Tournement idea/running it twice.

[Do You See Why]

Had this idea and was curious to hear peoples opinions on it. Anytime there is an all-in situation you run the rest of the hand twice. Allin preflop? two complete boards. allin on flop? run turn and river twice. all in on turn? run river twice. this could create some real intresting dynamics and change stratagies up alot. pros? cons? discuss.

[edfurlong]

Just play O/8.

[nuclear500]

Pros? People will feel they have more of a shot to win when they are a lesser player. Perhaps if its a friendly $5 or $10 home game.

Cons? Increases chances a big hand will lose - frustrate the players who are good and got their money in with the best of it. Even if they win one and lose the other, they win very little when they do split.

[THAY3R]

[ QUOTE ]
Pros? People will feel they have more of a shot to win when they are a lesser player. Perhaps if its a friendly $5 or $10 home game.

Cons? Increases chances a big hand will lose - frustrate the players who are good and got their money in with the best of it. Even if they win one and lose the other, they win very little when they do split.

[/ QUOTE ]


Worst post ever?

Running it twice would significantly increase the chances of the best players winning.

Do you see why?

[Jeremy517]

Con: Tourneys take 3x as long.

[nuclear500]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pros? People will feel they have more of a shot to win when they are a lesser player. Perhaps if its a friendly $5 or $10 home game.

Cons? Increases chances a big hand will lose - frustrate the players who are good and got their money in with the best of it. Even if they win one and lose the other, they win very little when they do split.

[/ QUOTE ]


Worst post ever?

Running it twice would significantly increase the chances of the best players winning.

Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

I see why, yes. But it also increases the variance. Might as well just switch to Omaha.

Perhaps I just don't have quite the experience - but when I see someone like Barry Greenstein put his money in and *always* refuse to run it twice, most often because he is getting it in with the best hand, it makes you wonder why he's giving himself the best chance to win the entire pot.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pros? People will feel they have more of a shot to win when they are a lesser player. Perhaps if its a friendly $5 or $10 home game.

Cons? Increases chances a big hand will lose - frustrate the players who are good and got their money in with the best of it. Even if they win one and lose the other, they win very little when they do split.

[/ QUOTE ]


Worst post ever?

Running it twice would significantly increase the chances of the best players winning.

Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

I see why, yes. But it also increases the variance. Might as well just switch to Omaha.

Perhaps I just don't have quite the experience - but when I see someone like Barry Greenstein put his money in and *always* refuse to run it twice, most often because he is getting it in with the best hand, it makes you wonder why he's giving himself the best chance to win the entire pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't understand variance or why they run it twice or three times.

[mlagoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Running it twice would significantly increase the chances of the best players winning.

Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

I see why, yes. But it also increases the variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is honestly really sad for someone that has been at this site for like 3 years

[JohnnyGroomsTD]

Imagine the horror on a 3 way all in with an inexperienced dealer. Would running it twice be mandatory?

[TheMuppet]

[ QUOTE ]

I see why, yes. But it also increases the variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you trying to level here? If not, then you seriously need to rething if you should be playing poker.

[fnurt]

Imagine if you ran it 1,000 times. So much variance!

[nuclear500]

[ QUOTE ]
this is honestly really sad for someone that has been at this site for like 3 years

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I'm lost then. Isn't variance, at its most basic, the "odds" that the best hand is going to win or lose under any given circumstance? It is an incalculable number as it is basically statistics on luck - if you want to correlate it 1:1 with odds of winning a hand then fine.

I'm asking for serious understanding here - perhaps I'm being myopic and only thinking about race situations. If AK misses a board completely vs an under pair, the likelihood the next board has an Ace or a King increases, no? Yes, its minor, up to 5%, but depends on whats dead. You've reduced the cards in the deck effectively, unless you reshuffle, in which case throw my entire viewpoint out the window.

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=2923099
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=21105
yes these are extremes, but it gets my viewpoint across.


As for the length of time I've been here - poker is a hobby, serious but not so much. If length of time equated to skill and understanding, shouldn't I be playing 1/2 NL or something?

