Huge Problem With What You Said In Your Blog

[Vtlaxer09 4]

i posted this in the twitter thread and was hoping you would address it.x-posteed

Daniel... in your blog.... you demonstrate a total and complete lack of understanding for poker. j/s."Now here is what a lot of viewers don't get. Most people on the show run it twice in all in pots. Knowing that, when you do have a drawing hand you can be a bit more aggressive with it since even if you are called, you will usually have a decent chance to chop the pot. It makes aggressive plays with draws easier to make, and allows you to semi-bluff more pots away from an opponent. Essentially it makes semi-bluffing slightly less risky."That is a direct quote from your blog. This is just so flawed. I find it funny that it starts out by saying "now here is what a lot of viewers don't get." haha thats because its wrong?Please look this over again and I'm praying you just slipped up and this is really not how you think. I posted this here so you would see it. also, Im a big fan and you seem like a really cool guy.

[Balloon guy 158]

Barry Greenstein said he never runs it twice BECAUSE he wants people to be afraid to put it in with a draw against him.Which would imply...that if you run it twice, you get more chances to hit your draw....becasue you do it more than once...Or are you saying that since you run it twice, people would be more willing to call your all ins, since they also get to run it twice?Or do you just not like his Canadain accent?

[Vtlaxer09 4]

running it more than once doesnt give you any more equity in the hand than you already had.... daniel seems to be under the impression that the more times you run it... the better your chances of winning at least half the pot or something really flawed like that.

[Balloon guy 158]

running it more than once doesnt give you any more equity in the hand than you already had.... daniel seems to be under the impression that the more times you run it... the better your chances of winning at least half the pot or something really flawed like that.

ohYou want to win money.See I just want to win

[borg000 0]

running it more than once doesnt give you any more equity in the hand than you already had.... daniel seems to be under the impression that the more times you run it... the better your chances of winning at least half the pot or something really flawed like that.

I don't see a problem with what Daniel said, he just worded it in a slightly vague way.Of course DN would know that the equity is the same; when he says it's "slightly less risky" to semi-bluff when you know the other player will run it twice he is obviously referring to the reduced variance.It's the same when Barry says he runs it once to make players fear making these plays against him - the fear is only of the variance, not the immediate or long term profitability of the play.

[nutzbuster 7]

He's washed up obv.

[Balloon guy 158]

I don't see a problem with what Daniel said, he just worded it in a slightly vague way.Of course DN would know that the equity is the same; when he says it's "slightly less risky" to semi-bluff when you know the other player will run it twice he is obviously referring to the reduced variance.It's the same when Barry says he runs it once to make players fear making these plays against him - the fear is only of the variance, not the immediate or long term profitability of the play.

Let's look at the math...We are playing High Stakes Poker on TVSay we have AK with the king of clubs.We raise pre to 5x the BB from UTG+1We get two calls, so we are against AQ, AJ, A10-A2 sooted, pocket 2s-Js, KQ, KJ sooted, or Q10. Maybe J9 and J10. Oh and all sooted connectors except 2 4 which is a weird hand no one plays right.There is a 2.73% chance that we are against QQ or KK or AA, but let's assume that they would reraise us 89.4% of the time, 98.4% if this wasn't TVNow the Flop is J 6 2 with the 6 and 2 clubs. So we are way ahead now, but let's say it's a race and they have 77, so we are 50%Now we shove for 72.7 BBs ( there is 16.5 BBs in pot ) ((which is less than our 5x the pot raise, but it can't be helped because we bought in short))No we didn't go South, MORY RUN THE TAPESNow if you are the fool with 77 you are thinking: "This is a big bet...but I have a pair, so how can I fold" But before you call you think: "Does he run it twice?"You see, by stopping and thinking: Does he run it twice" You are changing the percent of times they will call, thereby reducing the fold equity in the pot that you had ( 16.734% fold equity, or $386)So yea, 77 would make the bad call, and you run it twice with your over cards, straight draw and flush draw. What a fool that Tom Dwan is...

[hblask 1]

I believe he has previously addressed the issue of 'running it twice'. The idea is not that it changes your EV, only your variance. When vast amounts of money are being thrown around and you make your living from that, variance can be brutal.

[irishguy 14]

running it more than once doesnt give you any more equity in the hand than you already had.... daniel seems to be under the impression that the more times you run it... the better your chances of winning at least half the pot or something really flawed like that.

