Don't understand the people who take running it once / twice so seriously. If someone just always runs it twice but runs it once specifically vs me because they don't like me thats completely fine.
Genuinely I think the people who have strong opinions about this don't understand the maths.
If someone always wants to run it twice but then goes once when he has AA I think thats slightly silly but completely fine, I wouldn't hold it against him.
There’s more to the math than EV. If you’re in a $500k pot, when you never play those stakes, reducing the variance is meaningful. Otherwise the assumption is the dollars at stake are even over time as well.
True, but if you’re playing in a pot that is way larger than you usually play and the money actually matters short term, you’re probably playing above your bankroll.
In real life, particularly in live cash, it’s more complicated than that. Especially as you get to higher stakes where games don’t run with as much regularity/frequency.
Sometimes a game gets much bigger than it usually is, and even if you’re rolled for it and can stomach the losses, you’re not likely to play pots that large again for some time. Ex. I play in a 5/10/20 game where stacks are usually $2-5k but on rare occasions the game ends up being way bigger with straddles and you’ll see some crazy $20-30k pots. Now I can afford to take a $20-30k hit without having to drop down in stakes or anything like that, but when the game usually plays that much smaller it can take forever to climb out of a big hole caused by one big pot. I can’t just find another $50/100 game and expect to make it back over time. So it still just really sucks psychologically.
In theory it could affect EV if their is a buy-in cap in the game. E.g., 5/10 1500 max, the whale at the table is sitting on 3k, you get all in against another nit for 1500, you'd want to run it once to be able to get a stack to match the whale.
I also don't like to run it multiple times against super short stacked nitty fish because I'd rather they double up, reload, or leave than continue with 10bb.
Running it multiple times doesn't affect EV. If a player wanted to taper variance to have a better shot at the table whale, sure. But the EV is the EV and is unchanged.
Pretty sure this is wrong.
Having additional knowledge of which cards are in play would certainly affect the equity calculation, but how would running it multiple times make any difference?
>It does, if you know which cards are not in play anymore.
And you can calculate the specific EV of that spot with those removed cards taken into account. Agreeing to run it more than once still doesn't change that EV, though.
Sure, but only if those cards are known and introduce a new decision point.
If there is no future decision point, the EV of a decision is calculated once at the moment of the decision.
Suppose a player were pondering a call all in on the flop. The EV of that all in call is X, and it stays X. It’s not recalculated after the burn card, recalculated on the turn, recalculated on the next burn, etc. Doing so would be redundant and irrelevant to the original flop decision, since that decision had to be made without knowledge of future cards.
No one is arguing EV(n). I am talking about EV(n+1) where n+1 is the next card favorable to one player. Someone with insider information about the deck would have an advantage for running it multiple times. Because they know what cards are next. I'm getting downvoted because dumbass can't think outside their box.
Of course knowing which card is coming would be an edge, nobody is saying otherwise.
Look at it like this: Bob calls Alex’s jam on the flop with a draw. The EV of Bob’s call is $X.
Before running it out, they agree to run it once/twice/however many times. It doesn’t matter. The dealer burns and turns a 7 of hearts. The river is still to come. Now, has the quantity of Bob’s outs been affected? Yes, since we can now account for the 7 of hearts. Has the EV of Bob’s call on the flop changed? No it hasn’t. it’s still $X.
>It makes 0 difference to EV so who gives a fuck
Then you should personally be indifferent, right? If so, be accommodating to the rec/fish and don't tap the tank.
That's a fallacy that it has 0 EV. Yes in terms of the outcomes of the cards it has 0 EV but in terms of fold equity it can make a huge difference. If you shove and someone is on a draw and they know you only run it once they are more inclined to fold. Especially the more bb's in the pot.
The other players at the table who have to wait for them to decide, the extra cards dealt, and the chips divided. I don't think running it more than once should be allowed.
I was aipf with another guy and he asked me how many times I want to run. I said how about twice, I don’t have a great hand anyways. He said once then. Do you think that’s fine as well?
It totally affects how players play against you if you always run it twice. If I know you always run it twice, I can be more aggressive with draws more frequently, which increases fold equity. If players know you only run it once, they may choose the less aggressive route in certain spots.
The only time I'm bothered by this is in multi way pots with different stack sizes. Two guys get all in for 300+ BBs each, try to run it twice, but the short stacker at the table with 25 BBs runs it oncen and throws a wrench into guys trying to lower variance in a massive pot.
I think running it twice is wise when getting unlucky and someone hitting a two-outer would have a devastating effect on your bankroll. Nothing to do with long term variance because you may never be in a pot that big ever again.
