Running it twice in big pots.
 

This is generally a bad idea, and more so if you are a big dog.

Discuss.

Re: Running it twice in big pots.
 

I think it's a bad idea to run it twice, for the reason Greenstein gave (makes semibluffing easier/safer). I'm not sure why it's a bad idea if you're a big dog though.

Sooner or later we'll have "Run it twice"-tables available online, mark my words...

"Player A wants to run it twice. Do you wish to run it twice? (Y)es /(N)o"

It'll be incredible annoying.

Re: Running it twice in big pots.
 

B/C when running it twice there is no reshuffle therefore big dog is losing greater percentage of outs if he hits therefore becomes even greater dog for second run.

Re: Running it twice in big pots.
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is generally a bad idea, and more so if you are a big dog.

Discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you do it enough, it shouldn't matter.except to lower your variance?

Unless there are metagame considerations, and you can manipulate the situation such that you generate more action and the times when all the dough gets pushed in the middle, you are a big favorite...then you'd like to do run it twice I think.

Re: Running it twice in big pots.
 

I've agreed to run it twice a handful of times in live play, but mostly don't like it. It's too time consuming, especially if 3rd parties want to broker insurance.

I would be more willing to do it at the request of a friendly, loose passive donator, but would never do it for a weak-tight looking to reduce variance, or aggressive players of any stripe.

And if you refuse and get criticized, just say, "hey I came to gamble!".

Re: Running it twice in big pots.
 

Negreanu talks about it on HSP and says it makes absolutly no difference to EV just lowers varience but I agree with Othello and what Greenstein says in his book.
A lot depends on your steam control and that of your opponents. If I had a chance to get a big steamer in the game stuck I would never run it twice.

Re: Running it twice in big pots.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would be more willing to do it at the request of a friendly, loose passive donator, but would never do it for a weak-tight looking to reduce variance, or aggressive players of any stripe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Running it twice in big pots.
 

[ QUOTE ]
B/C when running it twice there is no reshuffle therefore big dog is losing greater percentage of outs if he hits therefore becomes even greater dog for second run.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right - but, if he doesn't hit any outs on the first run, it means he has a greater chance of hitting one of them on the second run. So it pretty much breaks even.

Re: Running it twice in big pots.
 

As an example:

I hold AKKQ, opponent holds 9988, board is AA99.

Running it once I have 1/40 = 2.5% equity.

Running it twice:
2.5% of the time I hit it the first time and split the pot.
The remaining 97.5% I miss the first time and then hit the second run 2.5641% of the time. This means I split the pot another 2.5% of the time (2.5641*.975).

My equity is exactly the same whether I run it once or twice.

Re: Running it twice in big pots.
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I had a chance to get a big steamer in the game stuck I would never run it twice.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the main reason I was thinking of. That and you get more money on the table.

You should be even less inclined to refuse to run it twice when you are a big dog because your opponent will be even more steamy if you hit.

It's not allowed anyway in the games I normally play, I've never done it in any game although I do remember saving half the pot in what was then for me a big hold'em pot. There are some reasons where I can see myself doing it, particularly like bluff says to keep a fish happy.