[nuclear500]

deleted

[THAY3R]

Just imagine running it 20 times. A 75% favorite will win much closer to 75% of the pot than if you just ran it once. Hence the reduction of variance.


Also, Greenstein refuses to run it twice simply because it gives him an edge/more fold equity. He thinks people would be more likely to call him when he doesn't want him to if the opponent knows BG would be willing to run it twice.

I probably didn't explain that completely correctly but that's the gist of it.

[phiphika1453]

1. You are on 2+2 and apparently have never read TOP, Theory of Poker.
2. You are from Madison there are billions of card players there.

But anyways, your definition of variance is actually the definition of expected value. Variance is the deviation from the expected value.

In the short term, say one hand, it is very likely that your expected value will not equate to actual value (dollars won). This discrepancy in the two has been coined Sklansky dollars, by the man himself.

In theory as you approach the long run, say 1 million hands, the discrepancy between expected value and actual value will begin to merge (shrink). At some point in time every hand rank you have ever been dealt will reach the point when EV=AV, obviously this can be negative. (Note this is only looking back in time, the next hand you play will just factor in to give yourself a larger data set)

So whenever you get a walk with 72o and win a 300bb pot, dont automatically think that 72o is a long term winning hand. It will eventually return to the -EV value hand that it actually is.

As for running it twice in a tourney, no thanks.


EDIT: Running it twice just gets you closer to the long run than running it once.

[capone0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this is honestly really sad for someone that has been at this site for like 3 years

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I'm lost then. Isn't variance, at its most basic, the "odds" that the best hand is going to win or lose under any given circumstance? It is an incalculable number as it is basically statistics on luck - if you want to correlate it 1:1 with odds of winning a hand then fine.

I'm asking for serious understanding here - perhaps I'm being myopic and only thinking about race situations. If AK misses a board completely vs an under pair, the likelihood the next board has an Ace or a King increases, no? Yes, its minor, up to 5%, but depends on whats dead. You've reduced the cards in the deck effectively, unless you reshuffle, in which case throw my entire viewpoint out the window.

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=2923099
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=21105
yes these are extremes, but it gets my viewpoint across.


As for the length of time I've been here - poker is a hobby, serious but not so much. If length of time equated to skill and understanding, shouldn't I be playing 1/2 NL or something?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thing is when you start the race, you don't know any of the cards. So each flop, turn, river, etc. is random. Yes the odds of the second deal are going to change based on the first, but it won't effect the EV. Variance decreases as you increase the number of samples. So if you went to run 1 million times you should get near the actual EV while when you sample only once the variation is going to be large in the values you get.

[JohnnyGroomsTD]

Once again, is the proposal to madatorily run it twice, or to optionally run it twice? If it is mandatory, then the rules would have to be well defined. Instead of running it twice, why not just run it N times, with N being the largest number of possible boards remaining in the deck for a given game. Then make the dealer split the pot umpteen ways. And really take the luck factor out. And make the lesser player an even bigger dog. And take away the drama and finality of the flop, turn and river,
and..... Ad Nausaeum

[PhilHelmet]

If you decided to run it twice in a tournament, it would have to be mandatory; not optional. If it was optional, then EVERYBODY currently in the tournament would be entitled to vote, because, the outcome of that one hand effects EVERYBODY in the tournament, not just those with cards.. i.e. it's not a cash game.

[Bdidd]

Mmmmm, variance.

[Aristotal]

[ QUOTE ]
"...Instead of running it twice, why not just run it N times, with N being the largest number of possible boards remaining in the deck for a given game. Then make the dealer split the pot umpteen ways. And really take the luck factor out....

[/ QUOTE ]
I’m a little new to this but wondering if I’m correct in thinking that running it twice, or ‘n’ times, actually increases the luck factor overall. Running a hand multiple times obviously decreases variance, for that hand, but doesn’t it do that by correspondingly giving more weight (because I can’t think of the right word) to the actual cards a player was lucky enough to have been dealt?

