Showing cards when all in (and before decided how many times to run it) do you show?

Bug bearer of mine is people not showing cards . I often shout "cards over!" as you would in a tournament but not everyone does it. Do you think it's correct to show cards before deciding how many times to run it? Or should you just run it twice and then show? I think people should show before deciding how many times to run it. seems odd otherwise.

I usually run it once, and as such, I'm generally the first to flip my hand over when everyone's all-in.

If you only like to run it twice if you’ve seen both hole cards then say “I prefer to see all hole cards before deciding if I want to run it twice, otherwise I’d rather just run it once, please and thank you.” Clear is kind. Yelling “cards over” is so rude lol. You do it in a tournament because that’s the rules in a tournament. It doesn’t make sense to do it in a cash game. You wouldn’t yell at someone to vacate their seat when they get “knocked out” of a cash game because that’s not the rule. It makes sense to me that people who want to realize their AIEV as quickly and reliably as possible want to run it twice no matter what and people who want to gamble-gamble (or don’t like the time and mental energy it takes to run two boards and chop half the time) just want to run it once. I fall in the former category so I just tell people “I prefer to run it twice, but if that’s not your thing then let’s burn and turn and get this over with.” I don’t personally understand all the haggling over how many times to run it, but it takes all types to spread a poker game so whatever. If someone asked me to see my hole cards so that then maybe they’d run it twice, I’d honestly think they were angling and just tell the dealer to deal the board lol.

This is a strategy forum, so I'll move this to the etiquette forum, as this makes no difference IRT strategy. Also, the term is bugbear, assuming you mean "source of annoyance." A bug bearer is completely different. Spoiler Show

()

that's not a bugbear. THIS is a bugbear.

()

by RaiseAnnounced m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59084571#post59084571)

If you only like to run it twice if you've seen both hole cards then say "I prefer to see all hole cards before deciding if I want to run it twice, otherwise I'd rather just run it once, please and thank you." Clear is kind.Yelling "cards over" is so rude lol. You do it in a tournament because that's the rules in a tournament. It doesn't make sense to do it in a cash game. You ... See full post

It's not rude at all especially if i'm dealing. Talking mainly about pub poker, I wouldn't yell at anyone else in a hand that i'm not in unless im the dealer. "On their backs" is another one. What is annoying is if someone says "how many times you wanna run it" without us first turning over our hands and finding out it's AK v QQ for e.g. Depending on the holdings it might be better to run it more than once. Any dispute and it should just be run once I agree. p.s. on the high stakes televised cash games you see the players turning over their hands in these situations, they even turn over losers after the rivers (see the Daniel 10 9 hand v Eric's quad 88s. Daniel shows the table the loser after being shown the quads. Card over! Get it sorted

I’m sorry, was the point of this thread to ask a question or were you just expressing your personal pet peeve in the form of a question?

Depending on the holdings it might be better to run it more than once.

This is incorrect.

The only time it might matter strategy wise is if some is drawing stone dead. Then you rioto save time. Ritor a dozen times does alter the strategy. It s not rude to keep cards face down. Some og pros do this. Sammy Fsrha almost never turned his up. Often did not tell what he had either. As to showing losing hands. Most often don’t. This includes DN

I think the high stakes comparison is off-base for 3 reasons:

1. We're talking about a situation where people's hole cards are literally being broadcast on national tv
2. These are semi-private games where being fun and loosey goosey is mandatory to justify your seat
3. Yelling "cards over" makes you neither fun nor loosey goosey, and it doesn't keep the game moving, so it accomplishes none of the things that insta-flipping your cards does. Generally speaking, I don't volunteer my hole cards at a typical 5/T casino game unless I'm almost certain I won. But I'm also not a huge hole card nit, especially in an AIPF scenario where people almost certainly aren't getting much information off whatever I have. I have played in games and against players where protecting someone's feelings or the overall vibe was more important than protecting my hole cards. With all due respect, though, you don't sound that fun, and if I'm volunteering my hole cards to you it's probably because I think you're a whale.

by Garick m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59084624#post59084624)

This is incorrect.

Are you sure? Assumptions:

• Let's say you have a flush draw to an overpair.
• Let's say we're all in on the flop. 2 cards to go. We run it 10 times, then at most you can win is 9 times. (excluding occasional runner runner trips or 2p), wheras the overpair can win it all 10. Perhaps it all balances out to the EV and I'm wrong.

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59084595#post59084595)

Depending on the holdings it might be better to run it more than once.

Who says live poker is dead?

by hitchens97 m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59084718#post59084718)

by Garick m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59084624#post59084624)

This is incorrect.

Are you sure? Assumptions:

• Let's say you have a flush draw to an overpair.
• Let's say we're all in on the flop. 2 cards to go. We run it 10 times, then at most you can win is 9 times. (excluding occasional runner runner trips or 2p), wheras the overpair can win it all 10.

What if we're using an 8 deck shoe?

by hitchens97 m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59084718#post59084718)

by Garick m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59084624#post59084624)

This is incorrect.

Are you sure? Assumptions:

• Let's say you have a flush draw to an overpair.
• Let's say we're all in on the flop. 2 cards to go. We run it 10 times, then at most you can win is 9 times. (excluding occasional runner runner trips or 2p), wheras the overpair can win it all 10. Perhaps it all balances out to the EV and I'm wrong.

Running it multiple times has the same EV as running it once due to the linearity of expectation (https://web.stanford.edu/class/archive/cs/cs109/cs109.1218/files/student_drive/3.2.pdf). It's a funny little concept because the fact that E [X + Y ] = E [X] + E [Y ] almost feels like a fallacy resulting from a lazy high school student forgetting a fundamental principle, kinda like saying (x+2)*(x-1) = x^2 - 2 But then it just always happens to be true, and as it turns out, it's mathematically provable! A lot of much simpler and easier to understand analogies have been devised to understand how RIO=RIT, but AFAICT they all actually are probabilistic fallacies (either resulting from ignoring the dependency of each board's runout and/or from failing to consider the compounded probabilities of the interaction of multiple cards for each runout)........However, they all end up being true anyway due to the linearity of expectation 😃 Here's a fun little thread on the topic. (https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15/poker-theory-amp-gto/definitive-proof-running-multiple-times-turn-gt-river-doesnt-change-ev-1837230/)

by RaiseAnnounced m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59084671#post59084671)

I think the high stakes comparison is off-base for 3 reasons:1) We're talking about a situation where people's hole cards are literally being broadcast on national tv2) These are semi-private games where being fun and loosey goosey is mandatory to justify your seat3) Yelling "cards over" makes you neither fun nor loosey gooseyGenerally speaking, I don't volunteer my hole cards ... See full post

i'm not a whale, and I am fun. Im talking about pub games and house games, the cards on their back is so we can all watch the action and talk about the hand. If it's strangers I may ask "are we flippin them? and many people say yes and it becomes tournament style. It of course makes a difference if you wanna run it once or twice, it might be top pair v a flush draw, or it might be AK V AQ three outer situation. It might be prudent to try and at least get yourself half the pot v a close to 50/50 situation, or you might not wanna give the AQ an extra chance to escape. Also if someone is drawing dead when the cards are flipped why would you run it more than once? Lots of reasons. And before you think me a heartless bas I do understand the opposite viewpoint. They wanna keep their holdings secret and muck a missed flush draw for example. Often though,, you DO have to end up showing your hand as you cannot win a share of the pot without showing.

by Fore m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59084643#post59084643)

The only time it might matter strategy wise is if some is drawing stone dead. Then you rioto save time. Ritor a dozen times does alter the strategy. It s not rude to keep cards face down. Some og pros do this. Sammy Fsrha almost never turned his up. Often did not tell what he had either. As to showing losing hands. Most often don’t. This includes DN[/QUOTE]Rememer phil ivey sho... See full post

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59085117#post59085117)

Rememer phil ivey showing the A2 v Dwan in the famous hand where dwan had 67. He could have mucked but he didn't....(or he announced ACE DEUCE )

I mean, barely? That hand is old enough to play poker in most municipalities. Should we post all the examples of people mucking their losing hand facedown in the interceding 20 years? I can think of 1 or 2 million off the top of my head... I genuinely don't know what you're trying to accomplish with this thread. It's like asking "Does anyone actually like sorbet? I hate it" and some people are like "I do, " and now you're arguing that no we don't or we shouldn't. I don't care about anyone's own personal proclivities for the number of times they run a board or why they do it, and you shouldn't either. You said what your preference is and you're entitled to that. I just gave you a recommendation on how you can clearly communicate what you're trying to accomplish because just saying "Cards over" doesn't accomplish that. It might give the false impression that you don't know the rules of cash game poker, and now you're arguing with someone about rules that you don't disagree on and you find yourself using phrases like "Well, I never said that {thing they wrongfully but understandably inferred from what you said and the tone you said it in}." I know this is a bugbear of yours, but this is a situation you might get more bees with honey than vinegar. Just say what's on your mind, my guy, and who knows, maybe they'll say yes.

And sorry I said you don't sound fun. We all have our peeves. Lord knows if the topic of conversation were turn signals or crosswalks, then I'd probably sound like a Karen myself. But it's good to know these things about yourself.

by hitchens97 m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59084718#post59084718)

Are you sure? Assumptions:

• Let's say you have a flush draw to an overpair.
• Let's say we're all in on the flop. 2 cards to go. We run it 10 times, then at most you can win is 9 times. (excluding occasional runner runner trips or 2p), wheras the overpair can win it all 10. Perhaps it all balances out to the EV and I'm wrong.

Assume we are at the river. Player behind has 1 out. We know 8 cards, 2+2+4 on board, so 44 unknown. Run it once. Behind wins 1 and loses 43 times. RIT. Now first board behind wins 1 of 43 times but if he wins he only gets 50%. For second board, his chances are 1 win and 42 losses but only if he lost first board. So again 1 chance to win, 42 chance to lose, plus 1 chance he has already lost so again 1 win, 43 losses to win 50%. Sum up and he now has 2 wins apin 43 losses but for only 50% of pot. Which is exactly the same EV. Will let you draw your own conclusion on right or wrong.

