Elezra vs. Baxter HSP...Huh?

[YTV]

All this other discussion is useless, to answer your question you had it right here:

Is the point, then, that there is no way on God's green Earth that Baxter would be dumb enough to run it twice, and he was just resigned to it getting run just once?

[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.

[Dima2000123]

[ QUOTE ]
All this other discussion is useless, to answer your question you had it right here:

Is the point, then, that there is no way on God's green Earth that Baxter would be dumb enough to run it twice, and he was just resigned to it getting run just once?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is it dumb for Baxter to run it twice?

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All this other discussion is useless, to answer your question you had it right here:

Is the point, then, that there is no way on God's green Earth that Baxter would be dumb enough to run it twice, and he was just resigned to it getting run just once?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is it dumb for Baxter to run it twice?

[/ QUOTE ]

Based upon the responses in this thread, I suppose this seems to be a pretty good question.

My answer, for what it's worth, would be because his thought process would need to be as follows:

"Well, there is a 43/44ths likelihood of my winning this pot, but that still allows for the possibility of losing. Therefore, I will eliminate the possibility of losing the entire pot, while more than doubling my opponent's likelihood of gaining a split pot."

This seems like a virtually impossible conversation for a winning player to have with himself.

But again--I am beginning to believe I might be wrong, based upon the reactions here.

[JokersAttack]

lol @ the morans wondering why Eli didn't request to run it twice when the hands were shown, and why Baxter wouldn't want to.

Running it twice is done in situations where it is in both parties' interests to reduce variance. Situations like a set v an OESD, bottom two against TPGK, flush draw against TPTK, ect. This is because when pros sit down to play, in a game they feel they have an edge in, they often don't want to needlessly flip when they feel they have can carve out smaller pots or get it all in with a much better equity. This is especially true when playing with 1 or 2 bullets.

Aside from being completely dead on the flop, Baxter had Elezra in as good as position and anyone can hope to be when the money goes in. Why would he want to reduce variance? He is like 95% to win the hand. Elezra on the other hand is pretty much dead. Yeah, I guess you could say there's no reason why Baxter shouldn't want to run it twice, which pretty much hedges against any chance of losing. But at the same time, why give Elezra double the chance to split a pretty big pot? And it wasn't Baxter that refused running it twice anyway. Elezra is a gambler, and unless he was up against a live draw, there's no reason to ask to run it twice and chase a pretty futile dream of chopping, anyway.

If you nits are so scared of getting your money in on the flop as a 95% favourite, why are you playing in the first place?

[BlueBear]

From the EV perspective, it doesn't matter a single bit.

For well bankrolled pros, it shouldn't matter at all.

[Kirbynator]

lol this is just ridiculous...

the EV stays the same and the variance doesn't mean much here...

Weee he'll split the pot 4% of times or win it all 2% of the time...

Big mother censored deal


What makes you say "what the [censored]" in your original post?

I reiterate my first reply...

[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?