[JohnnyGroomsTD]

I beg to differ. I understand the implication of everyone in the tournament being affected. I disagree with the ability to vote on it. It could be viewed as a strategy decision, with the more informed player having an edge. It would be a decision based on whether or not you know you have the best hand. By allwowing others to vote, you would basically allow players to "cheat" by entering an agreement with other players to take strategy advice from a player during the play of a hand. In the end, if all it does is reduce variance, then what does it matter what the decision is. You cant tell a guy he cant call, and you dont vote on how he plays his hand, so.....
FWIW

[THAY3R]

[ QUOTE ]
I beg to differ. I understand the implication of everyone in the tournament being affected. I disagree with the ability to vote on it. It could be viewed as a strategy decision, with the more informed player having an edge. It would be a decision based on whether or not you know you have the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]


Johnny Grooms, meet nuclear500.

[savageorc]

I think that requiring it to run twice every time or voting would take too long and be too complicated.

I you want to do something like this, give everyone a limited number of "run it twice lamers" that they can use to run it twice. Allow people to opt out of running it twice if they want to bid more lamers than their opposition.

Or something like that.

Then there would be some strategy as to when to deploy your lamers and it wouldn't slow the tourney down as much, since the option wouldn't always be available.

[THAY3R]

I actually think it would be fun and interesting if Poker Stars or FTP tried these out. Not as the norm, but as a different kind of tourney, like they have turbos and deep stacks.

[capone0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"...Instead of running it twice, why not just run it N times, with N being the largest number of possible boards remaining in the deck for a given game. Then make the dealer split the pot umpteen ways. And really take the luck factor out....

[/ QUOTE ]
I’m a little new to this but wondering if I’m correct in thinking that running it twice, or ‘n’ times, actually increases the luck factor overall. Running a hand multiple times obviously decreases variance, for that hand, but doesn’t it do that by correspondingly giving more weight (because I can’t think of the right word) to the actual cards a player was lucky enough to have been dealt?

[/ QUOTE ]

What the hell is the luck factor? All running it does it decrease the variance while the EV remains exactly the same. As you approach a ton of potential boards the EV remains the same, but the variance approaches 0. This takes a lot more time to do of course but basically as you approach infinite number of hands, the amount you are going to win is going to approach and meet at the EV.

[nuclear500]

[ QUOTE ]
1. You are on 2+2 and apparently have never read TOP, Theory of Poker.

[/ QUOTE ] Correct. Getting that deep into the mental aspect of the game has not been my intention, but perhaps I should at least get the book and read it.

[ QUOTE ]
2. You are from Madison there are billions of card players there.

[/ QUOTE ]I know the people to talk to find a game if I want to but I'm a pussy and don't. Plus I stopped going to the BadgerPoker free tourney / cash games over a year and a half ago or so.

[ QUOTE ]
But anyways, your definition of variance is actually the definition of expected value. Variance is the deviation from the expected value....................

[/ QUOTE ]

Your explanation makes more sense to me. I wasn't thinking on such a long term scale but rather the short term. I fully understand that over time things will balance out, but I guess my logic was flawed in interpreting the short run "run it twice" scenario. I basically wasn't applying the long term thinking to short term, I was going under the assumption that as cards from the deck disappear that don't help either hand, the odds of the favorite losing increase - but that value is so low that it is statistically insignificant.

Thanks.

[nuclear500]

[ QUOTE ]
Just imagine running it 20 times.....

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand now. I already understood that as decks being run increases the odds that the standard deviation from EV closes to 0 but I was ignoring applying it to the immediate "run it twice" scenario because I was going under the assumption of "knowing" what cards were gone from the deck.

[THAY3R]

An easier explanation would probably have been to say "Imagine how difficult it would be now for the underdog to suckout and win the whole pot." That probably would've made it more easier to grasp.


I apologize for any harshness.

[FortWorthJim]

I've always thought Greenstein not wanting to run it twice was more of a show of strength.

"I have the best hand. I'm favored to win the whole pot. If I lose, I've got plenty more money to buy in with. Do you?"

Unless it is the norm for the whole table, asking to run it twice seems a little weak. "Please, let's make a deal, so I have a better chance of not losing all this money."

[PhilHelmet]

Sorry, that was my point.. I wasn't suggesting that there be an actual "vote".. for exactly the reason you specify.

Just trying to point out it couldn't be an optional thing amongst those with live cards; and, as such, this is exactly why you can not do this in tournaments.