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59085117#post59085117)

[/B] Rememer phil ivey showing the A2 v Dwan in the famous hand where dwan had 67. He could have mucked but he didn't....(or he announced ACE DEUCE )

I don’t recall that particular hand. But one instance proves neither most often do or do not show. When they are running it 2 or 3 time, yes most folks tu4n cards over. But not required and Farha is minority example who did not. But in normal showdown, last to show more oft3n mucks wo showing if they lose. More split case is where last to show immediately flips though could wait and wins. Now how the player who was supposed to show first does or does not actually show or muck is more split.

by RaiseAnnounced m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59085010#post59085010)

Running it multiple times has the same EV as running it once due to the linearity of expectation (https://web.stanford.edu/class/archive/cs/cs109/cs109.1218/files/student_drive/3.2.pdf).It's a funny little concept because the fact that E [X + Y ] = E [X] + E [Y ] almost feels like a fallacy resulting from a lazy high school student forgetting a fundamental principle, kinda like saying (x+2)*(x-1) = x^2 - 2But then it just always happens to be true, and as it turns ... See full post

Thank you this is good.

by Fore m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59085445#post59085445)

Assume we are at the river. Player behind has 1 out. We know 8 cards, 2+2+4 on board, so 44 unknown. Run it once. Behind wins 1 and loses 43 times.RIT. Now first board behind wins 1 of 43 times but if he wins he only gets 50%. For second board, his chances are 1 win and 42 losses but only if he lost first board. So again 1 chance to win, 42 chance to lose, plus 1 chance he has ... See full post

Thank you.

Cards over!!! Spoiler Show

I like Dinesh's bugbear better. by dinesh m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59084589#post59084589)

that's not a bugbear. THIS is a bugbear.... See full post

by Fore m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59085456#post59085456)

I don’t recall that particular hand. But one instance proves neither most often do or do not show.When they are running it 2 or 3 time, yes most folks tu4n cards over. But not required and Farha is minority example who did not. But in normal showdown, last to show more oft3n mucks wo showing if they lose. More split case is where last to show immediately flips though could wait... See full post

yea that's what I was getting at. Cards over so we can all watch

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59086057#post59086057)

yea that's what I was getting at. Cards over so we can all watch

But not what you or I actually said. Personally I almost never run it more than once. And seldom, unless I flopped or turned current nuts, do I flip my cards.

by Fore m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59086306#post59086306)

But not what you or I actually said. Personally I almost never run it more than once. And seldom, unless I flopped or turned current nuts, do I flip my cards.

but you do in tournaments.

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59086519#post59086519)

but you do in tournaments.

Not if you don't play tournaments. I think the last one I played was a free role about 15 years ago. At least 10+ years ago for certain.

by Fore m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59086868#post59086868)

Not if you don't play tournaments. I think the last one I played was a free role about 15 years ago. At least 10+ years ago for certain.

ok, no wonder you are out of touch with the cards over rules

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59087887#post59087887)

ok, no wonder you are out of touch with the cards over rules

Not at all unfamiliar. But it has nothing to do with this discussion about a cash game. It isn't a uncommon tournament rule but if you understand its purpose you understand why it is not used in most cash games. It is not needed. And still unrelated to what you had stated. But not a surprise since you did not even know that RIT doesn't change EV and holdings don't matter. Just because I don't play tournaments doesn't mean I am unfamiliar with them and the rules. I watch plenty, I just don't play them since they have not been common here for a very long time. Plus can make more here playing deepstack cash.

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59087887#post59087887)

ok, no wonder you are out of touch with the cards over rules

All players are required to table their hand when a player is all in and no more action is possible … in a TOURNAMENT. In a cash game the rule is different. There are varying house rules that dictate who must act first (show or muck) at showdown, but players are not required to show cards in a cash game when someone is all in. The rule is exactly the same as it is for non-all in situations. Of course if you want to make a claim on the pot, you must show unless all other players already have mucked.

()

by albedoa m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59088219#post59088219)

why not, we need to see what people have

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59087887#post59087887)

by Fore m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59086868#post59086868)

Not if you don't play tournaments. I think the last one I played was a free role about 15 years ago. At least 10+ years ago for certain.

ok, no wonder you are out of touch with the cards over rules

Driving through London on the right side of the road yelling "Clearly you’ve never been in Rome" at all the people honking at me.

by Fore m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59085456#post59085456)

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59085117#post59085117)

[/B] Rememer phil ivey showing the A2 v Dwan in the famous hand where dwan had 67. He could have mucked but he didn't....(or he announced ACE DEUCE )

When they are running it 2 or 3 time, yes most folks tu4n cards over. But not required and Farha is minority example who did not.

Important distinction: Most show once it's been agreed to run it multiple times. Some show over the course of deciding how many times to run it, some don't, but it's not clear what the common response would be to someone yelling "Cards over!" and then saying "I'll decide whether I wanna RIT once I see your hole cards." My prior is that that would raise people's hackles and make them defensive. Not enough of a sample to really know, but then again I don't watch a lot of streams.

Listen, we don't "need to see what people have" unless they are making a claim to the pot. We may want to see, because it makes for a fun sweat, but if they want to surrender the pot in order to hide what they went AI with, that is their (admittedly dumb) prerogative. In a tournament, the rule is to show to avoid make sure there is no collusion. In cash there is no such rule, as we're not really worried about chip dumping (though someone might invoke IWTSTH if they think the two players are whipsawing a third party). Personally, I always flip once AI, because I hate the dick dance about who has to show and I think it makes for a lighter atmosphere at the table, which can in turn loosen up the game. But if a V wants to keep their hand hidden and quietly slip it into the muck if they miss or triumphantly slam it down if they hit, fine. As long as they don't slow roll me, I don't care much.

What garrick said, except I don't really care even if they do try a slow roll. Who gives a ****, it was never going to be your pot.

by RaiseAnnounced m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59088495#post59088495)

Important distinction: Most show once it's been agreed to run it multiple times.Some show over the course of deciding how many times to run it, some don't, but it's not clear what the common response would be to someone yelling "Cards over!" and then saying "I'll decide whether I wanna RIT once I see your hole cards." My prior is that that would raise people's hackles and make ... See full post

Uh no. There is no must show once agree to RIT or more. Don’t have to show until you wish to claim the pot.

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59088467#post59088467)

why not, we need to see what people have

That discussion is unrelated from you trying to force a phrase that you invented and that nobody agrees with. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22cards... (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22cards+over+rule%22+poker) https://www.google.com/search?q=%22cards... (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22cards+over+rules%22+poker)

by Fore m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59088921#post59088921)

I said "most" not "must."

by Garick m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59088561#post59088561)

Listen, we don't "need to see what people have" unless they are making a claim to the pot. We may want to see, because it makes for a fun sweat, but if they want to surrender the pot in order to hide what they went AI with, that is their (admittedly dumb) prerogative. In a tournament, the rule is to show to avoid make sure there is no collusion. In cash there is no such rule,... See full post

This is correct. I say cards over and some people just do it as at matter of course (like a tourney) but if someone is determined not to show it then oh well.. the moment is gone and we just deal it. The cards over DOES make a large amount of people decide to show. Also if you go first and just show your own hand, the other person may also do it. The dealer puts the 2 lots of cards face up and to the side of the rectangle ready for the board.

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59090614#post59090614)

I say cards over and some people just do it as at matter of course (like a tourney) but if someone is determined not to show it then oh well.. the moment is gone and we just deal it.

I'm still confused why you wouldn't always say something like, "Shall we flip them?", rather than bark an order at someone that they have every right to refuse. This is just Social Skills 101. Even spectrum nerds should be able to understand this.

Unless you're playing a game where they charge extra rake to run it twice, it's not really an EV thing. Often the discussion of whether to run it twice takes much longer than it would to just run it out. So I say just set a simple policy (if pot is over X, how many buyins you have left in your wallet, whatever) and stick to it. Don't waste brain power coming up with a detailed strategy where none is needed.

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59090614#post59090614)

This is correct.I say cards over and some people just do it as at matter of course (like a tourney) but if someone is determined not to show it then oh well.. the moment is gone and we just deal it. The cards over DOES make a large amount of people decide to show. Also if you go first and just show your own hand, the other person may also do it. The dealer puts the 2 lots ... See full post

You are representing the house and you are supposed to be running the game. When you make a "demand" by saying cards over, you are literally giving an "order" against the rules. Of course some folks will listen to you and comply, but what you did is still wrong. The fact that it does "MAKE a large amount..." (emphasis added) just makes your actions worse. You are NOT supposed to MAKE them do it. Plus, you started this thread not by SAYING cards over. You claimed you SHOUT that order. I can think of very few if any situations the dealer (i.e. the house) needs to be shouting at players. Just let the players decide if they wish to show or not. No need to interject into their decision.

I've noticed that baseball batters will often swing the bat when I shout "SWING BATTER!". I must be causing them to do that.

by Fore m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59090836#post59090836)

You are representing the house and you are supposed to be running the game. When you make a "demand" by saying cards over, you are literally giving an "order" against the rules.Of course some folks will listen to you and comply, but what you did is still wrong. The fact that it does "MAKE a large amount..." (emphasis added) just makes your actions worse. You are NOT supposed to... See full post

you misunderstand. I say in a friendly way, i don't bark it. I just something like "ok folks cards over" or sometimes just "cards over". If someone doesn't want to then just gotta shrug and move on. Also don't forget I'm dealing tournaments just as often as cash so my "cards over" thing is correct. There is no difference to me.... I just deal in an identical way when im in charge of the felt...tourny or cash alike... and it's the right thing to do

It's only the correct thing to do in a tournament if at least one player is all-in. Otherwise showdown proceeds in order just like for a cash game. IMO people getting their panties in a bunch about the dealer encouraging players to table their hands by saying something generic (particularly if it's the same thing he says at the end of every hand) is completely overblown. Having said that, your furious defensiveness that what you're doing is totally fine is way worse. You're actually wrong, and if you care at all you should think about what people here are telling you, and consider if you'd like to improve your skills.

by dinesh m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59091643#post59091643)

It's only the correct thing to do in a tournament if at least one player is all-in. Otherwise showdown proceeds in order just like for a cash game.IMO people getting their panties in a bunch about the dealer encouraging players to table their hands by saying something generic (particularly if it's the same thing he says at the end of every hand) is completely overblown.Having ... See full post

ok point taken. I stand by the saying "cards over" bit does make some people do it and we therefore get the desired situation of watching the hand unfold... and all the ooooo ahhhhss that go with it. Then we may run the whole thing again for the 2nd board and repeat the process. Really is a better way of doing it than the miserable cards down especially when running it twice (we don't know if you've won the 1st one or not! that IMO is madness.