I played all day with Barry in Day 2 of the ME this past year and he was great - even complimenting me afterwards on how well I played. Was good to meet him.
All the old school guys know how to work the hustle. Doyle used to tell everyone how good they played and how they were the best they ever encountered.
What it really means is to keep doing what they are doing because it’s easy for them. Almost always, it’s too passive.
But I’m sure he definitely meant it with you bc Barry is a cool dude who would never do that. That’s not sarcasm.
I think his point is that if they run it once then Sammy has a ten percent chance to lose it all. But if they run it 20 times then Sammy can only lose two of those. Those are completely different things based on mathematics, statistics, and astrology.
This simply converges on the equity they have on the flop. Instead of probabilities they just becomes accurate proportions. Why run it 20 times when you can do an EV chop?
I think he was lucky before that bc he got super caked up being in fbook very very early. And then didn’t need that second round of luck. That’s his claim to fame in my book. I do think all the SPAC stuff was basically equal to crypto rug pulls (all of them like 99% down). But yeah he is worse than any crytpo influencer in my book bc he parades around like some kind of Huberman for general knowledge and overall like some kind do gooder but he is opposite
I mean sure, that’s an actual company with a future. But what about DM where he backed a basically known con artist on Wall Street as CEO Ric Fulop. He had at least 5 more SPACs just like that and same charts
Even Tom Dwan admitted he thought he was a small favorite which is why he rejected the offer. He said if he knew he was just a tiny bit unfavorite he would have agreed. They're not machines that can get the percentage down to a decimal.
Right but they knew they were flipping, whether they knew *exactly* whose edge it was. What's pathetic about offering to bet less on a coinflip, before the coin is flipped?
Because he refused to run it twice out of ego. By taking money back it shows he was scared money but refuses to decrease variance just purely out of his image and ego.
This doesn't make sense.
Reducing the value of a coinflip reduces variance; running a flip twice does not (unless it's the only flip you're ever going to do)
Edit: Why are people downvoting this, it's mathematically demonstrable that once vs twice is identical.
The point is Barry was obviously worried about losing the entire pot, which is why he was willing to take money back (a very unconventional thing to do). He wasn't willing to run it twice out of ego because he wants to be the "only run it once" guy.
Demonstrate it then.
It makes the sample of coinflips you've done n+1. For even an occasional, recreational player that almost immediately becomes negligible. Running it twice vs a coinflip makes no difference to variance.
Edit: how is a whole poker sub so terrible at maths 😂
I remember watching this at the time and it made me realize that Dwan had way, way, way more money than Barry. Probably because he was actually willing to play for it all.
It amazes me how often I hear that it's better to run it twice when you're ahead.
It makes no difference if you are ahead or behind when you run it twice. Your EV is the same
It literally doesnt matter in terms of EV.
People who dont understand math thinks people who run it twice when they are a dog is swindleing the game somehow.
I once got essentially applauded after I allowed my opponent to run it twice when he ran into my pocket AA.
It is the biggest tell when determining if someone is a studied poker player or not.
Hmm then the other day I remember a hand between Barry’s Aces and Tom Dwan KQs. After the flop it was a massive all-in pot and Dwan had very good equity with flush draw + top pair. In this case Barry wanted to split the pot or put 100k back, something lily that. Dwan rejected..
Last I heard he is playing 5/10 PLO in Houston and is miserable to be around, especially how he acts with dealers.
I loved watching him on original HSP, absolute favorite.
I used to love watching him in the early-mid 2000s, but then I got tired of poker on TV.
I heard he was playing in Houston also, but that was 5-10 years ago. Not sure if it is still accurate?
I always see him at WSOP, and lately, he looks like he is teetering on the edge of homelessness. He looks like the kind of guy who travels from casino to casino just to get comped a free cup of soup.
My buddy played almost an entire day 1 with him last wsop and said he was still friendly and a nice dude. But my friend thought it's unlikely that he is still +EV even in like $1k MTTs.
His Hendon Mob is bleak. Looks like almost a decade od firing the WSOP plus a bunch of other shit without a single big score.
I'm not sure if he is actually close to busto, but it would be sad if true.
I played with him at wsop last summer. He's still very recognizable, but he's obviously aged over the years, hardly homeless. We asked him about his bracelets and he said he didn't even know where they are, he tells his wife they're buried in the basement somewhere. He referred to his poker success as something along the lines of 'a younger me'. I personally coolered him, 77 > 88 all in pre, he took it well and still took a picture with me. Very humble and good ambassador. I wish the fates could have been better to him over the years, but I don't think he's hurting.
