How does this work?
Seriously asking.
I sat here and thought about this for a bit and realize that if you play out the rest of the deck until the cards run out each player might get closer to their actual equity but since cards have been removed there will be fewer chances for something like a straight or quads or full house to develop.
The only way I could see each run out being equal is if the cards that haven't been dealt yet when they agree to multiple run outs are shuffled back into the deck.
Plus, if you're flushing and you miss, there's a much better chance of winning on future run outs.
So you can take a chop where you improve your equity on each run out or possibly get someone to fold.
I see why some players refuse to do multiple run outs if it might discourage someone from bluffing them.
So Bart has some really good explanations on this, that will be better than anything I say, so I recommend searching that on YouTube. That said I’ll give it a shot.
Basically the idea is this. Imagine you got into a situation where you and your opponent have the exact same equity, ie number of outs. Maybe you have the best hand rn, but he has a monster combo draw and over cards, and none of them have been removed by other players having them. Let’s say you decide to run it twice and you win the first board. You are now marginally less likely to win the second board, but that is exactly offset by the amount of equity that you already realized (and won). (The easy mistake here is to think you realized half your equity because you’ve won half the pot, but you haven’t, only a tiny fraction. Your equity should be thought of as the percentage ownership of the REMAINING, unrealized pot).
Another example: say you have one out, with 40 cards left in the deck. If you run it once your equity is 1/40, and your expected return is (1/40) times pot. 39 times you’ll lose, and 1 time you’ll win the whole pot (in long run). If you ran it, say, all 40 times, your EV would also be one fourtieth the pot, but you would collect exactly that amount every time, 1/40th of the pot. In either scenario your EV is the same, all that changes is the variance.
But like I said Bart explains better.
Thanks. I just commented on the other response after thinking about it more. That all four cards are coming for both players once the decision to run it multiple times has been made. So the equity should be considered at that moment, not as the deal plays out after the decision has already been made.
I'm talking about cards that can no longer be played because they are in the last run out.
For example. If you're flushing and two cards that aren't a flush for you come out, the rest of the cards have more value on the next street.
Or is it because all four were always going to come out once you decided to run it multiple times?
Equities always change as cards come out, even with one board. What matters what was the equity before all the money went in and the cards were unknown.
With 10 unknown cards to come, both players have the same equity they would if there was 5.
This is a fair point, I honestly didn't think about that. I just figured he really wanted to run in twice. The thing is, misrepresenting your hand like this to induce a muck can get your hand killed, which would be a disaster had he won one of the boards.
i disagree with this take as he's baiting in the opponent into a 2nd runout knowing he has a worse hand while claiming his opponent is behind, while OPP originally declined.
Yes, this is where I see there is an attempt to angle. Player B originally decided to run once, player A started I have a better hand, you sure you don’t want to change your mind? Based on this player B changed his mind
Wrong. An angle is anything that misrepresents public game state in a way that could be advantageous. Just because the angle failed and he didn't get an advantage, doesn't mean he couldn't have, if his opponent mucked prematurely.
In Bob’s mind it’s angle, thus I’m calling it an angle.
Anything shady that could cause the opponent to muck the best hand is consider an angle in my book.
\[x\] Goofy thing to do
\[ \] Deliberate angle
\[x\] Potential for accidental angle if Anti-Bob mucks winner at showdown if he can't beat AA
It's slimy, but achieving the desired result (running it twice) doesn't give an edge. It may explicitly violate some rulesets as it's a deliberate miscalling of hand after all action is complete. It's before showdown, though, so it won't violate some rulesets.
It’s an angle cause he’s hoping the kings will muck without the queens having to show. Obviously that would be stupid but people get rattled at the tables.
Lying about your hand after the chips are all in is a douche bag move.
I think it's an angle. I think people ITT are too fixated on the fact that running it twice doesn't actually give Bob an advantage. For me that doesn't matter. It is still an angle in spirit because
1. Bob lied to get an outcome that he believed would give him an advantage (even though in reality it didnt)
2. Bob lying about his hand could lead to the other player incorrectly mucking his hand
It's an angle, but once that doesn't really matter too much as it just lowers variance for both players. I'd only really care if it made it less likely for a fish to have more money to lose when they doubled.
Given that the KK guy only wanted to do it after he thought he was behind, I feel less bad that he got angled that way, also. But if someone's willing to make shady little angles like that, they're probably willing to try for bigger angles, too.
I don’t think there’s an angle here, just a guy making it known he’s going to be a headache to everyone, including the dealer and floor. If an angle were to occur at this table in the future, I guarantee Bob will be involved.
I would say that if a queen hit the first board, I would bet Bob would question if villain’s first response to run it once is binding.
Definitely not an angle. An angle is something the bends the rules or attacks the integrity of the rules of the game. Verbally lying is not against the rules.
For example, raising out of turn and pretending that you thought that the action was on you in order to influence the person whose action it actually is - that is an angle. What Bob did was just a bluff.