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59091661#post59091661)

I stand by the saying "cards over" bit...

Just gonna repost this because, while it might just seem snarky and beside the point, I think it's maybe the most important question in the thread. by RaiseAnnounced m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59084617#post59084617)

I’m sorry, was the point of this thread to ask a question or were you just expressing your personal pet peeve in the form of a question?

OP, if you're claiming to come at this with a genuinely curious and open mind, in what world would you have reconsidered your behavior? What response were you hoping for that would give you a new perspective on this scenario? No matter people's preference for showing their own cards or their desired outcome for these situations, we're all telling you the least you can do is clearly communicate your thoughts and feelings. Free yourself from the shackles and misunderstandings of "Cards over" and achieve the nirvana of clarity with your fellow compadres.

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59091570#post59091570)

There is no difference to me.... I just deal in an identical way when im in charge of the felt...tourny or cash alike... and it's the right thing to do

It's really sad seeing someone proudly and arrogantly defend their own mental laziness and incompetence.

by Always Fondling m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59092524#post59092524)

It's really sad seeing someone proudly and arrogantly defend their own mental laziness and incompetence.

Nothing sad about it if I'm right

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59093326#post59093326)

Nothing sad about it if I'm right

Except you are not right no matter how much you think you are. You are verbally lazy. You are intellectually lazy. You are a lazy dealer, not even caring to try and learn or get better. The last part is the worst. You don’t even care enough about your “job” to even try to get good. This is the ultimate in laziness. Always told my kids…find what you like to do so you will do it well and you will ultimately do well.

by Fore m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59093511#post59093511)

Except you are not right no matter how much you think you are.You are verbally lazy.You are intellectually lazy.You are a lazy dealer, not even caring to try and learn or get better.The last part is the worst. You don’t even care enough about your “job” to even try to get good. This is the ultimate in laziness.Always told my kids…find what you like to do so you will do it well ... See full post

I deal it just fine thanks. Not lazy, i'm constantly keeping players right...(there are some people who don't know it's on them or what to do etc, or how to do a side pot kinda stuff) I'm willing to bet I'm at least equal to you in terms of dealing assuming you actually do take your turn (maybe you think it's beneath you) but the only way to learn is to do it often. Cards over at my table.. and we have a hell of a party watching the hands change strength and sides till we get to the river. :-)

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59094034#post59094034)

I deal it just fine thanks. Not lazy, i'm constantly keeping players right...(there are some people who don't know it's on them or what to do etc, or how to do a side pot kinda stuff) I'm willing to bet I'm at least equal to you in terms of dealing assuming you actually do take your turn (maybe you think it's beneath you) but the only way to learn is to do it often. Cards ove... See full post

I am not a dealer. Never said I was. Doesn’t mean I think it is below me. I respect and value good dealers. Never intended to be a dealer but couldn’t now due to certain physical issues. Not being a dealer doesn’t mean I can’t recognize a good one. Doesn’t mean I don’t know the rules and procedures. I have been on the other side of the table for many years. I suspect I could ID 3 flaws in your mechanics wo even seeing you deal. Won’t as there is no way to prove it. Why do I think this? Because there are certain things all lazy dealers do because they are lazy. And yes you are lazy. It comes through on every post. You live by the ‘good enough is good enough’ philosophy. You take the easy way if you can even wh3n you know it isn’t the best.

by Fore m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59094168#post59094168)

I am not a dealer. Never said I was. Doesn’t mean I think it is below me. I respect and value good dealers. Never intended to be a dealer but couldn’t now due to certain physical issues.Not being a dealer doesn’t mean I can’t recognize a good one. Doesn’t mean I don’t know the rules and procedures. I have been on the other side of the table for many years.I suspect I could ID 3... See full post

Think you misunderstand completely... way of the mark as it were. I don't get paid for dealing and never will. I deal in the game I'm playing in or maybe have just been knocked of and I've got time to kill. I do it as a favour only and take my turn ..... you'd be surprised how many people can't even shuffle the deck properly. "thanks for dealing" is all I ask and people say that.. good dealer. It's ungreatful people and experts in the audience like yourself that make dealing not fun. I would high card it if your miserable nit picking pus was at the table.

We are all talking about casino dealing, because this is the casino and cardroom forum. Home games are elsewhere. https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/24/ho... (https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/24/home-poker/) Some home game dealers (or bar league, etc) hang out here because they want to know how the casino side handles things, or they want to improve their skills, or whatever. But home games do not have to follow rules and procedures the same way that casino dealers do. Casino players don't, as a rule, really care about how fun the dealers think their job is. (We do here, since many of us are or know and hang out with dealers as well. Or because we want good dealers to stay as dealers. But it's not a primary goal of any ruling or procedure discussion.)

by dinesh m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59094211#post59094211)

We are all talking about casino dealing, because this is the casino and cardroom forum.Home games are elsewhere. https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/24/ho... (https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/24/home-poker/) Some home game dealers (or bar league, etc) hang out here because they want to know how the casino side handles things, or they want to improve their skills, or whatever. But home games do not have to follow rules a... See full post

ok i'm sorry

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59094034#post59094034)

Not lazy

There are many instances in your short posting history where you chose the far lazier approach of sticking to your wrong beliefs instead of doing any amount of research or examination. I don't know who you're trying to fool.

by albedoa m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59094949#post59094949)

There are many instances in your short posting history where you chose the far lazier approach of sticking to your wrong beliefs instead of doing any amount of research or examination. I don't know who you're trying to fool.

Well you fell for it. But I have retracted it

I started this thread thinking you were just a bit of a jerk--at least when it comes to this one particular peeve of yours. Then I learned you're a dealer and I see that you're an active, material detriment to any game you're involved in. As you more forcefully you dig your heels in regardless of how many people tell you in no uncertain terms you're wrong and should rethink your behavior, my armchair psychologizing ass feels like you're an active detriment to society at large. Anyway, hope you're trolling, and if not, stay away from fire arms and school children!

by RaiseAnnounced m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59095604#post59095604)

I started this thread thinking you were just a bit of a jerk--at least one it comes to this one particular peeve of yours.Then I learned you're a dealer and I see that you're an active, material detriment to any game you're involved in.As you more forcefully you dig your heels in regardless of how many people tell you in no uncertain terms you're wrong and should rethink your b... See full post

lol it's only the cards I want on their backs, not the people.

I found a situation. Set over Set. If you flip the cards over and find that someone only has ONE out to win, then there is a decision as to whether you would want to run it more than once - and thus the weaker hand could only ever win one of the runs. If you run it twice the higher set has already locked up half the pot min.

And what did the comparative EV calculation of running it once versus twice in this scenario show you?

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59224717#post59224717)

I found a situation. Set over Set. If you flip the cards over and find that someone only has ONE out to win, then there is a decision as to whether you would want to run it more than once - and thus the weaker hand could only ever win one of the runs. If you run it twice the higher set has already locked up half the pot min.

That "decision" is whether or not you want a 1/44 chance of winning 100% of the pot or a 2/44 chance of winning 50% the pot. Do the math and let us know which option will give that player the higher EV. Spoiler Show

It's a trick question

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59224717#post59224717)

I found a situation. Set over Set. If you flip the cards over and find that someone only has ONE out to win, then there is a decision as to whether you would want to run it more than once - and thus the weaker hand could only ever win one of the runs. If you run it twice the higher set has already locked up half the pot min.

Still irrelevant. I’ll calculate trailer’s EV as it’s simpler. RI once - (I’m assuming only a river left to be dealt) trailer has one out with 8 known cards. EV is p/44 where p is the size of the pot. RIT - trailer hits his out with probability 1/44 on the first run. He hits the second with probability 43/44 * 1/43 =1/44. Thus he hits an out with probability 2/44 or 1/22. He wins p/2 when he does so, so EV is p/2 * 1/22 which is p/44 - exactly the same

It's actually a fantastic example for demonstrating that the EV doesn't change. In thinking that you found a counterexample, you might have found the trivial one!

If we choose to run it 4 times but the 1st time the LOWER SET gets there, then we just give him 25% of the pot and don't have to bother with the other 3 times. So i've cracked it

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59228965#post59228965)

If we choose to run it 4 times but the 1st time the LOWER SET gets there, then we just give him 25% of the pot and don't have to bother with the other 3 times. So i've cracked it

That’s irrelevant. You could agree to run it 44 times and then you wouldn’t have to deal cards at all. The EV is still the same. In the run it 44x case, the one out player wins 1/44 of the pot with probability 1, so his EV is p/44. In your case, he hits the first deal with probability 1/44. He hits card 2 with probability 43/441/43, or 1/44. For card 3 it’s 43/4442/431/42, again 1/44. He hits card 4 with probability 43/4442/4341/421/41, again 1/44. The total probability of hitting one of the four can be obtained simply by adding these (valid precisely because he can’t hit more than once), to get an overall probability of 4/44, or 1/11. He wins 1/4 of the pot, so EV is 1/11*p/4 or p/44, same as when running once. In general, the pattern should be clear. Running N times gives him probability of N/44 of hitting. He wins p/N when he hits. EV is therefore N/44 * p/N = p/44 - the value of N is irrelevant. N=1 gives the same EV as N=2,3,4 etc.

Running it twice reduces variance and keeps fish in the game longer. The main reason to run it once is to prevent people from calling you light.

by Always Fondling m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59092524#post59092524)

It's really sad seeing someone proudly and arrogantly defend their own mental laziness and incompetence.

.

I come to these threads specifically to learn what the rules are and how some of them are still subject to interpretation depending on The specific facts. I appreciate the time and effort posters make to clarify such strange instances where the rules provide answers and guidance how a proper ruling should be made to make the game as fair as possible.

by jjjou812 m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59229631#post59229631)

I come to these threads specifically to learn what the rules are and how some of them are still subject to interpretation depending on The specific facts. I appreciate the time and effort posters make to clarify such strange instances where the rules provide answers and guidance how a proper ruling should be made to make the game as fair as possible.