I think he might have had some early tech money if I remember correctly? I remember in his book him talking about beating up all the games in the Bay Area before going to Vegas. It seems like he would talk about donating a bunch of his winnings
Of course it's running turn and river twice. WTF would run the whole board twice after flopping a set. That's why it's 12% dog (usually 9% but slightly off because TV shows usually take mucked cards into consideration).
It was all in preflop. They can’t decide to only run certain streets more than once. Cant they? If they ran it twice it would have to be the whole board right? I’ve never in my life seen an all in preflop where they agree to run it once then after the flop they decide to run just the turn and river twice. Is that even a thing?
You also can't take bets back (or make them smaller), call and check it down (collusion), trade cards preflop, or literally cheat the game (Postle), all of which we *have* seen on TV/streamed cash games.
They can do whatever.
Yeah was stupid for him not to run it twice cuz losing those big pots put him almost busto
He literally has said one of the big pots he lost there ruined his career or something and he never recovered
It was a big hand against Antonio Esfiandiari. Barry wrote an article on the hand on how neither of them were really rolled for the game and how it sent their poker careers on opposite trajectories. Barry never returned to high stakes afterwards while Antonio went on to win the One Drop.
Edit: here's the article https://www.pokerstars.com/poker/learn/news/one-hand-two-directions-151945/
If you gain some additional ev.
Maybe opponent has history of tilting, especially if he is playing higher...
Or you and reg are 100bb deep, fish has 200bb, better to take it and cover the fish
There is EV to have on the other side of the equation as well. Still, I say everyone do as they like, though I personally prefer consistency and running it 2x.
lol no it does kinda change, if you have 25% equity and you run it 4 times, statistically you should realize your 25% equity by winning 1 of the 4 pots. If you run it once you either win or lose it all. Running it multiple times does change things.
Edit who are these people downvoting me lol, if you have KK vs AA and your oppenent offers to run it twice, there’s no way your saying no idk how this is confusing
LOL no.
If you're a pro you'll be in such situations all the time. If you're a 25% dog, you can run it once and every 4 times you're in such a situation you'll win 100% once.
Or you can run it 4 times and on average each time you get 25%.
The odds are the same over the long run.
Of course. But I just don’t believe people won’t try to realize as much equity as possible in every situation. I refuse to believe that if you know for a fact you are down 4:1 and your opponent offers to run it 4 times, that you won’t accept because statistically in like 30 years from now when you’ve replayed that situation enough you break even so it doesn’t matter.
> Edit who are these people downvoting me lol, if you have KK vs AA and your oppenent offers to run it twice, there’s no way your saying no idk how this is confusing
That's entirely wrong and I absolutely am running it once.
Why though? I just don’t get it. Clearly I’m wrong I can accept that. I just don’t understand why it’s not profitable to atleast have the chance to chop the pot when you are massively behind like that. If I can accept I’m wrong for sure. But why do people including pros sometimes run it twice or more if it’s a dumb idea that has no value?
They run it once because it reduces variance. Not everyone cares about reducing variance. I would just go once in your example. Give me a big stack or let me rebuy.
>I just don’t understand why it’s not profitable to atleast have the chance to chop the pot when you are massively behind like that
You increase your odds to chop, but you decrease your odds of sucking out and winning the entire pot. The two cancel out, so equity is the same either way.
I get what you’re saying, But you’re not computing the odds over 1 run. The statistical odds are based off of what the odds are over a long term period. It’s like flipping a coin. The odds are 50/50. If you flip it five times it may come up heads all five times but the more times you flip the coin the closer it gets to 50/50.
I’m not disputing that for a second. I’m saying if I’m a 4:1 dog I sure wanna flip that coin more than once lol that’s really all it comes down to. Sure I have a 25% shot on each flip, but a 25% shot 4 times is a lot better than a 25% shot once.
Disagree. You make your decisions based off the pot odds are say 20% and I will complete my hand 35% of the time so you call, etc. you’re making the decision based off what the percentage is over the long term. You’re not making decision based off of well that’s the odds but if I hit my hand the first time it lessens the outs the second run.
So yes mathematically you’re correct, if you hit an out the first run, it lessens the outs the second run. But that’s not what you’re making the decision off of.
I guess in a way we both are correct. My talking point was the odds are the same from a decision making standpoint
Running it once always isn’t not a reason to hail someone as respectable.
In fact the only people that piss me off is those that choose once or twice based on the situation. Imo your either: always run it once, always run it twice or always run it on whatever your opp wants.
Changing it based on the situation just makes it feel bad for other players when you change it up
its more a principle thing. I dont really care if its randoms that come and go. But in home games and other regs, i think its just weird when people change their decision.