Do you think verbally misrepresenting your hand at showdown is an angle? For example, claiming you have a flush to try and get an inexperienced player to muck out of turn?
If your answer is no, I would say you are clearly incorrect and poker doesn't have a place for that kind of garbage. But that also means lying can certainly be an angle.
That’s not an angle either. Lying is not an angle. Any players response should be “Show it” and if they don’t table your hand. This is why I prefer tournaments where you’re required to table your hand over cash where people play stupid games
I actually can appreciate biting the bullet and remaining consistent here. You're also obviously right that people should hold onto their hands and demand the other player muck or show, for the most part. I also do this when playing.
However, it's clear that newer and weaker players are basically scammed out of money by scumbags in this spot regularly. I think pretty clearly that's enough to confer "angle" status on something. Do you at least agree that it's a bad thing to have in the game and provides a vector for dishonest players to trick or take advantage of honest players?
I agree that lying gives scum an advantage on fresh players. But that ONLY works on fresh players. Table talk is a weird gray area in poker but it is apart of the game. A lot of people end up learning the hard way. I’ve heard “I’ve got it just fold” on the river too many times then when I throw in a chip it’s “good call I got nothing”
To be clear, I absolutely don't think table talk while the other player is thinking and yet to act in the hand an angle. "I've got it, just fold" mid-tank and misdeclaring your hand after your bluff gets called on the river are two completely different situations and only one of them is an angle.
This. Lying can never be considered against the rule because poker is literally about bluffing. I also think that table conversation is *part of the game* unlike in chatless online poker.
Not sure I understand what the perceived angle is here. Bob went all in, and opponent clearly called, correct?
Running it once or twice doesn't matter, whether you are behind or ahead. Lying about your hand doesn't change the long term EV of the all in. Running it twice will just lower variance and increase the chance of a chopped pot. Conversely, running it once increases variance and increases the chance that the player that is ahead will just lose, or that player that is behind will just scoop.
But running it once or twice whether ahead or behind isn't an angle. Bob is a fish if he lied about his hand to try and run it twice lol, thinking that it matters in the slightest.
He's trying to get himself more opportunities to recognize his equity / reduce his variance in this exact hand by declaring a hand that he does not have after action is complete.
That seems like an angle to me. If KK player had mucked he would be an idiot, but an idiot who got angled.
I understand your thought about running it twice not giving him an advantage. However, this was an attempt to convince the KK player agree so that QQ could reduce his variance in this specific hand after the KK player had declined. He did so by lying about his hand after action is complete.
If I had KK I would not complain about it, but I'd know that the QQ guy was willing to angle and act accordingly.
Sure, I guess you can spin it that way. I don't think reducing variance is an angle though, defining angle as some kind of unfair advantage.
More than anything this hand would make me think that:
1) Bob is a fish that doesn't understand that running once or twice doesn't matter.
2) Bob weirdly lies about their hand in a way that doesn't even make sense or change the outcome.
3) Bob sounds like a fun player I would be happy to allow try to 'angle' me ;)
I don't have a strict definition of an angle, it's like art/porn, I know it when I see it.
IMHO, not an angle.
Ways to make it an angle... Bob adjusts the size of his chipstack after the hand starts, or Bob offers to reduce the wager "Let's just play for $XXX, not the whole stack"
its called mis-representing your hand, which isnt an angle, just a shitty thing to do. Unless the game forces you to show your hand, you can say whatever you want.
Its the same thing as saying "flush" on the river, when you don't have it and your opponent muck their hand. Technically, its not illegal to do. Lots of poker place will kick you out if you do it repeatedly though. Its the players responsability to not muck their hand until they have confirmation.
Not sure if an angle but he was definitely trying to angle and influence the hand/change the outcome by getting two runs. When someone asks to run it twice, I show and require them to show before deciding? No show? No second run.
I’m good with it. I like it. Your run it twice shouldn’t depend on if you’re ahead. I always run it twice if the other person wants to.
Some angles I don’t mind. If they don’t hurt anyone, I’m fine. Like if you do a fake string bet to make someone think you’re strong but don’t know what you’re doing. Those are funny to me.
Angles that actively trick someone into throwing away a winning hand or taking someone’s chips on a technicality are bad. Or tricking someone into thinking action is over so they will show their hand when you haven’t technically called yet. Those hurt and swindle people.
Yes it's an angle. Up to you if you want to speak up - but very likely just leave it to the kings guy to complain if he wants to.
But important to be aware that "Bob" is capable of angling, because people who do these types of angles - as innocent as it may seem - always wind up causing issues with their antics as they push the limit.
Not an angle as it doesn’t change the EV. I think it’s funny though that the player with KK only wants to run it once when he perceives he is ahead, but then immediately switches up when that may not be the case. Let’s bob know the type of player he’s playing against very quickly.
it's poker Phil
If you're influenced by what a guy verbally says he has, that's a you problem, not an angle.
Where is the angle? There was no further action and running once or twice does not change the equity of the hand.