Thanks. We do try

by OmahaDonk m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59229222#post59229222)

Running it twice reduces variance and keeps fish in the game longer. The main reason to run it once is to prevent people from calling you light.

It's still better to see what the hands are before deciding to run it more than once. What if someone has a super combo draw compared with being dominated? With the combo draw it might be good to run it 4 times so that some of their outs are wasted on the river (they have already hit the turn but then waste a future out by hitting again on the river).

More information is usually better

It's never good to run it 4 times.

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59230753#post59230753)

It's still better to see what the hands are before deciding to run it more than once. What if someone has a super combo draw compared with being dominated? With the combo draw it might be good to run it 4 times so that some of their outs are wasted on the river (they have already hit the turn but then waste a future out by hitting again on the river). More information is usua... See full post

The EV of running it once and running it 4 times is identical. What about the opposite where they miss the turn but one of your outs is wasted on the river?

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59230753#post59230753)

It's still better to see what the hands are before deciding to run it more than once. What if someone has a super combo draw compared with being dominated? With the combo draw it might be good to run it 4 times so that some of their outs are wasted on the river (they have already hit the turn but then waste a future out by hitting again on the river). More information is usua... See full post

Again your intuition fails and math proves that EV is unaffected. For simplicity I only worked it out for running it twice, but the “wasted outs” still factor in. Suppose you have 15 outs and you run the turn and river twice. There are three cases for run 1: zero outs, one out or two outs hit. The probability of zero is 29/4428/43 or 0.4292. For one out it’s 215/4429/43 or 0.4598. For two it is 15/4414/43 or 0.1110 Now we consider each in turn - for zero outs the chance of zero again on run 2 is 27/4226/41 or 0.4077. Since this is the only case we lose both runouts we can calculate our probability directly of losing 0.49220.4077 =0.1750. We chop in this case with either one or two outs on run 2, so that has probability 1-0.4077=0.5913, contributing 0.59130.4292=0.2542 to our chop probability (this ain’t the final value, since more chops are to come) Next we consider one out on run 1. If we hit zero on run 2 we chop, otherwise we scoop. We got zero with probability 28/4227/41 or 0.4390. This contributes 0.2019 to our chop probability. Since our chop+lose+scoop probabilities must add to 1, I’ll skip the rest of this case. We calculate chop and already know lose probability so we don’t have to calculate scoop. Finally, in similar manner we consider two outs on run 1 and zero on run 2. The probability of zero on run 2 in this case is 29/4228/41 or 0.4715. This contributes 0.47150.1110 or 0.0523 to our chop probability. We get a total of 0.5084 for our chop probability when we add all three cases. Our loss probability was 0.1750 so our scoop probability is 0.3166. Our expected share of the pot is half the chop plus the scoop or 0.5708. Suppose we ran in once. We expect to lose with probability 29/44*28/43 or 0.4292. We therefore win with probability 0.5708, giving us exactly the same expected share of the pot as with RIT.

by Didace m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59230766#post59230766)

It's never good to run it 4 times.

How can you say never? It must be good for someone

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59231020#post59231020)

How can you say never? It must be good for someone

It’s good if you want to reduce variance. It’s absolutely neutral if you want to maximize your winnings

by stremba70 m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59231049#post59231049)

It’s absolutely neutral if you want to maximize your winnings

On a per hand basis, yes.

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59230753#post59230753)

It's still better to see what the hands are before deciding to run it more than once. What if someone has a super combo draw compared with being dominated? With the combo draw it might be good to run it 4 times so that some of their outs are wasted on the river (they have already hit the turn but then waste a future out by hitting again on the river). More information is usua... See full post

The extra information provides nothing. The EV is the same regardless.

by Fore m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59232205#post59232205)

The extra information provides nothing. The EV is the same regardless.

had one last night, I had a set on the turn and was all in verses open ender. We flipped them on the turn and I decided to run it twice given the amount of outs he had (8). Thinking was if he hits it the first time at least that will be one less for the 2nd time. (remember I don't have to hit to win, all the bricks are on my team). I ended up holding both times.

How does all of that change the EV?

by Didace m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59237877#post59237877)

How does all of that change the EV?

Makes it more likely I won't lose my whole stack

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59230750#post59230750)

Thanks. We do try

You just prove why poker isn’t dead. Morons who think they are always right and don’t understand the math will always be the donators in this game.

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59237873#post59237873)

by Fore m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59232205#post59232205)

The extra information provides nothing. The EV is the same regardless.

had one last night, I had a set on the turn and was all in verses open ender. We flipped them on the turn and I decided to run it twice given the amount of outs he had (8). Thinking was if he hits it the first time at least that will be one less for the 2nd time. (remember I don't have to hit to win, al... See full post

Just gonna reiterate the first paragraph of my first post in this thread: If you only like to run it twice if you’ve seen both hole cards then say “I prefer to see all hole cards before deciding if I want to run it twice, otherwise I’d rather just run it once, please and thank you.” Clear is kind.

It's none of our business how many times you like to run it or for what reason. (It's in our vested interest that as many of your decisions at a poker table are as irrational and incongruent with mathematical principles as possible.) JUST CLEARLY COMMUNICATE WHAT YOU WANT ...and from there, it's none of your business what their preference is and for what reason. And please for the love of god don't use your valued and important power as dealer to incorrectly enforce (or imply that you're enforcing) a rule that doesn't exist. No HH will ever throw into question anything I'm saying as it's all beside the point.

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59237878#post59237878)

Makes it more likely I won't lose my whole stack

Is that stack the last money you have to play poker with? If not, it’s irrelevant to your EV whether you lose your stack more or less often. You are focusing on losing your stack, but running it twice also makes it less likely that you will double up too. Hence the lower risk of total loss is counterbalances by the lower chance of a big win. You lowered your variance - fewer big wins and big losses, but you did nothing for your long term win rate. Consider a game (admittedly a dumb one for your opponent) - you flip a coin. If it comes up heads, you win $300 from your opponent. If it comes up tails you lose $200. On any given flip, though, your opponent offers to instead just give you $50. Should you flip or take the $50? Assume that you’re going to play it over 10000 times. Now, same scenario, except he only offers to pay $30 to skip the coin toss. Flip or not? What if he offers $70?

by jjjou812 m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59237929#post59237929)

You just prove why poker isn’t dead. Morons who think they are always right and don’t understand the math will always be the donators in this game.

Not me. I make sure I have a made hand or outs before we're flipping them.

[QUOTE=stremba70;59238515]Is that stack the last money you have to play poker with? If not, it’s irrelevant to your EV whether you lose your stack more or less often. You are focusing on losing your stack, but running it twice also makes it less likely that you will double up too. Hence the lower risk of total loss is counterbalances by the lower chance of a big win. You lowered your variance - fewer big wins and big losses, but you did nothing for your long term win rate. thank you, the penny has dropped. But is there no milage in seeing what your up against before deciding?

not if you care about EV or long term win rate. RIO or RIT or RI 100 times, it doesn't change your EV at all. So how would seeing your opponents cards change that? maybe if you care about variance or image or certain other meta-game factors like that. But in those cases you can decide what to do most of the time without seeing your opponents cards at all as well. If you want larger stacks, RIO always so there are fewer chops and more rebuys. If you want a tougher image and people to call you light less often, RIO so that they know they are twice as likely to have to rebuy if behind. It doesn't matter what you have and what they have on any given hand, you're always going to be doing the same thing to reinforce the image you want to portray at that given time.

But is there no milage in seeing what your up against before deciding?

That is correct. It literally does not matter. Your EV will be the same either way. Running it multiple times reduces variance, but does not change the average result at all. If you would rather have smaller losses AND smaller wins, you are probably playing under-rolled, but it's fine. Thing is, it doesn't matter what you are up against, the math doesn't change. Therefore, trying to have a "strategy" for when to run it once or twice is useless. Basically, if you want to scare your Vs, never RIT. If you want your Vs to be more willing to call because your bets are value heavy, always RIT. Or, what dinesh said, but worded slightly differently.

dinesh, IMO the thread has long run its course.

I just don't believe there isn't an advantage to knowing what your facing or how many outs YOU have before making a decision to run it 1-4 times (or once or twice commonly) So is it a case of too much information gives you an impossible decision? boggles the mind

Yet another concept you cannot comprehend. At least you started this new discussion by claiming your ignorance up front,

Yeah it's one thing to ask for and and be open to an explanation of the math, but here we have someone who is outright rejecting it (on 2+2 of all places). There are plenty of places on the internet that cater to math and science denialists.

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59240224#post59240224)

I just don't believe there isn't an advantage to knowing what your facing or how many outs YOU have before making a decision to run it 1-4 times (or once or twice commonly) So is it a case of too much information gives you an impossible decision? boggles the mind

You can believe what you want. You can’t believe what you want and claim you are correct after repeatedly being shown you are not. It is not an impossible decision. It is not too much information. The extra data doe#nt provide extra information of any meaning. It changes nothing. But please keep believing what you want.

by Fore m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59240420#post59240420)

You can believe what you want. You can’t believe what you want and claim you are correct after repeatedly being shown you are not. It is not an impossible decision. It is not too much information. The extra data doe#nt provide extra information of any meaning. It changes nothing. But please keep believing what you want.

There must be other considerations apart from E.V. What about just feeling it or what would piss off your opponent the most? or if you think you'd be happy to get half your money back and have a ton of outs (you have to see the cards to know you have a ton of outs). Maybe if i'm dominated i'd rather just run it once and go for the maximum because there's no way in hell i'll hit my kicker twice (so running once is best). But if have loads of outs maybe 3 times is best. All sorts of things to consider than just the maths - anyone think of that?

This is why poker is great.

by jjjou812 m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59237929#post59237929)

You just prove why poker isn’t dead. Morons who think they are always right and don’t understand the math will always be the donators in this game.

Deja vu.