In regards to running it X times, the net effect will be the actual win percentages will approach the calculated probability… hence, less variance.

Just like flipping a coin (a 50/50 for heads/tails).. You might flip it 3 times, it might hit heads three in a row, but, given you flipped it an infinite amount of times (assuming a fair coin of course) you would then approach 50% heads and 50% tails.

In terms of poker, those who consistently always "get their money in good" would benefit by multiple runs; essentially getting ~90% of the pot whenever they were a 90% favorite (again, assuming a lot of runs), ~55% of the pot whenever the were a 55% percent favorite, etc. Over time, they would accumulate all the chips.

[ApeAttack]

It would definitely change the dynamic of the game. It would be harder to put pressure on people to fold if they know they could run it twice.

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine if you ran it 1,000 times. So much variance!

[/ QUOTE ]

No, just run it once thru pokerstove. It should reduce
the variance.

To increase the skill pay a premium for correct calling
decisions and a penalty for incorrect decisions.

[nuclear500]

fairly certain he was leveling the guy he was replying to

[Do You See Why]

The idea would be that its mandatory to run it twice no matter what. I would love to play in such a tournament asit really decreases varience. I would be curious as to see if it sped up play and slowed down play. If your running it twice your gonna see alot more split pots. You also see alot more allins, as people will tend to play there draws alot stronger. Four flushes on the flop would be about 64 to get a split. I would love to see an online site or some series try this as one of the preliminarty events. Could be alot of fun. I would suspect that alot of the math based players would come out on top.

[JohnnyGroomsTD]

why not just run a tournament where there was a calculator at the table and split the pot based on the EV of the hand?
Then the tournament would never end.....

[THAY3R]

Johnny you are coming off very dickish in this thread.

[shaundeeb]

thayer I hope you are leveling people and actually don't think this is a good idea.

[JohnnyGroomsTD]

Not meaning to...Just playing devil's advocate. I just wish people would embrace the variance. It's part of what balances the game. If players are winning players, then long term results will happen. Running them twice does eliminate variance, but it also eliminates weak players faster. When weaker players chances are reduced, along with good structures and good rules, then they will have no incentive to play. Like a GM vs a c class chess player. Why bother. Once again I don't mean to sound "dickish", I am just pointing out problems with the tourney type, as well as a general disagreement with the OP's line or thinking

[JediMyndTrik]

[ QUOTE ]
why not just run a tournament where there was a calculator at the table and split the pot based on the EV of the hand?
Then the tournament would never end.....

[/ QUOTE ]

My buddy and I thought about actually trying to run a home game like this for a single night, just to see what would happen.

Three seconds later we came to our senses.

[JohnnyGroomsTD]

LOL, no one ever gets busted, unless the get it all in drawing 100% dead

[Dangeresque]

All of this just makes me upset that in Alberta, we can't run hands twice.

[THAY3R]

[ QUOTE ]
thayer I hope you are leveling people and actually don't think this is a good idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think it would be fun to play a "Run it twice tourney" every now and then?

Or have Run it Twice cash tables?

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL, no one ever gets busted, unless the get it all in drawing 100% dead

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why there should be a premium for being 'right'.
This busting out to be eliminated started in 1971 when
there were only nine players in the tournament. Now
with 5000+ in the ME not being able to cover the blinds
or antes should be sufficient for elimination.

[nuclear500]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
thayer I hope you are leveling people and actually don't think this is a good idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think it would be fun to play a "Run it twice tourney" every now and then?

Or have Run it Twice cash tables?

[/ QUOTE ]


lets take it one step further. lets play Equity Chop tourneys. anytime there is an all-in situation before the river, the amount of equity each player has in the pot is what they get from the pot. therefore the only way you could bust out of the tournament would be if you got it in bad on the river or got it in drawing dead.

i'm 100% serious as well. i know it would never work and the fish would stop playing if this happened, as they'd never be able to suckout...but to determine who the best poker player is, this is the perfect structure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only problem I see with this is that people would end up pushing almost every hand so at some point you have to stop doing it.