Pushing a flush draw you have 9 outs 4 times if you run it twice to chop worst case scenario, so while your equity to win doesn't go up/your equity to not lose does so it seems to me that that this would make semi bluffing much more optimal/less risky which I think was his point. I don't understand what's flawed about that at all.Running it once pushing a flush draw you have 33% to not loseRunning it twice pushing a flush draw you have (off top of my head) 65% to not lose.Had he said your chances of winning out right improved I'd see your point but he said to win half the pot which he is correct on.

[antistuff 0]

ohYou want to win money.See I just want to win

actually...i'm pretty sure this.unless i'm wrong in which case i'm confused how one of the best poker players in the world has a misunderstanding about this.

[vbnautilus 48]

running it more than once doesnt give you any more equity in the hand than you already had.... daniel seems to be under the impression that the more times you run it... the better your chances of winning at least half the pot or something really flawed like that.

vt, where does he say that it gives you more equity? Lower risk is quite an accurate description of the reduced variance that comes with running the board more than once.

[DCJ001 0]

i posted this in the twitter thread and was hoping you would address it.x-posteed

I asked Daniel Negreanu how he dealt with some of the negative things said about him. He wisely responded that most of the insulting critical are just malcontent haters, with little skill, and no accomplishments, who should be completely ignored.

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/blogs/article/5027

[antistuff 0]

I asked Daniel Negreanu how he dealt with some of the negative things said about him. He wisely responded that most of the insulting critical are just malcontent haters, with little skill, and no accomplishments, who should be completely ignored.

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/blogs/article/5027

did you even read this thread?

[FCP Bob 1,312]

running it more than once doesnt give you any more equity in the hand than you already had.... daniel seems to be under the impression that the more times you run it... the better your chances of winning at least half the pot or something really flawed like that.

I haven't talked to Daniel about this but I'm pretty sure he isn't talking about equity but about reducing the variance. The more times you run it the lower your variance will be and he is calling that lower risk.

[grocery_mony 8]

Math is idiotic.

[Loismustdie 0]

I haven't talked to Daniel about this but I'm pretty sure he isn't talking about equity but about reducing the variance. The more times you run it the lower your variance will be and he is calling that lower risk.

I'm don't get way into the math, but I am curious, let's say you have a flop like this: JcTc3s You are holding KdQd and your opponent has TdTs. Let's pretend for this excercise that it's 6 handed, and everyone else folded preflop. You both get it all in, and you are going to run it twice. What's your chance of winning the first time? If you fail, how does the math change for the second go around?

[DanielNegreanu 141]

When called, your equity doesn't change based on how many time you run it. What can change, is the amount of risk you put yourself at. Running it once, if I miss the flush I go broke for the 200k. Running it twice, while my equity doesn't change one bit, I'm a favorite to get my money back in the hand so the risk is less significant bankroll wise. I would not raise the flop because I can run it twice if I thought the play was -EV, but when I know I can run it twice, if I risk 200k on the semi-bluff, I don't REALLY have 200k at risk. For me to lose the whole 200k on the play, I'd have to lose both times which is an undersog to happen. Capish?

[nutzbuster 7]

^^^what he said

[Giggidy 0]

When called, your equity doesn't change based on how many time you run it. What can change, is the amount of risk you put yourself at. Running it once, if I miss the flush I go broke for the 200k. Running it twice, while my equity doesn't change one bit, I'm a favorite to get my money back in the hand so the risk is less significant bankroll wise. I would not raise the flop because I can run it twice if I thought the play was -EV, but when I know I can run it twice, if I risk 200k on the semi-bluff, I don't REALLY have 200k at risk. For me to lose the whole 200k on the play, I'd have to lose both times which is an undersog to happen. Capish?

How come you were playing previous draws really passive before this hand then? (im assuming these hands were aired somewhat in order) - You had a monster draw with KQhh as I recall. I just seems if you're getting called here, you're drawing to a naked floosh, whereas there was far more equity on the KQ hand from what I remember

[uncooper 1]

I'm don't get way into the math, but I am curious, let's say you have a flop like this: JcTc3s You are holding KdQd and your opponent has TdTs. Let's pretend for this excercise that it's 6 handed, and everyone else folded preflop. You both get it all in, and you are going to run it twice. What's your chance of winning the first time? If you fail, how does the math change for the second go around?