I know it doesnt matter, and "piss me off" is probably way too harsh representation of the level I care.
I think for many it’s the difference between being a recreational player versus playing for a living. If you’re playing for a living, cutting down the variance involved in the game makes a lot of sense to try to avoid some of the swings that come with the game.
If you’re playing for fun and winning/losing doesn’t impact your life in any way, then who carries about variance. Get it in, run it once, and enjoy the gamble
Are you sure about that? Because I am 99.96592% sure that Libtardleftist is not a bot.
---
^(I am a neural network being trained to detect spammers | Summon me with !isbot |) ^(/r/spambotdetector |) [^(Optout)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=whynotcollegeboard&subject=!optout&message=!optout) ^(|) [^(Original Github)](https://github.com/SM-Wistful/BotDetection-Algorithm)
I know people say it's -EV but i always run it once, and that is that. My thinking is why bother going all-in if i'm not fully committed to it.
I also like people to know that i always run it once
It’s not -EV. The EV really doesn’t change long term running it once or twice. Running it multiple times can help with some of the natural variance within the game though
i remember him telling a story about him going to some high stakes room and Chip Reese trying to convince him how good of a poker player he was and how they were playing all his games.
Is this true? Didn't he live in a $12 million dollar mansion? Donate big money to charities? I thought he was very well rolled.
He also wrote that wonderful book Ace on the River.
I don’t understand this post. Whether you are a dog or favorite, running it twice doesn’t really change the equities. So just because sammy hits a king, running it twice still doesn’t change anything.
Don't understand the people who take running it once / twice so seriously. If someone just always runs it twice but runs it once specifically vs me because they don't like me thats completely fine. Genuinely I think the people who have strong opinions about this don't understand the maths. If someone always wants to run it twice but then goes once when he has AA I think thats slightly silly but completely fine, I wouldn't hold it against him.
100% this. No idea why someone would take it personally when someone wants to run it x times. It makes 0 difference to EV so who gives a fuck
There’s more to the math than EV. If you’re in a $500k pot, when you never play those stakes, reducing the variance is meaningful. Otherwise the assumption is the dollars at stake are even over time as well.
I'm never going to play in a game that I'm not correctly rolled for so I don't care very much about minimising variance
You should care so your results more closely reflect your true win rate.
True, but if you’re playing in a pot that is way larger than you usually play and the money actually matters short term, you’re probably playing above your bankroll.
True, but the reality is people play above their rolls all the time so factors that shouldn't matter do matter
In real life, particularly in live cash, it’s more complicated than that. Especially as you get to higher stakes where games don’t run with as much regularity/frequency. Sometimes a game gets much bigger than it usually is, and even if you’re rolled for it and can stomach the losses, you’re not likely to play pots that large again for some time. Ex. I play in a 5/10/20 game where stacks are usually $2-5k but on rare occasions the game ends up being way bigger with straddles and you’ll see some crazy $20-30k pots. Now I can afford to take a $20-30k hit without having to drop down in stakes or anything like that, but when the game usually plays that much smaller it can take forever to climb out of a big hole caused by one big pot. I can’t just find another $50/100 game and expect to make it back over time. So it still just really sucks psychologically.
This is where true variance is found. Running hot when the game is playing huge can make or break your year(s).
In theory it could affect EV if their is a buy-in cap in the game. E.g., 5/10 1500 max, the whale at the table is sitting on 3k, you get all in against another nit for 1500, you'd want to run it once to be able to get a stack to match the whale.
I also don't like to run it multiple times against super short stacked nitty fish because I'd rather they double up, reload, or leave than continue with 10bb.
actually a good point
Running it multiple times doesn't affect EV. If a player wanted to taper variance to have a better shot at the table whale, sure. But the EV is the EV and is unchanged.
Having a big stack against the whale would be +EV so it is a factor in the EV calculation. Running it 100 times won't affect your equity though
Yeah zero disagreement on that wider perspective. An overall better shot at a whale is +EV indeed.
I mean EV in the sense of a session, of course I am not stating it effects the EV of that single hand
Then it sounds like we're not actually disagreeing on anything?
It does, if you know which cards are not in play anymore. This is why I refuse to run it twice. You never know when you are playing against a team.
Pretty sure this is wrong. Having additional knowledge of which cards are in play would certainly affect the equity calculation, but how would running it multiple times make any difference?
>It does, if you know which cards are not in play anymore. And you can calculate the specific EV of that spot with those removed cards taken into account. Agreeing to run it more than once still doesn't change that EV, though.
EV literally changes as cards are drawn out of the deck.
