Re: For people who think running it twice changes EV
 

[ QUOTE ]
Running it twice is done to cut down on variance, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.

Re: For people who think running it twice changes EV
 

[ QUOTE ]
Running it twice is done to cut down on variance, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Psychologically wise.... yes.

Re: For people who think running it twice changes EV
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Running it twice is done to cut down on variance, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Psychologically wise.... yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

and mathematically wise, yes.

Re: For people who think running it twice changes EV
 

To summarize, running it twice doesn't change EV. However, this explanation was terrible, incorrect, and not convincing to anyone who was not ready to be convinced.

Unfortunately, I don't think there is any really simple, convincing explanation (which is not a given, despite the controversy). One attempt is to say that burn cards don't affect equity, so the equity of the second time is the same as the equity of the first time. Running it twice takes the average of using burn cards or not. This may not be convincing for people who have no intuition about equity, or who think burn cards may hurt one player, but I think it is more commonly accepted that burn cards are harmless than that running it twice does not favor either player.

By the way, there are more than psychological effects. Running it twice may decrease the amount of money on the table, on average, since players will not rebuy after a split pot. Running it twice may keep the game going when a player is not willing to rebuy.

Re: For people who think running it twice changes EV
 

[ QUOTE ]
To summarize, running it twice doesn't change EV. However, this explanation was terrible, incorrect, and not convincing to anyone who was not ready to be convinced.


[/ QUOTE ]

In defense of my post, I made a very simple EV equation to convince those non-believers and came out with the right answer. Yeah it could be a lot more complicated and come right at the same answer. If the process is wrong it would not get the right answer plain and simple.

Re: For people who think running it twice changes EV
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To summarize, running it twice doesn't change EV. However, this explanation was terrible, incorrect, and not convincing to anyone who was not ready to be convinced.


[/ QUOTE ]

In defense of my post, I made a very simple EV equation to convince those non-believers and came out with the right answer. Yeah it could be a lot more complicated and come right at the same answer. If the process is wrong it would not get the right answer plain and simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, when you're trying to convince someone of something, and you have an obvious error in your argument, it's sort of hard to convince them. It might give the same answer, but it can be coincidental--and if you don't do things correctly, it could have been wrong, and there's no way of really knowing, and that's the problem...if the people you're trying to convince don't believe the answer to begin with, and see problems in your argument, you've gone nowhere.

Re: For people who think running it twice changes EV
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think anyone believes it changes EV. Its obvious it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not in the poker theory forum but in the other ones, definitely people argue about it all the time and I'm tired of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? When it comes to the maths I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed and I thought this was obvious. I guess this explains how even I can make money at this game.

Re: For people who think running it twice changes EV
 

The purpose of running it twice is not to change EV, but to minimize variance.

Re: For people who think running it twice changes EV
 

I love when people try to explain to the degens in live games that running it twice doesn't change EV. Oh wait, I actually hate it thanks to the 5 minute full table conversation that ensues.

Re: For people who think running it twice changes EV
 

it doesn't change EV whatsoever, but it does reduce variance.