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59241537#post59241537)

There must be other considerations apart from E.V. What about just feeling it or what would piss off your opponent the most? or if you think you'd be happy to get half your money back and have a ton of outs (you have to see the cards to know you have a ton of outs). Maybe if i'm dominated i'd rather just run it once and go for the maximum because there's no way in h... See full post

The other consideration is variance, as has been already pointed out. Run it twice (or more) if you want to reduce variance. Paradoxically, it seems that fish generally want to run it twice and reduce variance. This really is contrary to what is best for the fish. Fish will inevitably lose money to good players over the long term,. But they can hope to have some winning sessions along the way. That’s what keeps them playing. Higher variance would increase the probability of a winning session, so that would make the dish happier. It’s really no different than blackjack, craps, slots, etc. Nobody wins long term at those games. The best that anyone hopes for is a short term win made more probable by variance. The better player should not care much (so long as he’s properly bankrolled) and should generally cater to what the fish wants to keep him happy and playing.

by stremba70 m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59241582#post59241582)

The other consideration is variance, as has been already pointed out. Run it twice (or more) if you want to reduce variance. Paradoxically, it seems that fish generally want to run it twice and reduce variance. This really is contrary to what is best for the fish. Fish will inevitably lose money to good players over the long term,. But they can hope to have some winning session... See full post

Thanks. The OP understands better now.

by Didace m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59241558#post59241558)

This is why poker is great.

Why? It doesn't alter the play before the decision of how many times. And if anyone takes the huff then the default is that it's run only once. this run it more than once faf started with poker on TV. If you watch some of the early stuff even the dealers had to be told how to do it.

Further proof you don’t know what you don’t know.

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59242346#post59242346)

Why? It doesn't alter the play before the decision of how many times. And if anyone takes the huff then the default is that it's run only once. this run it more than once faf started with poker on TV. If you watch some of the early stuff even the dealers had to be told how to do it.

IYKYK Didace is spot on.

by Fore m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59242983#post59242983)

IYKYK Didace is spot on.

Thank you

by Fore m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59085445#post59085445)

Assume we are at the river. Player behind has 1 out. We know 8 cards, 2+2+4 on board, so 44 unknown. Run it once. Behind wins 1 and loses 43 times.RIT. Now first board behind wins 1 of 43 times but if he wins he only gets 50%. For second board, his chances are 1 win and 42 losses but only if he lost first board. So again 1 chance to win, 42 chance to lose, plus 1 chance he has ... See full post

Apologies in advance if this has been questioned/answered further down the thread. My brain is such that I will not remember to raise the question should I decide to peruse much further. Why in your equations have you not made account for the cards discarded by other players which could be as many as 12 in a table of 8? It may be just as simple as you using basic maths to illustrate your point and taking licence from but you have framed this as a right or wrong answer. The answer may or may not support your conclusion, but I am genuinely interested eitherwise. I'm quietly hoping a math fanatic can provide me with a concrete answer that I have seen long dismissed many times. P.S. To stay on topic, I sometimes ask the other player if they would like to play face up before the cards because I prefer the cards to tell me if I took a bad beat, rather than a smug fish rolling his cards over after the fact thinking he played well.

by OneCardKali m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59251411#post59251411)

Apologies in advance if this has been questioned/answered further down the thread. My brain is such that I will not remember to raise the question should I decide to peruse much further.Why in your equations have you not made account for the cards discarded by other players which could be as many as 12 in a table of 8?It may be just as simple as you using basic maths to illustr... See full post

Or discarded burn cards for that matter.

What are the odds of 0, 1, 2, 3, ... of your outs being in the muck and how does that change the odds of you winning? Add that up and how does it differ form using just the number of unknown cards? The answer is -- it's the same.

by OneCardKali m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59251436#post59251436)

Or discarded burn cards for that matter.

I’ll try it more mathematically, but Didsce is right - we ignore discards because they are irrelevant. Let’s start by making a concrete, but simplified problem. Player A has TT. Player B has 88. Flop is T83r and we want to know what the probability of the turn being an 8 is. Assume heads up but with normal burn cards. Now, the turn being an 8 is the conjunction of three events - burn card 1 is not an 8, burn card 2 is not an 8, and turn card is an 8. Since we know 7 cards, there are 45 remaining. The probability that burn card 1 is not an 8 is 44/45. Given that burn 1 is not an 8, we have 44 cards left, so burn 2 is not an 8 with probability 43/44. Given both burns aren’t an 8, we have 43 cards left, and the turn is an 8 with probability 1/43. Our probability of the turn being an 8 is therefore 44/45 x 43/44 x 1/43, but the common factors of 44 and 43 in the numerators and denominators cancel, leaving the value of 1/45 for our probability - exactly what we get by ignoring the burns. Adding a player or players doesn’t change this; it just adds more fractions to our calculation. With one player getting two cards the calculation would be 44/45 x 43/44 x 42/43 x 41/42 x 1/41 which is still 1/45. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

by Didace m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59251492#post59251492)

What are the odds of 0, 1, 2, 3, ... of your outs being in the muck and how does that change the odds of you winning? Add that up and how does it differ form using just the number of unknown cards? The answer is -- it's the same.

You didn't answer the question but to put it in other terms..... How does the Math that was ascribed work if the two outs you are depending on for a win have been mucked? It's certainly not the same is it.

by stremba70 m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59251495#post59251495)

I’ll try it more mathematically, but Didsce is right - we ignore discards because they are irrelevant.

How can they be irrelevant if you are depending on them for a win? Apologies, I love Math but you seem to be defending it on any basis available.

by OneCardKali m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59251613#post59251613)

How can they be irrelevant if you are depending on them for a win?

Because the outs are equally likely to be anywhere. What if all the outs are on the bottom of the deck? That's the same as them being in the muck. Or maybe on the river you have one out but it is the third card in the deck? The point is until you know where they are you don't know where they are.

Quite simply - You don't know what the cards are, so why would they factor into the odds?They are unknown, just like the remaining cards in the stub. In the end, it all evens out. If other players folded most of your outs, your odds are hitting are lower. But if very few to none of your outs are folded, your odds have now increased. It evens out and is therefore irrelevant.

by Didace m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59251619#post59251619)

Because the outs are equally likely to be anywhere. What if all the outs are on the bottom of the deck? That's the same as them being in the muck. Or maybe on the river you have one out but it is the third card in the deck? The point is until you know where they are you don't know where they are.

OK and Thank-You. Please disregard the question that I asked, I was hoping for a more sophisticated explanation from the guy I quoted, but there you go. I'm asking the question of how the Math works if your outs are in the muck already and the obvious answer is they do not. Math does not work when there an element of incomplete information (obviously) and that is what I was looking for an eloquent or scientific answer to. I.E. Math is great at calculating statistical probabilities which may help you rationalise long term profit, but it does not help in the slightest, in the moment, when your outs are simply not there and you are bedrock still counting on the numbers.

by Rawlz517 m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59251625#post59251625)

Quite simply - You don't know what the cards are, so why would they factor into the odds?They are unknown, just like the remaining cards in the stub. In the end, it all evens out. If other players folded most of your outs, your odds are hitting are lower. But if very few to none of your outs are folded, your odds have now increased. It evens out and is therefore irrelevant.

Quite simply - You don't know what the cards are , so they cannot be factored into the odds. It may or may not even out in the long term, but that was not the question I asked. You use the word irrelevant assuming that over the long term the statistics will ring true. Apologies, but that is simply not the case.

Starting to feel like the odds that this is just OP on an alt account is about 108%

Okay, here's another way to look at it. Let's say it's the turn card we're interested in. Dealer takes the cards out of the shuffler and cuts the deck. At this point, the turn card has been determined. Dealer deals two cards each to eight players. That's 16 cards. Dealer burns a card and deals the flop. That's four more cards, 20 total. Dealer burns a card, that's 21 so far. The next card will be the turn card. All we're interested in is the likelihood of that 22nd card being what we want it to be. The only information we have is the cards we've seen. It doesn't matter how the cards are distributed in this particular deck; unseen cards are unseen cards. All we care about is that 22nd card.

by OneCardKali m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59251643#post59251643)

Quite simply - You don't know what the cards are , so they cannot be factored into the odds. It may or may not even out in the long term, but that was not the question I asked. You use the word irrelevant assuming that over the long term the statistics will ring true. Apologies, but that is simply not the case.

You are essentially asking about conditional probability. The probability of A is different than the probably of A given B. In this case, we are all describing your outs as the probability of A, and you're asking why we don't incorporate B. The reason is that we don't have any event B to include. We don't know what cards are in the stub, or discards, or other hands. If we did, then (and only then, and always then) we would instead have to calculate the probability of A given B to determine the probability of winning. Say, for example, if one player says "oh, I folded the last 8" or if a spade gets exposed by a player who is folding while you are on the spade draw. Now you would have a different probability to calculate, A given B. Absent that knowledge, though, all distributions of the unknown cards are equally probable, and all you can calculate is the probability of A. Another related example: in a normal poker game, again, we are all just calculating the probability of A. So, say, every time you're on a flush draw you know you have 9 outs, and the probability of every player on every flush draw is exactly the same. But on televised poker, they know what all the players cards were, they show them as every player looks at their cards and folds. Now there is additional information available about how many of the suit you are drawing to got folded. When they show the probabilities on screen, they are now not always identical, the percentages will vary based on what cards are known to be folded and therefore cannot be in the stub still to possibly come out on turn or river. This is conditional probability.

by Rawlz517 m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59251656#post59251656)

Starting to feel like the odds that this is just OP on an alt account is about 108%

108% Lol. That explains why you couldn't answer my question with any authority.

by dinesh m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59251731#post59251731)

You are essentially asking about conditional probability.The probability of A is different than the probably of A given B.In this case, we are all describing your outs as the probability of A, and you're asking why we don't incorporate B. The reason is that we don't have any event B to include. We don't know what cards are in the stub, or discards, or other hands. If we did,... See full post

Hallelujah. Thank you Dinesh. Exactly what I was looking for, someone who is able to think a little outside their bounds. I've now got something interesting to read up on. BTW, I may be a newbie on the forum, but I'm certainly not an imposter.

by OneCardKali m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59251631#post59251631)

OK and Thank-You. Please disregard the question that I asked, I was hoping for a more sophisticated explanation from the guy I quoted, but there you go.I'm asking the question of how the Math works if your outs are in the muck already and the obvious answer is they do not. Math does not work when there an element of incomplete information (obviously) and that is what I was look... See full post