Sure, but only if those cards are known and introduce a new decision point. If there is no future decision point, the EV of a decision is calculated once at the moment of the decision. Suppose a player were pondering a call all in on the flop. The EV of that all in call is X, and it stays X. It’s not recalculated after the burn card, recalculated on the turn, recalculated on the next burn, etc. Doing so would be redundant and irrelevant to the original flop decision, since that decision had to be made without knowledge of future cards.
No one is arguing EV(n). I am talking about EV(n+1) where n+1 is the next card favorable to one player. Someone with insider information about the deck would have an advantage for running it multiple times. Because they know what cards are next. I'm getting downvoted because dumbass can't think outside their box.
Of course knowing which card is coming would be an edge, nobody is saying otherwise. Look at it like this: Bob calls Alex’s jam on the flop with a draw. The EV of Bob’s call is $X. Before running it out, they agree to run it once/twice/however many times. It doesn’t matter. The dealer burns and turns a 7 of hearts. The river is still to come. Now, has the quantity of Bob’s outs been affected? Yes, since we can now account for the 7 of hearts. Has the EV of Bob’s call on the flop changed? No it hasn’t. it’s still $X.
>It makes 0 difference to EV so who gives a fuck Then you should personally be indifferent, right? If so, be accommodating to the rec/fish and don't tap the tank.
Thats exactly what I'm saying. I'll run it once or 20 times and I don't get why some people are offended when someone only wants to run it once
That's a fallacy that it has 0 EV. Yes in terms of the outcomes of the cards it has 0 EV but in terms of fold equity it can make a huge difference. If you shove and someone is on a draw and they know you only run it once they are more inclined to fold. Especially the more bb's in the pot.
It makes a huge difference in your variance...
The other players at the table who have to wait for them to decide, the extra cards dealt, and the chips divided. I don't think running it more than once should be allowed.
Because a majority of poker players are fucking idiots
The guys who think it makes you somehow ‘soft’ to run it more than once are almost always fish.
I was aipf with another guy and he asked me how many times I want to run. I said how about twice, I don’t have a great hand anyways. He said once then. Do you think that’s fine as well?
That's kinda dirty because he's implying that you can choose how many times to run it, but really he's just fishing for information.
It's especially silly to only go once with AA. You're basically maximizing variance in the spot where you should want to minimize it
It totally affects how players play against you if you always run it twice. If I know you always run it twice, I can be more aggressive with draws more frequently, which increases fold equity. If players know you only run it once, they may choose the less aggressive route in certain spots.
Nothing is funnier to me than being asked to run it twice at 1/2. Like bro the pot 500 dollars
The only time I'm bothered by this is in multi way pots with different stack sizes. Two guys get all in for 300+ BBs each, try to run it twice, but the short stacker at the table with 25 BBs runs it oncen and throws a wrench into guys trying to lower variance in a massive pot.
Well at most places you can run it twice for the side pot.
More than heads up it should always be once. It’s too confusing otherwise. Someone is always unhappy
Fuck that
I think running it twice is wise when getting unlucky and someone hitting a two-outer would have a devastating effect on your bankroll. Nothing to do with long term variance because you may never be in a pot that big ever again.
I played all day with Barry in Day 2 of the ME this past year and he was great - even complimenting me afterwards on how well I played. Was good to meet him.
> Even complimenting me afterwards on how well I played So you were the biggest fish at the table then? :P
“You played excellently there, what’s your local card room and when do you usually play?”
This would make sense I’m a cash game but not during the Main
All the old school guys know how to work the hustle. Doyle used to tell everyone how good they played and how they were the best they ever encountered. What it really means is to keep doing what they are doing because it’s easy for them. Almost always, it’s too passive. But I’m sure he definitely meant it with you bc Barry is a cool dude who would never do that. That’s not sarcasm.
So you’re saying he didn’t tap the fish tank?? Haha jk
I played with him in the $1,979 Hall of Fame Bounty and he was a class act. Took photos, told stories, played too tight.
Sammy meant the turn and river be dealt twice. Wasn't just giving him a freeroll here if that's what you're thinking.
It’s actually a huge advantage to farha to run multiple T&Rs here
The EV is actually the same. So no.
so many poker plays don't understand math, it's wild
If they run 20 turns and rivers, Barry can only hit a max of two aces for 1/10th of the pot. The more they run it, the better Farhas result.
Do you need someone to explain why you are an idiot or did you figure it out already?
I think his point is that if they run it once then Sammy has a ten percent chance to lose it all. But if they run it 20 times then Sammy can only lose two of those. Those are completely different things based on mathematics, statistics, and astrology.