The odds the first time you run it are:cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EVKd Qd 256 25.86 734 74.14 0 0.00 0.259Ts Td 734 74.14 256 25.86 0 0.00 0.741The odds for the 2nd time you run it depend on the dead cards from the first run, but here's an example where the first board ran out total blanks (2h, 5h dead):cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EVKd Qd 240 26.58 663 73.42 0 0.00 0.266Ts Td 663 73.42 240 26.58 0 0.00 0.734If you bink and win the first one, well now you have one less out for the second run (9s, 2h dead):cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EVKd Qd 215 23.81 688 76.19 0 0.00 0.238Ts Td 688 76.19 215 23.81 0 0.00 0.762The worst case* is if we hit one of our outs but still lose the first time (9h, 3c dead). Then, on the 2nd run it would be:cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EVKd Qd 222 24.58 681 75.42 0 0.00 0.246Ts Td 681 75.42 222 24.58 0 0.00 0.754But the point is your overall equity when you are making the poker decision is not affected by the number of runs. The numbers above only deal with the way the numbers change after the results of the first run are known, so it's not really important in any kind of poker sense.* I think this is the worst, but I didn't think too much about it.

[KevinFKHS 0]

Not sure if I'm doing it right, but it doesn't really change your equity at all...let's say we have a 400k pot, running it once gives us0.33 x $400k = $132k equityThe chances for the possible events to occur by running it twice are:10.89% DN wins both44.89% EE wins both44.22% split0.4422 x $200k(if he wins once) = $88.44k+0,1089 x $400k(if he wins both times) = $43.56k= $132k equity(of course these numbers are only correct if the percentages stay the same for the 2nd run, which they usually won't...but even if they change the equity won't!)edit: actually ignore that statement in parntheses...that was stupid....It's basically just a matter of gamble. And I completely understand rather chosing the 45%-likely-to-go-broke-side, than the 67% one, if you're playing for those amounts of money. If you're just there to gamble, and win big, obv running it once is the way to go(33% <-> 11%)

[Vtlaxer09 4]

When called, your equity doesn't change based on how many time you run it. What can change, is the amount of risk you put yourself at. Running it once, if I miss the flush I go broke for the 200k. Running it twice, while my equity doesn't change one bit, I'm a favorite to get my money back in the hand so the risk is less significant bankroll wise. I would not raise the flop because I can run it twice if I thought the play was -EV, but when I know I can run it twice, if I risk 200k on the semi-bluff, I don't REALLY have 200k at risk. For me to lose the whole 200k on the play, I'd have to lose both times which is an undersog to happen. Capish?

Meh im not really gonna go into it any farther... other than to say this sounds alot like justification for a tilted play. Decreasing variance isnt what you should be looking for at a poker table. Sell off a piece of yourself or dont play in the game if you're worried about losing 2 bi's. Its +ev plays that win you $. This was clearly not. And to clarify, Im not trying to judge the play.. just the justification of said play.

[irishguy 14]

Meh im not really gonna go into it any farther... other than to say this sounds alot like justification for a tilted play. Decreasing variance isnt what you should be looking for at a poker table. Sell off a piece of yourself or dont play in the game if you're worried about losing 2 bi's. Its +ev plays that win you $. This was clearly not. And to clarify, Im not trying to judge the play.. just the justification of said play.

I'm not defending the play but how can you not think by knowing that you're running it twice semi bluffing becomes more optimal? Decreasing variance shouldn't be the number one thing you're looking for at the table but in general you're looking to maximize profits and by creating a favourable spot to semi-bluff knowing that you will be a fav to at least split you seem to be following this line. I'd be really interested in knowing why you think this line of thought is so bad as perhaps I'm just looking at it wrong.

[kakon2 0]

Vtlaxer09 is obv right, justification for a play based on how many times you run it is wrong, you shouldn't factor it at all with your decision on how to play a hand.it can only matter if your bankroll is short and if that's the case then you shouldn't play in that game.

[irishguy 14]

Vtlaxer09 is obv right, justification for a play based on how many times you run it is wrong, you shouldn't factor it at all with your decision on how to play a hand.it can only matter if your bankroll is short and if that's the case then you shouldn't play in that game.

Maybe you can explain it to me b/c I see it like this:If I'm sitting at a table with someone who likes to fold and we're running it once I'm pushing a lot of draws.If I'm sitting at a table with someone who likes to fold and we're running it twice I'm pushing every draw.If you are using math as a justification for any play in poker it seems the math of running it twice should be used here as well.