Math is all we have when we have incomplete information. Based on what information we have, the probability of a turn card being our one out is exactly 1/45. That doesn’t change, as my calculation in the prior post demonstrated, if we account for the probability of discards being our out or if we ignore that probability. Math certainly can’t tell us whether we will hit our out or not on any given run out; we shouldn’t expect it to. It can’t tell you what number will come up on the next roulette wheel spin or what the dice will be on the next throw at the craps table either. It can only tell you how likely any particular outcome is. Intuitive ideas surrounding probability are often misleading. That’s because we must be extremely careful in how we define our problem. In this particular case, do we know anything about the mucked cards or not? Typically, no we do not. Hence the 1/45 probability is correct, even though the “real” probability (if we did know all the information) might be zero. But we can also calculate how likely it is that one of the mucked cards is our out and factor that into our decision making - again there’s no math that can tell us whether our out was mucked or not; it only can give us a probability. That’s exactly what I did in my prior post. I calculated the probability that our card was NOT mucked. Given that our card was not mucked, there is a different probability that we hit our out on the turn - we know we are more likely to hit the turn if our out was not mucked. To get the unconditional probability that we hit our out, we multiply this conditional one by the probability that our card was not mucked. My post demonstrated that we don’t actually have to go through all this — our unconditional probability is exactly what it would be if we only knew the cards we see and none were mucked. That’s why I said the mucked cards are irrelevant. If we had more information (for example someone exposed our out when he folded his hand), that would certainly change our thinking. If we knew someone mucked our card, then we would know we have zero probability of hitting our out on the turn. Nobody is disputing that. But typically we don’t have that information. Information is critical in probability calculations. That’s why the “Monty Hall” problem still trips people up. If you aren’t familiar, the show Lets Make a Deal would allow contestants to choose one of three doors. There was a big prize (like a car) behind one and worthless items (goats) behind the other two. After picking a door, Monty would open one of the doors the contestant didn’t pick and show a goat. He then asked if the contestant wanted to change doors. Should the contestant switch? Intuitively, it seems like showing a goat hasn’t changed anything - you had a 1/3 chance of winning, you knew he’d show a goat, so you still have a 1/3 chance of winning. But that is not actually true. Monty has given you information that changes your probability calculations. Had he asked “Do you want to switch?” BEFORE showing a goat, intuition is right; nothing has changed. He eliminated one wrong door for you though. That means you should switch. The probability that you have the car behind your door is 1/3, but the probability that it is behind the other unopened door is now 2/3 - you are twice as likely to win if you switch. There is actually an easy way to see this, but people don’t usually think about it this way. If my original choice was right, and I switch then I lose. If my original choice was wrong, and I switch then I win. We should be able to agree that the original choice was right with probability 1/3, so the original choice must be wrong with probability 2/3. Anyway, TL;DR version - trust the math, not your intuition.

by stremba70 m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59251937#post59251937)

Math is all we have when we have incomplete information. Based on what information we have, the probability of a turn card being our one out is exactly 1/45. That doesnÂ’t change, as my calculation in the prior post demonstrated, if we account for the probability of discards being our out or if we ignore that probability. Math certainly canÂ’t tell us whether we will hit our ou... See full post

I'm aware of the problem and seen the film 21 but Thank-you. I'm going to apologise again and say that your prior post just come across as very black and white and frankly dismissive and condescending. You doubled down on the word Irrelevant and now seem to be tripling down on it just to further re-enforce your position. You could not bring yourself to say, simply, the Math does not cover what we don't know which is understandable. "Anyway, TL;DR version - trust the math, not your intuition" This proves my point like yours is the only and absolute truth. I Get it, you are a Math guy, I am more of a Psychology guy. There is a world of grey that joins black to white. I trust the Math as far as it is factual and relevant to the moment I am facing. Other than that, it's intuition for me all the way and I have very good intuition which has served me well in the corporate and poker world.

by OneCardKali m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59251963#post59251963)

I'm aware of the problem and seen the film 21 but Thank-you.I'm going to apologise again and say that your prior post just come across as very black and white and frankly dismissive and condescending. You doubled down on the word Irrelevant and now seem to be tripling down on it just to further re-enforce your position. You could not bring yourself to say, simply, the Math does... See full post

Intuition has its place, but what we are discussing IS a math problem. There is no room for intuition and there is ONE correct answer. Sorry if that seems dismissive, but there is a single correct answer to “What is the probability that the turn card will be an 8 given that we know three 8s have already been dealt?” The correct answer is 1/45. If intuition leads to another answer, r then that is like intuition telling you that 2+2 is actually 5. This is a well-defined math problem with a correct answer. In other situations I don’t doubt that your intuition might serve you well, but solving well-defined math problems calls for mathematics, not intuition

by stremba70 m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59251971#post59251971)

Intuition has its place, but what we are discussing IS a math problem. There is no room for intuition and there is ONE correct answer. Sorry if that seems dismissive, but there is a single correct answer to “What is the probability that the turn card will be an 8 given that we know three 8s have already been dealt?” The correct answer is 1/45. If intuition leads to another answ... See full post

Fair enough. I'm guessing that you don't set-mine that often unless you get in cheap against a big stack?

by OneCardKali m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59252159#post59252159)

Fair enough. I'm guessing that you don't set-mine that often unless you get in cheap against a big stack?

there's math for this!

by Didace m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59252192#post59252192)

there's math for this!

I'm sure there is 😃 Sorry I was being facetious, my humour doesn't come over too well on the net.

by OneCardKali m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59251794#post59251794)

but I'm certainly not an imposter.

No! No way, we would never say that about you. The imposter label applies more to someone who claims to love math while getting personally offended by it.

by albedoa m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59252313#post59252313)

No! No way, we would never say that about you. The imposter label applies more to someone who claims to love math while getting personally offended by it.

Now that is funny, I deserved that 😃 but then, you know little about me so here are some snippets -

• Firstly and foremostly, it takes a LOT to offend me and I wasn't offended in the slightest. I was a bit shocked about how black and white some of the advice was and how much basic Math was being spelled out for me, with examples to boot, but I can only assume that is the way things are done around here which is something I have to get used to.
• I am British/Asian, born in the late 60's and grew up in London where I have been (pretty much) ever since.
• My first love was music, I pretend to play a lot of instruments but master none. I have a massive vinyl collection and listen to pretty much every kind, every day. If I had to list my musical gods, they would likely be ABBA, Kraftwerk, Miles Davis, Hendrix with Ustad Vilayat Khan towering over all of them.
• I am a Catholic and went to an early school which was run by nuns (hence the never ending use of the word sorry)
• I hate being told what to do.
• I was a Math whiz from the age of about 10 passing English 'O' level when I was 12 (usually 16) and played a lot of Chess. It runs through my family with an Uncle who is a Math professor and a Mum who taught advanced Economics. Another Uncle introduced me to Poker at about the age of 14 and I have played regularly ever since.
• I was a computer Geek - ZX80/1, Vic20, Amiga and now have a dual loop watercooled i7 with which I hit top 3 in a U.K. overclocking competition, which now gathers dust.
• My poker gods are Dolly, Farha, Hellmuth, Coren and more recently Keating. I believe Hellmuth deserves far more credit than is due to him and the brattishness is just a cover. I've watched poker obsessively since Poker after Dark, am tiring of the WSOP (although I would love to play it one day but do not have the patience for tournaments) and am starting to re-think the value of my PokerGo sub. I spend far too much time in casinos playing live 1/3 to 5/10 mixed with bigger private games every week in London and across a lot of europe and the med.
• I continued study until 18 (English 'A' level) in Math, Statistics, Biology and IT.
• At 18, I found other pleasures more desirable and ditched studying for a degree in favour of going out and earning money.
• At 22 I met the love of my life who I am still fortunately married to. We married in Caesars Palace.
• Worked in I.T. for about 7 years reaching head of technical support (Vax/VMS Mainframe) before heading for the city for the REAL money lol. I then spent the next 3 years bouncing around banks as a Technology consultant before settling at JPM where I worked for around 15 years as a Risk consultant.
• At the age of around 40 I retired, becoming bald, fattened and wishing I had been a musician. Years of 14 hour days with 6 voicemails waiting for me at 7am had killed my mind and body but had bought me a lovely river facing house in central London and a Porsche.
• I have been banned from 2 forums so far because apparently I'm a troll. I'm working on being a better person every day.
• Now aged 57, I play a lot of Piano, do a lot of cooking and gardening. I live in an out of city suburb which is very green in which I can enjoy my Ferrari without fear of a 20Mph camera. We have 4 cats.
• I Love poker.

As of now, I am pretty certain the 108% was set well too low by Rawlz. A level in math and STATS but doesn't understand the simple math presented around knowns and unknowns. 15 years of Risk work but doesn't instinctively understand incomplete information. Loves to say he gets "it" and then repeatedly shows he really doesn't but loves to dig in. Also never seems to hear the Swooooosh of it going right over his head. Either OP or a world class troll.

Ok, allow me to tackle these one by one as it's getting quite complex for my tiny mind and this is suddenly starting to feel like a visit to the Psychiatrist. by Fore m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59252597#post59252597)

As of now, I am pretty certain the 108% was set well too low by Rawlz.

Is there some significance to the number 108 that I'm missing? Not entirely sure that you are joking (I prefer looking at people and using my instinct) but I can assure you that I am 100% not the OP, but make of me what you will. by Fore m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59252597#post59252597)

A level in math and STATS but doesn't understand the simple math presented around knowns and unknowns.

Ah but I didn't say I attained the qualifications did I. Actually the only 'A' Level I left with was Computer Science because it was the first boy/girl school that I had ever attended and had other things on my mind. Of course I bloody well understand the Math 😃 but was (a) Looking for a Math head to admit that in certain circumstances Math is useless but more importantly (b) An academic to give me some high level topic that I can read up on. I did say I am working on my troll like characteristics. by Fore m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59252597#post59252597)

15 years of Risk work but doesn't instinctively understand incomplete information.

Once again, make of me what you will. I've been told that I am full of contradictions many times before. My genetics are mixed British/Indian/French/Jewish/Irish and Scottish so that might explain it. by Fore m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59252597#post59252597)

Loves to say he gets "it" and then repeatedly shows he really doesn't but loves to dig in.