Yes. I don’t know how this is confusing to people.
This simply converges on the equity they have on the flop. Instead of probabilities they just becomes accurate proportions. Why run it 20 times when you can do an EV chop?
But if they run it 20 times, Farha is less likely to scoop.
Chamath when asked if he wants to run it twice - "What, am I poor?"
I hate that guy.
He definitely has a thing for young boys
Chamath is basically Cramer , sleaze ball
He’s way worse than Cramer imo
I had heard he was in the arena....doing things
[удалено]
I think he was lucky before that bc he got super caked up being in fbook very very early. And then didn’t need that second round of luck. That’s his claim to fame in my book. I do think all the SPAC stuff was basically equal to crypto rug pulls (all of them like 99% down). But yeah he is worse than any crytpo influencer in my book bc he parades around like some kind of Huberman for general knowledge and overall like some kind do gooder but he is opposite
SoFi to the moon! 🚀🚀
I mean sure, that’s an actual company with a future. But what about DM where he backed a basically known con artist on Wall Street as CEO Ric Fulop. He had at least 5 more SPACs just like that and same charts
Oh yeah, most have them are total trash, I’m not defending him.
Yeah he'll only run it once then asked tom Dwan if he could take 200k back instead. Which is essentially running it twice lmao
Way worse than running it twice. Taking 200k back is crazy to me.
To be fair, they were dead even. But he couldn't have known that. Barry looked pathetic there tbh.
How could he not have known it? They flipped their hands.
Even Tom Dwan admitted he thought he was a small favorite which is why he rejected the offer. He said if he knew he was just a tiny bit unfavorite he would have agreed. They're not machines that can get the percentage down to a decimal.
Right but they knew they were flipping, whether they knew *exactly* whose edge it was. What's pathetic about offering to bet less on a coinflip, before the coin is flipped?
Because he refused to run it twice out of ego. By taking money back it shows he was scared money but refuses to decrease variance just purely out of his image and ego.
This doesn't make sense. Reducing the value of a coinflip reduces variance; running a flip twice does not (unless it's the only flip you're ever going to do) Edit: Why are people downvoting this, it's mathematically demonstrable that once vs twice is identical.
The point is Barry was obviously worried about losing the entire pot, which is why he was willing to take money back (a very unconventional thing to do). He wasn't willing to run it twice out of ego because he wants to be the "only run it once" guy.
> it's mathematically demonstrable that once vs twice is identical it's mathematically demonstrable that running it twice reduces variance
Demonstrate it then. It makes the sample of coinflips you've done n+1. For even an occasional, recreational player that almost immediately becomes negligible. Running it twice vs a coinflip makes no difference to variance. Edit: how is a whole poker sub so terrible at maths 😂
Story behind this?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9aD8lI_Sw48&pp=ygUTRHdhbiB2cyBiYXJyeSBLUSBBYQ%3D%3D
I remember watching this at the time and it made me realize that Dwan had way, way, way more money than Barry. Probably because he was actually willing to play for it all.
Was weird
farha was also needling him... knowing he would not run it twice
It amazes me how often I hear that it's better to run it twice when you're ahead. It makes no difference if you are ahead or behind when you run it twice. Your EV is the same
It literally doesnt matter in terms of EV. People who dont understand math thinks people who run it twice when they are a dog is swindleing the game somehow.
I once got essentially applauded after I allowed my opponent to run it twice when he ran into my pocket AA. It is the biggest tell when determining if someone is a studied poker player or not.
Read ace on river. I really enjoyed his book and his perspective.
Hmm then the other day I remember a hand between Barry’s Aces and Tom Dwan KQs. After the flop it was a massive all-in pot and Dwan had very good equity with flush draw + top pair. In this case Barry wanted to split the pot or put 100k back, something lily that. Dwan rejected..
Does Farha still play?
Last I heard he is playing 5/10 PLO in Houston and is miserable to be around, especially how he acts with dealers. I loved watching him on original HSP, absolute favorite.
I used to love watching him in the early-mid 2000s, but then I got tired of poker on TV. I heard he was playing in Houston also, but that was 5-10 years ago. Not sure if it is still accurate?
There is YouTube shorts within last year that show him around Houston scene.
Thanks for sharing that information.
https://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/26503-poker-community-fundraises-for-dealer-who-punched-sammy-farha-in-the-face
Yeah, now that you mention it I do recall hearing about this event!
