Running It Twice and Insurance

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]

Insurance is letting someone off for a bit worse price than they get in the long run. Say we go allin and you have 28% equity.... I let you keep 25% of the pot without showdown. You are glad since you are going to bust 72% of the time and now you have some chips left. I am happy, because I just made a little more than I should have in the long run and didn't give you a chance to suck out.

It's mathematically ok to give insurance, but never to take it (unless you have no bankroll left if you lose and have to eat, but in that case you did something else wrong). Most pokerplayers don't do insurance either way, I believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Either I am confused by your post or you are. The person in the lead pays a premium to insure his hand. If your foe has 8 outs on the river, he has ~16% equity, but it costs you 3:1 to insure. In other words, for every dollar you insure, whoever accepts the insurance (the house or the player who is drawing) gets 25% equity instead of 16%.

So, when you want to avoid a suckout when in the lead, it is going to cost you plenty to insure.

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
It is absolutely incorrect to say that Running more then once is the same EV. That is myth it is not. Its obvious, AA vs. 33. AA are 80/20. Well if we hit the 3 on the first run it DOES NOT GO BACK IN THE DECK! Therefore to hit it a second time you only have one out.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right but wrong. No one is saying running it twice is the same EV on each run as running it once.

However, if you consider both runs together vs. running it once, it is the exact same EV.

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
As for running twice, If you ask to run it twice, make sure you return the favor later in the session.

[/ QUOTE ]

?? The person in the lead always has the choice. Once, twice (if the foe agrees), or insurance (assuming the house will lay it).

So, just because you offer to run it twice on a given hand when you are in the lead does not mean you are obligated to offer it every time you are in the lead. Nor does it obligate you to accept someone else's offer of running it twice later in the session.

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
Insurance - I have no clue what this mean, when to player are all in what does it mean when one player offer another Insurance in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Typical holdem insurance chart is:

1 out 20:1
2 outs 12:1
3 outs 8:1
4 outs 6:1
5 outs 5:1
6 outs 4:1
7 outs 3.5:1
8 outs 3:1
9 outs 2.75:1
10 outs 2.5:1
11 outs 2.25:1
12 outs 2:1

& so on until 24 outs is even money

If someone has 2 outs twice on the flop, it is counted as 4 outs on the insurance board. You double the outs if you get all in on the flop and want to insure.

1 out is 2.3% true equity, and if you are insuring against a 1 outer, you give up 1/21 or 4.8%. So, you give up 2.5% of your edge. In other words, the player in the lead will be paying "premium" and giving up some of his edge to insure against a suckout.

Here is how much of your edge that you give up when you insure:

1 out - 2.3% premium

2 outs 3.1-3.3% premium

3 outs 4.3% premium

4-5 outs 5.2-5.5% premium

6-12 outs 5.8-8.1% premium

Usually, you pay more premium when you insure on the flop than on the turn. In other words, 4 outs twice on the flop = 8 outs and you give up 7.8%. But if your foe has 8 outs with 1 card to come, you are paying 6.8% premium.

For me, I rarely insure a hand unless:

1. The game is good and I don't have access to more cash if they suckout, or

2. The have 1, 2 or 3 outs, because these are the outs with the least premium.

Another mistake people make is insuring the whole pot to the felt. The more you insure, the more premium you pay. A good rule of thumb is to only insure what you put into the pot.

So, if I insure half the pot against a 2 outer, I am theoretically only giving up 1.6% of my edge. If I insured the full put, I would be giving up the full 3.1-3.3% of my edge.

If I want to reduce my variance and they have more than 3 outs, I will usually run it twice.

If I am behind and have more than 3 outs, I always take the insurance if offered. It's the only opportunity I know in poker to make money when you have the worst of it. If I am behind with 1-3 outs, I might take a shot at sucking out because the "premium" is small.

[Alex-db]

The easiest way to explain why multiple runnings have the same EV is to take any hold'em example in which there is 1 card to come and show the effect of running it 44 times.

[ev_slave]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes... well explained ev_slave (with that name you should be able to [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

It's the same error in logic as this riddle induces... I'll post it here and give the answer with explanation later. Have fun.

You are in a quiz. There are three safes. One of them contains a million dollars. The other two are empty.

You get to pick one safe, A, B or C.

The quizmaster opens one of the other two safes and shows you it's empty.

You get the choice: opening the safe that you first chose or switch to the other one.

Should you stay with your safe, switch, or doesn't it matter?


[/ QUOTE ]


No responses... I'll give the answer anyways:
You should switch.

When you first choose a safe you have 1/3 chance of winning and 2/3 chance that it's in one of the others.

If you had chosen the correct safe already the quizmaster could open one of both safes.

If you had chosen an incorrect safe the quizmaster could only have opened the one empty safe that remains. This information increases the chance that the other safe has the goods.

In other words:

When you don't switch: 1/3 of the time you chose the correct safe in the first place and win.

When you do switch: 1/3 of the time you chose the correct safe the first time and now lose. But 2/3 of the time you didn't and the only alternative safe left (the quizmuaster just took away one choice) must be the correct one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I play this one on my friends. I believe it's known as the "Montey Hall Game" in the literature. It really tests people's intuition. Often they'll argue with oyu even after you explain it to them.

[Sojumaster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I must be stupid. But, If I am open neded with 8 outs. I spike a card. Now, I have 7 outs. Don't I have less a chance of winning the bot pots since one of my outs is gone?

If I run it once, I have roughly 32% chance of spiking. If I run it the second time I only have a 28% chance. No one can argue that I have the same chance the second time as the first. What am I missing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do an EV calc.

I'll simplify the math a little. Suppose there's $100 in the pot, one card to come on the river and you have some sort of draw with 4 outs, with 44 cards left in the deck (4 board cards and both players' cards gone) so you're 9.1% to hit.

If you run it once the EV is simply (0.091)*($100) = an EV of $9.10.

For running it twice:

The 9.1% you hit the first time, you win $50 of the pot but you're down to 3 outs out of 43 cards, which is 7.0%.
The 90.9% you don't hit the first time, you don't win the first pot but then you're up to 4 outs out of 43 cards, which is 9.3%.

So your EV for running it twice is:

(0.091)*[ $50 + (0.070)*($50) ] + (0.909)*[ $0 + (0.093)*($50) ] = $9.10

Exactly the same EV as if you'd run it once.

Moral: You're correct that hitting the first time reduces your odds of hitting the second time. But remember that missing the first time increases your odds of hitting the second time. These differences cancel each other out.

[/ QUOTE ]

But are you in essence cutting your EV in half?
I completely understand your mathmatical example of the EV being the same for both runs, but you are giving your opponet two times to crack your hand.

[Sojumaster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for running twice, If you ask to run it twice, make sure you return the favor later in the session.

[/ QUOTE ]

?? The person in the lead always has the choice. Once, twice (if the foe agrees), or insurance (assuming the house will lay it).

So, just because you offer to run it twice on a given hand when you are in the lead does not mean you are obligated to offer it every time you are in the lead. Nor does it obligate you to accept someone else's offer of running it twice later in the session.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fully understand there is there is no moral obligation to offer or accept future offers; but some people do not understand that and they get pissy if you do not offer it again in the future. I prefer to keep it straight on the board. Prevents the possibility of unwanted bulljive.

[Thremp]

Soju,

You clearly don't understand the math.

[rufus]

Soju - do you think that burning three or four cards instead of one before showing the river will change the EV?