If I'm in a certain mood, I always love to dig in and I make no excuses. One of my favourite things about poker is it affords me the opportunity of absolutely destroying those who underestimate me. Sadistic for sure, but unpicking someone's ego when faced with an aged grey man across the table is a secret pleasure and I make no bones about it. When I said 'I Get it' earlier, I was referring only to the seemingly obvious that I was conversing with a hardened Math guy who may have had some trouble with the chaos that I can sometimes bring into conversation. I can only assume that you didn't get that? and I only said 'I Get it' once so how to you can come to the conclusion that I 'Love' it is way beyond me. by Fore m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59252597#post59252597)

Also never seems to hear the Swooooosh of it going right over his head.

That's quite true 😃 and again, something I have been told many times. On a previous forum, someone made a joke about a parrot that flew over my head or some such bs because I'd missed something simple. I had to look it up and giggled to myself. by Fore m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59252597#post59252597)

Either OP or a world class troll.

That's pretty black and white even if I do say so myself, there is a place in between those two extremes but as per the Monty Hall problem, only you can decide. I'm here to learn and that's the truth Ruth.

OP struck me as a 25-30 year old know it all which does not compute with the information provided by our new arrogant poster. That being said, I would be willing to pay for an ancestry.com test to prove they share genetics.

by jjjou812 m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59252749#post59252749)

OP struck me as a 25-30 year old know it all which does not compute with the information provided by our new arrogant poster. That being said, I would be willing to pay for an ancestry.com test to prove they share genetics.

There are a lot of 'We' and 'Our' references in the posts that I have seen recently, I have to say that if this is some indication of a club that I have to genuflect to be part of then (a) I'm really not interested in joining and (b) Your dissatisfaction with my free thinking honesty will be short lived because if I keep facing these snipes, it won't be long before I get banned. Please don't do me the discredit of labelling me as someone who is now shouting victim, I'm far too long in the tooth to be playing those cards and I've never hit a 'Report Post' button in my life. Bluntly put, I'm finding the atmosphere quite un-friendly in this place, within just the last page I have seen far too much accusatory behaviour for my liking. What the **** you actually know about me (aside from the snippets I have provided) that gives you the latitude to formulate such judgements is way beyond me.

by OneCardKali m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59252651#post59252651)

Looking for a Math head to admit that in certain circumstances Math is useless.

That's not going to happen because it isn't true. You can adjust the math with your reads, but in order to do that you need to have the basics down first. I'd be interested in finding out what circumstances you think math is useless.

by OneCardKali m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59252853#post59252853)

There are a lot of 'We' and 'Our' references in the posts that I have seen recently, I have to say that if this is some indication of a club that I have to genuflect to be part of then (a) I'm really not interested in joining and (b) Your dissatisfaction with my free thinking honesty will be short lived because if I keep facing these snipes, it won't be long before I get banned... See full post

Maybe try a better introduction to the forum than your “you are all too stupid to explain a simple math mistake I am making and unable to figure out after 20 plus years of playing poker” approach. Just a thought.

by jjjou812 m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59252981#post59252981)

Maybe try a better introduction to the forum than your “you are all too stupid to explain a simple math mistake I am making and unable to figure out after 20 plus years of playing poker” approach. Just a thought.

Maybe try another thought. It might actually be the one that makes you understand that it's you who has made the mistake. More poor judgement.

^^^ What a clown.

Not the I’m rubber, you are glue retort!

by Rawlz517 m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59251656#post59251656)

Starting to feel like the odds that this is just OP on an alt account is about 108%

Not me, but glad there's someone who's thought differently about the problem. Cards face up before running it changes your decision is the jist of it.

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59255824#post59255824)

Not me, but glad there's someone who's thought differently about the problem. Cards face up before running it changes your decision is the jist of it.

No one has said that showing cards can’t influence your decision. For some it definitely will, as you have proven. What has been repeatedly and accurately been said, is that seeing the cards and then deciding how many times to run it does not change the EV. It only reduces variance. Iow, it reduces the chance for max pain but also reduces the chance for max gain.

by Fore m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59085445#post59085445)

Assume we are at the river. Player behind has 1 out. We know 8 cards, 2+2+4 on board, so 44 unknown. Run it once. Behind wins 1 and loses 43 times.RIT. Now first board behind wins 1 of 43 times but if he wins he only gets 50%. For second board, his chances are 1 win and 42 losses but only if he lost first board. So again 1 chance to win, 42 chance to lose, plus 1 chance he has ... See full post

yes but this loses ground when you run it 10,000 times then you only win 1/10k instead of 1/44

by Fore m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59255892#post59255892)

No one has said that showing cards can’t influence your decision. For some it definitely will, as you have proven. What has been repeatedly and accurately been said, is that seeing the cards and then deciding how many times to run it does not change the EV. It only reduces variance. Iow, it reduces the chance for max pain but also reduces the chance for max gain.

oh ok. well i still think it's nice to see what your up against, combo draw or a 3 outer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drqwNy0j... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drqwNy0jauE) If you watch these guys they always flip them over when running it, even when doing it once. I guess their hands won't remain secret due to being on tv, but they don't hide them in the actual game either. So how come THEY have caught my memo and lower stakes don't? :-)

Mods, for the sake of everybody's brain cells, TTHRIC.

Mod: I very rarely lock threads for TTHRIC reasons. Threads run their course when people stop posting in them.

Well it was a good point about the high stakes guys showing their cards... and everyone on here apparently doesn't!

by dinesh m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59261257#post59261257)

Mod: I very rarely lock threads for TTHRIC reasons. Threads run their course when people stop posting in them.

Nothing to see anyway, the cards are face down

Pros still doing it. live on the tv games. They seem to agree with me

Mod: I wasn’t planning to close the thread, but I will if it’s just one poster responding to themselves repeatedly.

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59270041#post59270041)

Pros still doing it. live on the tv games. They seem to agree with me

I agree👍🏻

Best close it. keep the thread face down

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59260754#post59260754)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drqwNy0j... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drqwNy0jauE) If you watch these guys they always flip them over when running it, even when doing it once. I guess their hands won't remain secret due to being on tv, but they don't hide them in the actual game either. So how come THEY have caught my memo and lower stakes don't? :-)

Nevermind that I already answered your question on what’s different between televised poker with $400k buy ins and your pub game back on page one. This video doesn’t even validate what you’re saying. It goes call, Antonius tables his cards (go back and read my post to guess why); the rec asks Antonius how many times he wants to run it; Antonius instantly says run it twice without giving the slightest shit what his opponent’s (face down) cards are. At any given time there are at least 5 poker streams going on, so posting one clip of one person of repute demanding to see hole cards in a contentious way before deciding how many times to run it wouldn’t prove your point, but you can’t even do that.

by OneCardKali m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59251631#post59251631)

OK and Thank-You. Please disregard the question that I asked, I was hoping for a more sophisticated explanation from the guy I quoted, but there you go.I'm asking the question of how the Math works if your outs are in the muck already and the obvious answer is they do not. Math does not work when there an element of incomplete information (obviously) and that is what I was look... See full post

There is complete information. You know exactly what card completes your hand, and you know all the possible places where that card can be. It can be in the muck, it can be at the bottom of the deck, it can be in the burn pile, or it could be the next card that’s dealt. Saying “but there’s a situation where it could be physically impossible that it comes out” is already taken into consideration into the probability calculation. That’s just equivalent to all the possible combinations of card positions that don’t end in you winning the hand.

by checkraisdraw m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59274088#post59274088)

There is complete information. You know exactly what card completes your hand, and you know all the possible places where that card can be. It can be in the muck, it can be at the bottom of the deck, it can be in the burn pile, or it could be the next card that’s dealt. Saying “but there’s a situation where it could be physically impossible that it comes out&#... See full post

Complete information to calculate the math yes. But if you're outs are in the muck, where does maths leave you?

by OneCardKali m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59275131#post59275131)

Complete information to calculate the math yes. But if you're outs are in the muck, where does maths leave you?

With exactly the same probability. Look at it this way - suppose you have one out on the river. You know the identity of six cards, your hand plus the four on the board. Suppose your out is the eight of clubs. What is the probability that the eight of clubs will be the river card? Suppose it’s a nine-handed table. Therefore there will be 18 cards dealt, followed by four more on the flop (burn plus 3 flop cards), two more turn cards (burn plus turn), followed by a burn card before the river is dealt. The river card is therefore the 26th card in the original deck. Dealing 25 cards before the river obviously didn’t change the identity of the river card. If we asked the question BEFORE dealing “what is the probability that the 26th card in the deck is the eight of clubs”, surely you would agree that it’s 1/52. Now suppose the dealer shows you six of the cards besides that 26th card, and none are the eight of clubs. You now have a 46 card deck so what is the probability that this card is the right of clubs? Does that probability change if the dealer moves those 25 cards from the top of the deck (including the six exposed ones) go another location before showing you card number 26? Where you are getting confused is with information. The information we have does change our probability calculation. If we need that 8c on the river and someone says “Sorry, I folded the 8 of clubs”, then yes, we know calculate our probability to be zero, not 1/46. But that isn’t the actual situation in question. The 1/46 probability already accounts for the fact that the 8c might be a burn card, a card dealt to another player, or one of the cards remaining in the stub. Which of these is actually the case is irrelevant - none of them are the river card. It makes no difference where our card actually is; the calculation is whether it’s the river card or not the river card.

by OneCardKali m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59275131#post59275131)

But if you're outs are in the muck, where does maths leave you?

With the right decision.

by OneCardKali m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59275131#post59275131)

Complete information to calculate the math yes. But if you're outs are in the muck, where does maths leave you?

This is just the same question as asking “if my quad outs are the next card to be dealt, where does the math leave me?” The card being in the muck or the next card to be dealt are in the probability calculation. That’s what makes it a probability calculation.

by OneCardKali m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59275131#post59275131)

Complete information to calculate the math yes. But if you're outs are in the muck, where does maths leave you?

You are not offended by math, you just take it as a deeply personal affront.

