Huge Problem With What You Said In Your Blog

[kakon2 0]

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/minimize losses 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.

reducing variance is something that is mainly good for tourneys where its important to do so and remain alive so you can find better edges, in cash game its allot less important. you might want to play a less high varinace style in order to have less major downswings. it got nothing to do with maximize or minimaize profit, that will be the same, and semibluffing isnt more or less profitable if you run it more times. in this hand for example if people would say that semi bluffing is ok but its a high variance play then you might say that ranning it twice makes semibluffing not that high variance which is true, but thats not what people are saying so you cant just give that as an argument for the play in general, and if anything not going allin would be much less high variance (and probably better ev wise since eli is never folding after he put 100) if thats really what your looking for.

[irishguy 14]

reducing variance is something that is mainly good for tourneys where its important to do so and remain alive so you can find better edges, in cash game its allot less important. you might want to play a less high varinace style in order to have less major downswings. it got nothing to do with maximize or minimaize profit, that will be the same, and semibluffing isnt more or less profitable if you run it more times. in this hand for example if people would say that semi bluffing is ok but its a high variance play then you might say that ranning it twice makes semibluffing not that high variance which is true, but thats not what people are saying so you cant just give that as an argument for the play in general, and if anything not going allin would be much less high variance (and probably better ev wise since eli is never folding after he put 100) if thats really what your looking for.

Yes it is, I mean if you believe in math. You will not win more by running it twice but you will lose less which is in the end a profitable move. And yes while Eli isn't folding after putting in 100 the pot odds(when factored in for running it twice) dictate a call/getting it in.

[chgocubs99 0]

I'm not so sure why it is so difficult to see that VT is clearly right. The justification makes no sense. Just like VT said, -EV plays are -EV plays. Hell, I don't even know if the play he made was -EV or not, but trying to justify by saying it's reduced variance when called is just ridiculous thinking.If a push there is +EV because he is going to fold a lot, why would you do it less if you are running it once? Because it's reduced variance? It doesn't make sense. A +EV play is a +EV play, a -EV play is a -EV play. How many times you potentially may run it shouldn't affect anything. Period.

[kakon2 0]

Yes it is, I mean if you believe in math. You will not win more by running it twice but you will lose less which is in the end a profitable move. And yes while Eli isn't folding after putting in 100 the pot odds(when factored in for running it twice) dictate a call/getting it in.

you are getting it wrong, running it twice means losing less and winning less. the math of running it twice says the in the long run your profit will be the same just less swings, so for example after a session of running it twice you more likely to +100k or -100k, insted of +200k or -200k after running it once.but in the end your average profit will be the same, so it makes no difference, and in your example you should push the same amount of draws regardless of how many times you run it.

[chgocubs99 0]

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.

Why? Why would how many times your running it change your thought process? We've established it doesn't change the EV...so why does the variance matter to the correctness of the play?

[chgocubs99 0]

you are getting it wrong, running it twice means losing less and winning less. the math of running it twice says the in the long run your profit will be the same just less swings, so for example after a session of running it twice you more likely to +100k or -100k, insted of +200k or -200k after running it once.but in the end your average profit will be the same, so it makes no difference, and in your example you should push the same amount of draw regardless of how many times you run it.

This

[irishguy 14]

Why? Why would how many times your running it change your thought process? We've established it doesn't change the EV...so why does the variance matter to the correctness of the play?

Maybe I'm looking at it wrong.If you shove a flush draw with a turn and river to come you have a better chance to hit than you would by shoving with just a river to come. So it would seem to make sense with two turns and two rivers your chance to hit is improved- again your chances to win outright don't change but to not lose the entire pot do. In my mind I'm kind of comparing it to split pot games, maybe that's a mistake.

[irishguy 14]

you are getting it wrong, running it twice means losing less and winning less. the math of running it twice says the in the long run your profit will be the same just less swings, so for example after a session of running it twice you more likely to +100k or -100k, insted of +200k or -200k after running it once.but in the end your average profit will be the same, so it makes no difference, and in your example you should push the same amount of draws regardless of how many times you run it.

Alright I see your point: while we minimize loss we also minimize profit. That makes sense but I still think that if it's a regular part of the game you are playing in than it does or at least should be factored in to your thought process.The argument about whether it should be a part of the game is a different story.

[chgocubs99 0]

That makes sense but I still think that if it's a regular part of the game you are playing in than it does or at least should be factored in to your thought process.

You are wrong.Say you ran this particiular hand three times on every hand. Should it be factored in to your thought process now? No...you're going to lose 2 and win 1, on average. Not a good push. You run it once...you're going to lose 66% of the time, and win 33%. Not a good push. You run it twice...you are going to tie a certain % of the time which I don't know the exact math on...you are going to win both a certain %, and lose both a certain %...which I guarantee you comes out to, long-term, losing 66% and winning 33%.How often you run something should never change your thought process on a hand. Ever.

[irishguy 14]

You are wrong.Say you ran this particiular hand three times on every hand. Should it be factored in to your thought process now? No...you're going to lose 2 and win 1, on average. Not a good push. You run it once...you're going to lose 66% of the time, and win 33%. Not a good push. You run it twice...you are going to tie a certain % of the time which I don't know the exact math on...you are going to win both a certain %, and lose both a certain %...which I guarantee you comes out to, long-term, losing 66% and winning 33%.How often you run something should never change your thought process on a hand. Ever.

Yes your equity doesn't improve by running it more but what I'm talking about is your % to not lose the whole thing if you are called making it a better spot to semi bluff(not talking about this hand specifically) Again I understand that by running it twice/three times a million times you minimize both profit and loss and your dollar for dollar earned won't change but here is the math that KevinFKHS did earlier.

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

So while your $ earned percentage won't change it seems to me from a percentage basis a less risky spot to semi bluff than say if you were running it once.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

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.

Well, when you incorrectly call it a tilted play you are judging the play, DUCY? Based on Eli's impression of me, I like the raise on the flop because I don't normally play a flush draw like that and he knows that. So when I raise there he has to be really worried about a set. The key to the hand, though, is that I felt strongly that I'd get him off a lot of hands if he wasn't as strong as he was. If he couldn't beat a Queen... he would have folded. I made the play because I felt there was enough fold equity available to me to make the play correct. The other important factor: Eli doesn't "know" that I'm raising that much and re-raising again because the amount I'm risking is actually less than the amount I'm putting in, so the bet LOOKS stronger on the surface.

[nutzbuster 7]

^^^I dunno... think I'm gonna go with this one. Seems like he knows what he's talking about(math is dum anyway)

[David_Nicoson 1]

Suppose that we have no fear of ruin, but our opponent is risk averse. The option to run it twice removes some of that risk and therefore makes our opponent more willing to call in a marginal situation. And in that case, we should semi-bluff less.

[Avaron 0]

How often you run something should never change your thought process on a hand. Ever.

it does. it's clearly a part of barry's strategy what i've seen on hsp. people don't shove that much against him, because they know he'll run it just once. so they're not willing to take a chance, when they know barry has them beat and the have a draw.it comes down to how much you want to (take a) risk...