Elezra vs. Baxter HSP...Huh?

[LGs0pHT]

Run it twice is to reduce variance, and no chances increase or decrease. Set vs set is a situation nobody can get away from, thus there is no reason to reduce variance.

[Brocktoon]

Oh my God. Has this thread really gone on this long without someone pointing out that running it once, twice, 25 times makes no difference in terms of EV?

For shame 2+2.

It sounds like the guy right above me eluded to that point but lets be clear: No matter how many times you run a poker hand, any hand, your EV remains the same while your variance decreases.

If they run it twice the underset hits the one outter twice as often, yes. But he also wins half the money as he is 100% guaranteed to lose 1/2 the pot everytime he manages to suck out.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh my God. Has this thread really gone on this long without someone pointing out that running it once, twice, 25 times makes no difference in terms of EV?

For shame 2+2.

It sounds like the guy right above me eluded to that point but lets be clear: No matter how many times you run a poker hand, any hand, your EV remains the same while your variance decreases.

If they run it twice the underset hits the one outter twice as often, yes. But he also wins half the money as he is 100% guaranteed to lose 1/2 the pot everytime he manages to suck out.


[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus Christ. I love it when someone here adopts such a condescending tone over a point that is clearly open to interpretation.

I'm sorry to point this out, but nobody has brought up EV. Everything is not always a question of EV. In this case, we're talking about variance, obviously.

In the Real World (read: not the Poker Theorist Unlimited Bankroll Fantasy World), a better player will look to reduce variance, particular putting oneself into situations like set over set.

Once in that situation, most will seek to reduce the variance.

But I, unlike you, could be wrong.

[Brocktoon]

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus Christ. I love it when someone here adopts such a condescending tone over a point that is clearly open to interpretation.


[/ QUOTE ]

You found my post condescending? That's weird since I was just expressing my surprise that no one on a site like this had pointed out the obvious already. Then I stated the facts.

Nothing that I said is "open to interpretation" in any way.

Running it multiple times reduces variance while EV remains the same. Seems this issue comes up all the time around here and some people still seem to fail to grasp that.

Once we all understand and agree on that what else is there to discuss really?

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jesus Christ. I love it when someone here adopts such a condescending tone over a point that is clearly open to interpretation.


[/ QUOTE ]

You found my post condescending? That's weird since I was just expressing my surprise that no one on a site like this had pointed out the obvious already. Then I stated the facts.

Nothing that I said is "open to interpretation" in any way.

Running it multiple times reduces variance while EV remains the same. Seems this issue comes up all the time around here and some people still seem to fail to grasp that.

Once we all understand and agree on that what else is there to discuss really?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the post to which I referred as condescending:


Oh my God. Has this thread really gone on this long without someone pointing out that running it once, twice, 25 times makes no difference in terms of EV?

For shame 2+2.



It must have been the "Oh my God" and the "for shame."

Sorry if I misinterpreted those phrases, and imagined you might be rolling your eyes as you typed them.

You seem like a bright guy. You can probably objectively see how someone might interpret your post as condescending.

Anyway, one more time:

I never asked about the EV.

My question was obviously about variance, and I (again, perhaps erroneously) imagined the answer to be relatively straightforward.

On this point, i was clearly mistaken.

[Hotel Detect]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh my God. Has this thread really gone on this long without someone pointing out that running it once, twice, 25 times makes no difference in terms of EV?

For shame 2+2.

It sounds like the guy right above me eluded to that point but lets be clear: No matter how many times you run a poker hand, any hand, your EV remains the same while your variance decreases.

If they run it twice the underset hits the one outter twice as often, yes. But he also wins half the money as he is 100% guaranteed to lose 1/2 the pot everytime he manages to suck out.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you, this thread was tilting me hard. Gotta love TV forum.

[Hotel Detect]

How does op have 4k posts? This is ridic, ... once, twice, DOESN'T MATTER you know when you use MAFF. 2+2, that stuff.

[TheIcyC]

@op:
elezra doesnt decide to run it ones. He just assumes correctly that baxter (who isnt drawing like elezra first thought), doesnt want to run it twice.
running it twice is done to lower variance in close all-in situations (60-40, 50-50, maybe sometimes 70-30). in this spot it doesnt make any sence for baxter to run it twice and elezra simply points out to that obvious fact.

how could this thread become 2 pages long?

[Hotel Detect]

[ QUOTE ]
@op:
elezra doesnt decide to run it ones. He just assumes correctly that baxter (who isnt drawing like elezra first thought), doesnt want to run it twice.
running it twice is done to lower variance in close all-in situations (60-40, 50-50, maybe sometimes 70-30). in this spot it doesnt make any sence for baxter to run it twice and elezra simply points out to that obvious fact.

how could this thread become 2 pages long?

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't even right... Eli just knows that he is such a long shot that he might as well just try to suck out once, and running it twice is just a waste of time.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
@op:
elezra doesnt decide to run it ones. He just assumes correctly that baxter (who isnt drawing like elezra first thought), doesnt want to run it twice.
running it twice is done to lower variance in close all-in situations (60-40, 50-50, maybe sometimes 70-30). in this spot it doesnt make any sence for baxter to run it twice and elezra simply points out to that obvious fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you seem to think so, and I seem to think so, and there are a handful of others who seem to think so, but those who do NOT think so seem to believe that we'd have to be imbeciles to believe such a thing.

Again, it's typical. Ask a question to the ballers here in the TV forum, and they push aside all their, uh, bling, and look to excoriate and ridicule.