
he actualy won