You can take as little or as much from my posts, it's your choice and thankfully this is a place where opinions can be freely offered. You can also judge me, pigeonhole me and offer your insights into my psychological make-up as you wish, I'm really not offended by some random posts on an internet forum. All I was trying to inject into the conversation is this - Math is a human construct, developed to try and make sense of the chaotic world that surrounds us. My opinion is, and this is unchanged, that it is folly to rely on only Math because sometimes, just sometimes, it will give you false hope in poker. Math is undeniably a major part of the game, but for me it is only a part of my overall approach.

by OneCardKali m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59275756#post59275756)

You can take as little or as much from my posts, it's your choice and thankfully this is a place where opinions can be freely offered. You can also judge me, pigeonhole me and offer your insights into my psychological make-up as you wish, I'm really not offended by some random posts on an internet forum.All I was trying to inject into the conversation is this - Math is a human ... See full post

I wonder why you think math gives you “false hope”. Math gives you precisely the exact amount of hope you should have in a given situation, and it actually quantifies that “hope”. In the one out case I discussed before, you will hit your out and win — SOMETIMES, but very rarely. More precisely if you played that spot some large number of times, N, you would win something close to N/46 times out N. Math can even do more than this - if you played this spot 46 million times, you would win somewhere close to 1 million times. But how close? Math can give us an idea how much of a range to expect, and it’s probably narrower than you’d think. In this specific case, there is a 99% chance that we would win between 997033 and 1,002,967 times. Sure, math can’t tell you if you will win THIS pot. But neither can your intuition, feel, instinct, or whatever you call it. Math can tell us whether or not we are making a winning play if we know our equity. That is the best we can do regardless of whether we use math or whatever else you think is relevant. Winning poker consists entirely of accepting risks in situations where the reward is sufficient to make the risk profitable and avoiding risks where the reward is insufficient to be favorable. If you can do the first more so than the second, you will win. If not, you won’t. It’s just math. Don’t believe me? Ho to a casino. Do you think they care what number comes up on the roulette wheel or what dice throw a craps player gets? They can’t predict these outcomes any more than we can predict whether you’ll hit your one-outer on the river. They make their money by taking risks at favorable odds and never taking risks at unfavorable ones. We can’t totally duplicate this at the poker table; unlike the casino we will inevitably find ourselves in unfavorable spots. But the idea is the same - winning players will take favorable risks more often than unfavorable ones. It is math that tells us which are which.

by OneCardKali m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59275756#post59275756)

Math is a human construct, developed to try and make sense of the chaotic world that surrounds us.

This is a somewhat metaphysical question I suppose. It is possible that math is human created, or "invented" rather than "discovered". Having said that, of all the things that humans think about across all of space and time, math is probably the one that has the highest chance of being universal across the universe, i.e. of precisely NOT being a human construct. (Physics and physical constants are maybe up there as well.) That is the reason that the Voyager space probe's Golden Record starts with a depiction of numbers and the basics of addition and multiplication and fractions.

by stremba70 m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59275991#post59275991)

I wonder why you think math gives you “false hope”.

I said SOMETIMES which you conveniently chose to ignore in your quote. And you shouldn't wonder, because you actually highlighted and agreed with the reason in the rest of your post. by stremba70 m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59275991#post59275991)

Sure, math canÂ’t tell you if you will win THIS pot. But neither can your intuition, feel, instinct, or whatever you call it.

Absolute nonsense. By the time it gets to the river with all of the variables in play other than Math like Bet sizes, Patterns, Physical gestures, Speech Play, Tanking...etc., my intuition does indeed tell me if I am going to win the pot. Other than when I get trapped by someone and for me, that is very rare.

by dinesh m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59276004#post59276004)

This is a somewhat metaphysical question I suppose.

Of course. by dinesh m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59276004#post59276004)

It is possible that math is human created, or "invented" rather than "discovered".

It is in my view, something that has evolved from human's incessant need to understand through the creation of order. by dinesh m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59276004#post59276004)

Having said that, of all the things that humans think about across all of space and time, math is probably the one that has the highest chance of being universal across the universe, i.e. of precisely NOT being a human construct. (Physics and physical constants are maybe up there as well.)

You are most likely right, however there is always the slim chance that during the 'Evolvement' of the Math we have today, our human interruption sent us along a wrong branch which science has not been able to recognise and continues to build on what we have already deemed fact. by dinesh m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59276004#post59276004)

That is the reason that the Voyager space probe's Golden Record starts with a depiction of numbers and the basics of addition and multiplication and fractions.

Numbers, Addition, Multiplication, Fractions....All human constructs.

Did this evolution of math begin before or after a game was invented with 4 sets of 13 cards with hand rankings with values reflecting their decreasing probabilities?

by OneCardKali m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59276019#post59276019)

By the time it gets to the river with all of the variables in play other than Math like Bet sizes, Patterns, Physical gestures, Speech Play, Tanking...etc.

There's math for that! You do understand that there are many variables that can only have estimates, right?

by jjjou812 m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59276058#post59276058)

Did this evolution of math begin before or after a game was invented with 4 sets of 13 cards with hand rankings with values reflecting their decreasing probabilities?

Disingenuous, but I'll play. Before. You used the word values.

by OneCardKali m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59276019#post59276019)

I said SOMETIMES which you conveniently chose to ignore in your quote. And you shouldn't wonder, because you actually highlighted and agreed with the reason in the rest of your post.Absolute nonsense. By the time it gets to the river with all of the variables in play other than Math like Bet sizes, Patterns, Physical gestures, Speech Play, Tanking...etc., my intuition does inde... See full post

You’re either being obtuse (perhaps intentionally) or the context was unclear. I was alluding specifically to the example of the river one outer. Math can’t tell you if you will hit that out or not, but neither can your feel, intuition or whatever you are calling it. I have no doubt that once all the cards are dealt you can tell whether your opponents are weak or strong, but that wasn’t what we were discussing. Even with that, math can tell us how likely it is that a human will have a strong hand given some input about his range and how the betting action on prior streets went. For most players, this is more significant than any tells you get by the time the river rolls around, and I’d suggest that you probably are incorporating such information into your reads as well. It’s certainly easier to think a villain is weak if he displays certain mannerisms and has check/called the flop, then gone check/check on the turn, followed by him checking to us on the river than it would be to make that read in isolation without considering how the hand played out. Math can lead us to very similar conclusions. Most players will take an aggressive action somewhere along the line with a strong hand. The absence of such actions leads us to assign a rather weak range with high probability, with a fairly low probability of an extremely strong holding that is trapping. Math leads us to the very same place in a spot like that as your intuition - mostly we are winning, with a very small chance that they are trapping. I’d suggest that in general much of what we call “feel” or “intuition” is really just math in disguise. Many times that math is too complex to actually do in real time, but that doesn’t mean that the underlying phenomenon is not mathematical in nature. A baseball fielder (or cricket fielder if you’re not American) doesn’t consciously use math to catch a ball hit in the air. But it is nonetheless true that a robot that had good enough sensors to accurately measure the speed and direction of the ball off the bat, the ambient temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure, wind speed and direction and maybe some other factors I missed could in theory simply calculate the trajectory of the ball and move directly to the correct landing spot. By analogy, even if we can’t do all the math in poker, it doesn’t mean that the math is not there and can’t be used. The solvers indeed play a very good game and could likely beat most human players if they had sufficient processing capability to produce real-time outputs. Such solvers obviously would not rely on intuition or feel, but would solely be mathematical.

by Didace m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59276164#post59276164)

There's math for that! You do understand that there are many variables that can only have estimates, right?

ROFL. Go on then, I'm usually keen to be educated.

by stremba70 m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59276202#post59276202)

YouÂ’re either being obtuse (perhaps intentionally) or the context was unclear. I was alluding specifically to the example of the river one outer. Math canÂ’t tell you if you will hit that out or not, but neither can your feel, intuition or whatever you are calling it. I have no doubt that once all the cards are dealt you can tell whether your opponents are weak or ... See full post

My apologies, I wasn't trying to be obtuse. I skipped an important part of your reply that contained the context. Then I jumped on your first sentence in the 2nd paragraph (without the context) and it triggered me. Thank you for being so persistent. I understand what you are saying, but believe that we fundamentally disagree that intuition differs from a rule based principle such at Math. Despite anything else, how can Math possibly include all of the visual signals we get in a hand that helps us draw a conclusion? I think that the heuristics argument is a simple solution that conveniently results in Math being the prevalent determine factor. My sincere apologies for not reading your full post

by stremba70 m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59276202#post59276202)

I’d suggest that in general much of what we call “feel” or “intuition” is really just math in disguise. Many times that math is too complex to actually do in real time, but that doesn’t mean that the underlying phenomenon is not mathematical in nature. A baseball fielder (or cricket fielder if you’re not American) doesn’t consciously use math to catch a ball hit in the ... See full post

I am surmising that using your line of thinking that we use history and probability within our brains to determine outcome which I can understand, but believe there is something else at play. Following your thinking, we could use that premise to describe the outcome of anything that happens in this world and that's a bitter pill for me to swallow and accept.

by RaiseAnnounced m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59273991#post59273991)

Nevermind that I already answered your question on what's different between televised poker with $400k buy ins and your pub game back on page one.This video doesn't even validate what you're saying. It goes call, Antonius tables his cards (go back and read my post to guess why); the rec asks Antonius how many times he wants to run it; Antonius instantly says run it twice withou... See full post

Guess we'll never figure it out then. Clear as mud

by OneCardKali m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59276019#post59276019)

I said SOMETIMES which you conveniently chose to ignore in your quote. And you shouldn't wonder, because you actually highlighted and agreed with the reason in the rest of your post.

I wonder if there’s a way to calculate the percentage of the time the math gives you a false hope.

by checkraisdraw m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59281989#post59281989)

I wonder if there’s a way to calculate the percentage of the time the math gives you a false hope.

Yes, but it might give you false hope that you could know how often math gives you false hope. There’s probably math that tells you how often you get false hope about the false hope, but we’re getting into infinite regress territory here 😀

Always best to see what yer up against

We have a new rule, implemented by me, and it's a compromise. Now we just show ONE card before deciding how many times to run it. This keeps the maths right with EV but also gives you a decision on how many outs you might be up against. Solved

A half-wit solution.

by backstairs m (https://www.twoplustwo.com/post?postId=59311208#post59311208)

Solved

A solution in search of a problem.

backstairs, good for you that you seem to have the mental resources to devote to completely irrelevant poker questions. I guess you must have all the real poker strategy locked down. Equivalent solutions: 1 Always run once 2 Always run twice 3 run once if the first card you look at is red, twice if black 4 opposite of 3 5 run twice if a National League team won the most recent World Series 6 run twice if the moon is full 7 run twice if Venus is in retrograde Hopefully you get the point - it simply doesn’t matter how you decide - running it once or twice is completely equivalent in terms of win rate