ahnuld loses his biggest pot, live

[LuckyLloyd]

[ QUOTE ]
zomg beat dealer to death with your card protector

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

And reducing variance is never a bad thing. And if he is at the WSOP (i.e. on tour in Vegas) he may not be able to access most of his funds and get them to the table on demand. Making a decision to reduce variance even more prudent.

[BowToYourSensei]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I bow before the master. You have bested me this time Frog, but I shall return more sarcastic that you can possibly imagine! Muahahahahahahahahahahahhohoho

[/ QUOTE ]

Next time bring a math book

[/ QUOTE ]

ban

[rakemeplz]

You guys gotta run it four times this neutralizes the EV disadvantage of running it twice but it doubles the variance.

[TheWorstPlayer]

running it twice doesnt matter. but dont play against thecleaner. he never does not suck out.

[corndog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm surprised thecleaner was in a 10-25 game to begin with. He is pretty solid and I don't think he would be a fish at that limit live, but as far as I know he is primarily a NL$50 and NL$100 player online. I play bigger live than I do online, but nowhere near a jump like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

cleaner doesnt play 50nl online unless its 25-50nl as far as I know. And he wasnt a fish but a good lag, beating up on the regulars. I dont like how he played this hand but it wasnt horrible

[/ QUOTE ]

I have "the cleaner" (with an accent over the first e in cleaner) over about 700 borderline TAG/LAG hands this past spring at .25/.50. He is also an occasional 2+2 poster. Are these different people?

[Zeestein]

I stopped playing on all my tables cos Im on so much tilt from browsing this thread

if these wtfneturalEV idiots turn out be trolls I vote ban

[Elandriel]

[ QUOTE ]
So what's the lesson here (also thanks to Big Jim)?:

1.
START YELLING AT THE DEALER TO NOT MAKE A [CENSORED] MOVE!!!!!!111111 FREEZZZZZEEEE BUSTERRRRRRRR!!!11



2.
For the people who do not understand how cards and equity works:

Imagine that there is only 1 card to come. Then we count the number of outs for both opponents. These outs are actually represented by the cards that either win or lose you the hand. So to understand running it more than once, imagine that you run ALL the cards. This would mean that you get exactly the payout of your equity. The difference between running it once and running all the cards is a matter of variance, NOT expected value.

Sticky plz.

[/ QUOTE ]

everybody who is still whining and doesn't get it's neutral ev, read this.

[Warteen]

Oh noooes! I can't distinguish between who is really being intelligent and who is levelling! )-:

But I wanna try the maths too.

76% to win running it once.
In all, probably close to 76% the second time if we average all cases (winning the first time and losing it in various ways).
Likeliness of winning both runs: 76%*76% = ~57.8% (to win the full pot), leaving ~42.2% to lose (still winning half the pot).

If X is the pot, our EV of running it twice should be .578X + .422(X/2) = ~78.9% of the pot.

Someone said the EV of running it once is ~75.7%.

Totally non-levelling conclusion: It is slightly more +EV to run it twice, and it also reduces variance for a large pot. The statistically correct play would be to run it twice.

[kemystery]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
EV calculation of running it twice ftw..

[/ QUOTE ]

Holdem Hi: 990 enumerated boards containing Ts 7s 8d
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Ad Ah 710 71.72 272 27.47 8 0.81 0.721
Js Jh 272 27.47 710 71.72 8 0.81 0.279

Holdem Hi: 1980 enumerated boards containing Ts 7s 8d
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Ad Ah 1420 71.72 272 27.47 16 0.81 0.721
Js Jh 544 27.47 710 71.72 16 0.81 0.279

[/ QUOTE ]
Q.E.D.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[Gildwulf]

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN EV

I AM NOT LEVELING