Elezra vs. Baxter HSP...Huh?

[Micro Donk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
run twice: elezra wins half pot rarely, loses whole pot most the time, wins whole pot extremely rarely

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmm, never?

I don't think Elezra is going to make quads twice. DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe if you read past the first page, youd notice that i already corrected what i said

[MLG]

in most cases running it once v running it twice is a varience thing, not an EV one. However, in this case running it twice clearly makes baxter money and loses elezra money. Since Eli only has one out, if they ran it twice eli could only win 1/2 the pot at most.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

[ QUOTE ]
in most cases running it once v running it twice is a varience thing, not an EV one. However, in this case running it twice clearly makes baxter money and loses elezra money. Since Eli only has one out, if they ran it twice eli could only win 1/2 the pot at most.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect. The EV is identical no matter how many times you run it, and no matter what two hands are involved. Here, it is clear he can't win it twice with the underset, but his chances of winning it once don't merely double, they slightly more than double. If they run it once, he has 1 chance in 44 of hitting (if there is only one card to come), but if they run it twice, he has 1 in 44 the first time, and when that misses, he has 1 in 43 the second time, which adds up to more than 2 in 44. Thus, when you do the detailed math, the EV is always the same.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[MLG]

greg,
obviously you're right. i say obviously because i just actually did the math out.

edit: and it should be obvious so i dont know why i brain farted. the ev you lose from lack of replacement when you hit is always going to be equal to the ev you gain from it when you miss.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
in most cases running it once v running it twice is a varience thing, not an EV one. However, in this case running it twice clearly makes baxter money and loses elezra money. Since Eli only has one out, if they ran it twice eli could only win 1/2 the pot at most.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect. The EV is identical no matter how many times you run it, and no matter what two hands are involved. Here, it is clear he can't win it twice with the underset, but his chances of winning it once don't merely double, they slightly more than double. If they run it once, he has 1 chance in 44 of hitting (if there is only one card to come), but if they run it twice, he has 1 in 44 the first time, and when that misses, he has 1 in 43 the second time, which adds up to more than 2 in 44. Thus, when you do the detailed math, the EV is always the same.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]

Please note that I made this point several times in the thread, to the general derision of several of the forum denizens.

It seems to me to be clearly a question of variance. I would assume (perhaps erroneously) that as such a huge dog, a decent player would almost always opt for any increased likelihood of escaping the noose.

But this is the point that I have come to question as the thread wears on, what with all of the condescension and general incredulity in the responses to my OP.

[FoldALot.]

[ QUOTE ]
I would assume (perhaps erroneously) that as such a huge dog, a decent player would almost always opt for any increased likelihood of escaping the noose.

[/ QUOTE ]
After watching all of HSP it seems that the players generally do not run it twice when they are a huge dog with one or two outs. I guess it's just an unwritten rule. You are supposed to accept that you got outplayed/shi.t on by the poker gods and not desperately try to avoid losing your money. If the miracle card comes then so be it.

[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?

[JokersAttack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's usually a good idea to not call people morons, especially when you're about to say something moronic yourself. It's also a good idea to pay attention to the question, so that you don't preach an answer to something no one asked.

Running it twice always reduces your variance without changing your EV, whether you're flipping a coin with a combo draw on the flop, or have someone drawing to one out on the turn. It's never a bad idea to choose an option with lower variance when you're ahead, if your EV is not affected.

The original question I posed was why it's a bad idea for Baxter to agree to run it twice. The answer is that it's not a bad idea, the math is in favor of running it as many times as possible, up to the whole remaining deck. If he wants to take extra risk for no reward, that's his decision, but the smart thing to do is to always reduce variance for the given EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

ur moran...

I clearly acknowledged that there was no glaring negative regarding running it twice.

But what's the point in doing so when you're hedging against a 5% event? The reason Baxter didn't run it twice is the same reason every pot in any form of HSP around the world isn't run twice, or four times, or six times. It's because people want to gamble, especially when they are 95% favourites to win massive pots. lolmoran.

[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.

[demon102]

man I miss having gsn now I gotta watch the one good poker show on the net wtf.....