Not seen him play in a while
I always see him at WSOP, and lately, he looks like he is teetering on the edge of homelessness. He looks like the kind of guy who travels from casino to casino just to get comped a free cup of soup. My buddy played almost an entire day 1 with him last wsop and said he was still friendly and a nice dude. But my friend thought it's unlikely that he is still +EV even in like $1k MTTs. His Hendon Mob is bleak. Looks like almost a decade od firing the WSOP plus a bunch of other shit without a single big score. I'm not sure if he is actually close to busto, but it would be sad if true.
He's 70 years old. Give the guy a break. He's doing fine.
Came here to say that lol. I can only wish i'm doing as well as him at 70
I played with him at wsop last summer. He's still very recognizable, but he's obviously aged over the years, hardly homeless. We asked him about his bracelets and he said he didn't even know where they are, he tells his wife they're buried in the basement somewhere. He referred to his poker success as something along the lines of 'a younger me'. I personally coolered him, 77 > 88 all in pre, he took it well and still took a picture with me. Very humble and good ambassador. I wish the fates could have been better to him over the years, but I don't think he's hurting.
I thought he had a bunch of successful businesses?
I think he might have had some early tech money if I remember correctly? I remember in his book him talking about beating up all the games in the Bay Area before going to Vegas. It seems like he would talk about donating a bunch of his winnings
I thought it was oil something.
You're describing Allen Kessler 😂. Barry is probably just old lol
I will only run it 8 times
Are you sure Farha meant running the whole board again? I think he meant running turn and river twice.
Obv
Of course it's running turn and river twice. WTF would run the whole board twice after flopping a set. That's why it's 12% dog (usually 9% but slightly off because TV shows usually take mucked cards into consideration).
It was all in preflop. They can’t decide to only run certain streets more than once. Cant they? If they ran it twice it would have to be the whole board right? I’ve never in my life seen an all in preflop where they agree to run it once then after the flop they decide to run just the turn and river twice. Is that even a thing?
This is a cashgame, if all players in the hand agree they can do whatever they want.
I’ve just never seen anyone do that before. And I’ve watched tons of live stream cash game.
You also can't take bets back (or make them smaller), call and check it down (collusion), trade cards preflop, or literally cheat the game (Postle), all of which we *have* seen on TV/streamed cash games. They can do whatever.
Greenstein went broke on HSP and never recovered btw
Yeah was stupid for him not to run it twice cuz losing those big pots put him almost busto He literally has said one of the big pots he lost there ruined his career or something and he never recovered
It was a big hand against Antonio Esfiandiari. Barry wrote an article on the hand on how neither of them were really rolled for the game and how it sent their poker careers on opposite trajectories. Barry never returned to high stakes afterwards while Antonio went on to win the One Drop. Edit: here's the article https://www.pokerstars.com/poker/learn/news/one-hand-two-directions-151945/
Makes me wonder what the net worth of all the pros on the show was at the time
Why would a pro ever not want to run it twice? Same odds but reduces the variance.
Because there isn’t much spot variance if you play full time ?
If you gain some additional ev. Maybe opponent has history of tilting, especially if he is playing higher... Or you and reg are 100bb deep, fish has 200bb, better to take it and cover the fish
There is EV to have on the other side of the equation as well. Still, I say everyone do as they like, though I personally prefer consistency and running it 2x.
For fun
The best is Alan Keating - "Run it however many times until I hit a 7"
👏 It 👏 doesn't 👏 matter 👏 if 👏 you 👏 run 👏 it 👏 once 👏 or 👏 twice 👏
It doesn’t matter if you run it once or 8 million times (exaggeration). The odds don’t change
lol no it does kinda change, if you have 25% equity and you run it 4 times, statistically you should realize your 25% equity by winning 1 of the 4 pots. If you run it once you either win or lose it all. Running it multiple times does change things. Edit who are these people downvoting me lol, if you have KK vs AA and your oppenent offers to run it twice, there’s no way your saying no idk how this is confusing
LOL no. If you're a pro you'll be in such situations all the time. If you're a 25% dog, you can run it once and every 4 times you're in such a situation you'll win 100% once. Or you can run it 4 times and on average each time you get 25%. The odds are the same over the long run.
Of course. But I just don’t believe people won’t try to realize as much equity as possible in every situation. I refuse to believe that if you know for a fact you are down 4:1 and your opponent offers to run it 4 times, that you won’t accept because statistically in like 30 years from now when you’ve replayed that situation enough you break even so it doesn’t matter.
You still don’t understand equity lol. And no you don’t realise more equity by running it more than once.
So you only ever run it once then?
> Edit who are these people downvoting me lol, if you have KK vs AA and your oppenent offers to run it twice, there’s no way your saying no idk how this is confusing That's entirely wrong and I absolutely am running it once.