[JohnnyGroomsTD]

What happens if you get it in as a short stack, can barely cover the blinds, and you have AK off, and you opponent had AK suited, you lose equity, and are busted out of the tournament??

[nuclear500]

No, thats not what they're saying.

AKo vs AKs is like 48/52 so the AKo would get 48% of the size of the pot. So for example blinds are 5/10, theres a raise to 25, you call for 8, blinds fold. There is now 33 in the pot. 50/50 would be like 16.5 but its not, so it would work out to 16 for AKo and 17 for AKs. You double up because of the blinds.

It would take getting your money in post-flop drawing dead to lose everything.


ps: yah the numbers above are not probably accurate, but it paints the picture

[JohnnyGroomsTD]

As I said before, the above poster mentioned not covering the blinds as a condition of elimination. Imagine you are on the bubble and have t100 above the BB. You get it in with the above mentioned scenario, and lose your 2% of equity, dropping you below the BB threshhold. You are then eliminated. That would be tasty....



"with 5000+ in the ME not being able to cover the blinds
or antes should be sufficient for elimination."

[elliot]

the fact that people are actually agreeing that this would ever be a good idea gives me faith that there will always be bad players playing on scared money in tournaments.

[nuclear500]

Have you ever considered playing poker purely for fun sometimes?

[JohnnyGroomsTD]

Sure, and then I eat a slab of Tofu for the zesty flavor

[RobAtticus]

There's some implications that nobody (I don't think) has brought up yet.

What if you're short stack, and get called in two places? Do you run two boards for both players? How does the betting go?

Why not just run two different boards on EVERY hand?

[Max Raker]

[ QUOTE ]

Why not just run two different boards on EVERY hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean that there are two boards and you just keep betting into one pot and at the end give half to the person who wins board A and half to who wins B?

I think the other way would be cooler, put down two flops and bet on one and then have another pot where you bet on the other. So you could fold on one board and still bet on the other. Smart players would be able to read hands so well with this system.

[Rekwob]

[ QUOTE ]
There's some implications that nobody (I don't think) has brought up yet.

What if you're short stack, and get called in two places? Do you run two boards for both players? How does the betting go?

Why not just run two different boards on EVERY hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

obviously you dont run two boards unless no more action can be completed, it would mean checking the board down would guarantee a better chance of busting someone but thats the only way you can do it, in cash if you're all in three way and theres still action you cant run it twice

like thayer, i think this could certainly be fun and intersting to actually do, while obviously its never going to replace standard tournaments, ill defintely suggest it next time im involved in a home game

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
As I said before, the above poster mentioned not covering the blinds as a condition of elimination. Imagine you are on the bubble and have t100 above the BB. You get it in with the above mentioned scenario, and lose your 2% of equity, dropping you below the BB threshhold. You are then eliminated. That would be tasty....



"with 5000+ in the ME not being able to cover the blinds
or antes should be sufficient for elimination."

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be tough luck, you're out. But after the antes
kick in having 40% equity is usually sufficient to win
chips rather than lose chips.

[nuclear500]

[ QUOTE ]
Why not just run two different boards on EVERY hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

Double-flop Hold 'Em - we've played it before. Everyone is betting, but you have no idea which flop they're betting for.

[JohnnyGroomsTD]

I am a tournament director for a living. My job is to nit pick and trouble shoot tournament strucutres and ideas. I was pointing out some scenarios that wouldn't be easy to deal with given the constraints. Not a personal attack, just an obsservation.

[GoldenBears]

This is actually pretty cool... a few questions I have:

1. This is probably obvious, but in a tournament where you 'run it twice' on an allin do you split the pot if one player wins each board and shove if a player wins both? That's what I'm assuming.

In a cash game, do you do it the same? or do players have to $$ up after the first one and run it again?

2. In double flop, wouldn't it be distantly similar to a high-low game where players would need to scoop pots? Kind of a cool idea, I guess.

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
There's some implications that nobody (I don't think) has brought up yet.

What if you're short stack, and get called in two places? Do you run two boards for both players? How does the betting go?


[/ QUOTE ]

Think the running it twice only applies when the all in ends the action. Doesn't apply with the short stack all in and
the other players still able to bet.