Is Running it Twice a Sucker Bet? (Long)

[LiveInPeace]

Players can more easily afford to push others out of the pot if they can then run it twice and don't have to face the full risk to their bankroll.

[TrvChBoy]

Ohhh.. good one, didn't think of that!

[dfan]

[ QUOTE ]
Players can more easily afford to push others out of the pot if they can then run it twice and don't have to face the full risk to their bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, if you want to bully the table, your main goal is to get your opponents to fold. That will reduce your variance more than running it twice. So you should routinely refuse to run it twice (assuming you will be playing with the same players over an a long enough period of time that they will have time to notice). If you are known as someone who refuses to run it twice, your more risk-averse opponents will be less likely to call your pushes since their odds of getting stacked will be higher.

[Ray Zee]

now you guys are getting it. it is completely neutral as far as ev is concerned. however,

its good to do if you are a nut player and rarely make big bluffs.

its very bad to do if you are a good player and play aggressively.

if you do it because of your bankroll or to avoid fluctuations you are probably making worse mistakes in other places and need to look at your play.

[RobNottsUk]

To back up Ray's point.

Once I read about a guy getting it All In on turn with Quad K's against A's full, and the river was the case Ace. They were playing extremely deep stacked.

This severely affected the player, probably because it was too significant in relation to bankroll ($35,000 or so I believe).

So for unusual situations, with long shot hands perhaps it's better to run them twice, and just lose 1/2 the huge pot, rather than suffer a terrible beat, and a big loss which severely scars you.

The big advantage over, another kind of deal, is it'll only cost a little more time, on the occasions the pots split.

[StatsProf857]

Running it twice decreases the variance without changing the expected value of that particular hand in the present. In isolation, running it twice on one particular hand should have no long term effects on your bankroll.

However, those of us with imperfect steam control are also risking buy-ins that aren't even on the table yet. What if you know that you steam for 30-60 minutes after getting stacked on something stupid? What if you know that you're liable to donk off half of your next stack? That's negative expected value. Running it twice decreases the chance of getting stacked on the original "something stupid". By running it twice, you're reducing your potential negative tilt equity while maintaining the positive equity (hopefully) of the actual hand.

StatsProf857