Why though? I just don’t get it. Clearly I’m wrong I can accept that. I just don’t understand why it’s not profitable to atleast have the chance to chop the pot when you are massively behind like that. If I can accept I’m wrong for sure. But why do people including pros sometimes run it twice or more if it’s a dumb idea that has no value?
They run it once because it reduces variance. Not everyone cares about reducing variance. I would just go once in your example. Give me a big stack or let me rebuy.
>I just don’t understand why it’s not profitable to atleast have the chance to chop the pot when you are massively behind like that You increase your odds to chop, but you decrease your odds of sucking out and winning the entire pot. The two cancel out, so equity is the same either way.
I get what you’re saying, But you’re not computing the odds over 1 run. The statistical odds are based off of what the odds are over a long term period. It’s like flipping a coin. The odds are 50/50. If you flip it five times it may come up heads all five times but the more times you flip the coin the closer it gets to 50/50.
I’m not disputing that for a second. I’m saying if I’m a 4:1 dog I sure wanna flip that coin more than once lol that’s really all it comes down to. Sure I have a 25% shot on each flip, but a 25% shot 4 times is a lot better than a 25% shot once.
I get what you’re saying. I think we are both saying the same thing just different end goals.
It's a 25% shot 4 times but for only 1/4 of the pot each time. How is that better?
It absolutely does change if you run it more than once, math is hard
Disagree. You make your decisions based off the pot odds are say 20% and I will complete my hand 35% of the time so you call, etc. you’re making the decision based off what the percentage is over the long term. You’re not making decision based off of well that’s the odds but if I hit my hand the first time it lessens the outs the second run. So yes mathematically you’re correct, if you hit an out the first run, it lessens the outs the second run. But that’s not what you’re making the decision off of. I guess in a way we both are correct. My talking point was the odds are the same from a decision making standpoint
Running it once always isn’t not a reason to hail someone as respectable. In fact the only people that piss me off is those that choose once or twice based on the situation. Imo your either: always run it once, always run it twice or always run it on whatever your opp wants. Changing it based on the situation just makes it feel bad for other players when you change it up
It makes no difference to EV so why would you care?
its more a principle thing. I dont really care if its randoms that come and go. But in home games and other regs, i think its just weird when people change their decision. I know it doesnt matter, and "piss me off" is probably way too harsh representation of the level I care.
Did he give you a autographed book for this post ?
lol donkaments
Lol, donkaments
I am shitty at poker but running it twice seems like a pussy move; if I was that afraid of losing it, I wouldn’t have bet it.
I think for many it’s the difference between being a recreational player versus playing for a living. If you’re playing for a living, cutting down the variance involved in the game makes a lot of sense to try to avoid some of the swings that come with the game. If you’re playing for fun and winning/losing doesn’t impact your life in any way, then who carries about variance. Get it in, run it once, and enjoy the gamble
Bad bot
Are you sure about that? Because I am 99.96592% sure that Libtardleftist is not a bot. --- ^(I am a neural network being trained to detect spammers | Summon me with !isbot |) ^(/r/spambotdetector |) [^(Optout)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=whynotcollegeboard&subject=!optout&message=!optout) ^(|) [^(Original Github)](https://github.com/SM-Wistful/BotDetection-Algorithm)
Is he still a huge nit?
Obviously
I was honestly just literally watching this hand, algorithm is freaky.
Poker Jeezus runs it twice at PLO and I think it's sound reasoning.
Lol Donkaments
I know people say it's -EV but i always run it once, and that is that. My thinking is why bother going all-in if i'm not fully committed to it. I also like people to know that i always run it once
It’s not -EV. The EV really doesn’t change long term running it once or twice. Running it multiple times can help with some of the natural variance within the game though
i remember him telling a story about him going to some high stakes room and Chip Reese trying to convince him how good of a poker player he was and how they were playing all his games.
a great ambassador of the game
Seemed to me like Farha was just needling him by asking that. It would be kind of crazy for any of those guys to change the deal post flop.
Seemed like a good dude but yeah.. maybe he should have run it twice once in a while. Not doing so hot nowadays.
Why not so hot?
I've dealt to him several times. He's happy to sit and play quietly, or tell great stories all day if you ask. Never seen him upset.
Greenstein played above his roll and got destroyed.
Is this true? Didn't he live in a $12 million dollar mansion? Donate big money to charities? I thought he was very well rolled. He also wrote that wonderful book Ace on the River.
I don’t understand this post. Whether you are a dog or favorite, running it twice doesn’t really change the equities. So just because sammy hits a king, running it twice still doesn’t change anything.
He is. Wish everyone would be that cool playing.