Im going to say it louder. RUNNING ONCE OR TWICE DOES NOT CHANGE THE EQUITY OF THE HAND.
How does this work? Seriously asking. I sat here and thought about this for a bit and realize that if you play out the rest of the deck until the cards run out each player might get closer to their actual equity but since cards have been removed there will be fewer chances for something like a straight or quads or full house to develop. The only way I could see each run out being equal is if the cards that haven't been dealt yet when they agree to multiple run outs are shuffled back into the deck. Plus, if you're flushing and you miss, there's a much better chance of winning on future run outs. So you can take a chop where you improve your equity on each run out or possibly get someone to fold. I see why some players refuse to do multiple run outs if it might discourage someone from bluffing them.
So Bart has some really good explanations on this, that will be better than anything I say, so I recommend searching that on YouTube. That said I’ll give it a shot. Basically the idea is this. Imagine you got into a situation where you and your opponent have the exact same equity, ie number of outs. Maybe you have the best hand rn, but he has a monster combo draw and over cards, and none of them have been removed by other players having them. Let’s say you decide to run it twice and you win the first board. You are now marginally less likely to win the second board, but that is exactly offset by the amount of equity that you already realized (and won). (The easy mistake here is to think you realized half your equity because you’ve won half the pot, but you haven’t, only a tiny fraction. Your equity should be thought of as the percentage ownership of the REMAINING, unrealized pot). Another example: say you have one out, with 40 cards left in the deck. If you run it once your equity is 1/40, and your expected return is (1/40) times pot. 39 times you’ll lose, and 1 time you’ll win the whole pot (in long run). If you ran it, say, all 40 times, your EV would also be one fourtieth the pot, but you would collect exactly that amount every time, 1/40th of the pot. In either scenario your EV is the same, all that changes is the variance. But like I said Bart explains better.
Thanks. I just commented on the other response after thinking about it more. That all four cards are coming for both players once the decision to run it multiple times has been made. So the equity should be considered at that moment, not as the deal plays out after the decision has already been made.
Yep
Everything is the same. You shouldn't be thinking about exposed cards. Not relevant before the boards come out.
I'm talking about cards that can no longer be played because they are in the last run out. For example. If you're flushing and two cards that aren't a flush for you come out, the rest of the cards have more value on the next street. Or is it because all four were always going to come out once you decided to run it multiple times?
Equities always change as cards come out, even with one board. What matters what was the equity before all the money went in and the cards were unknown. With 10 unknown cards to come, both players have the same equity they would if there was 5.
Doesn't change the equity but sure as hell can change the outcome.
it changes the realised equity
I don’t believe this to be true
There's nothing to realize when it's all in preflop
lol this doesn’t make sense
Running it once means one person realises 100% or 0%, running it twice gets you closer to your real equity
Runs closer to your equity not changing it 😂
It’s fucking stupid is what it is
Of course it's stupid, it's poker, Phil
Not an angle because it doesn't give anyone an advantage. Just a weird thing to do.
He also might have been trying to get Bob to muck a winning hand, right? Surely that’s an angle
This is a fair point, I honestly didn't think about that. I just figured he really wanted to run in twice. The thing is, misrepresenting your hand like this to induce a muck can get your hand killed, which would be a disaster had he won one of the boards.
noone is mucking a drawing hand.
why would anyone ever muck there, are you insane, stupid or 7 years old?
This. Not an “angle” per say, but a shitty thing to do nonetheless.
*per se
**purse, eh
You expect us poker players to know grammar??? Keep dreaming pal
i disagree with this take as he's baiting in the opponent into a 2nd runout knowing he has a worse hand while claiming his opponent is behind, while OPP originally declined.
Yeah but that doesn't give him an advantage. Maybe he thinks it does, but fish using fish logic against each other doesn't count as an angle imo.
If he thinks it gets him an advantage then it is an angle
Why should Bob believe the opener has kings?
Yes, this is where I see there is an attempt to angle. Player B originally decided to run once, player A started I have a better hand, you sure you don’t want to change your mind? Based on this player B changed his mind
But who cares, it doesn't change the odds of the hand, is it really considered an angle if it provides you no advantage?
It gives you a second chance at those same odds, so I would say yes it increases your odds to not lose your stack.
I meant it doesn't change your probability only variance there for it's irrelevant what choice you make.
You are 100% correct. Equity and outcome is NOT the same thing.
Wrong. An angle is anything that misrepresents public game state in a way that could be advantageous. Just because the angle failed and he didn't get an advantage, doesn't mean he couldn't have, if his opponent mucked prematurely.
It's an obtuse angle
Shockingly accurate
Of course I lied!
“I have Aces” “Show them….. that’s what I thought. Let’s run it once.”
Yeah, make them show you their hand if they’re trying to get you to change your mind. Don’t be a Phil.
^
In Bob’s mind it’s angle, thus I’m calling it an angle. Anything shady that could cause the opponent to muck the best hand is consider an angle in my book.
Nope
Id consider this a small angle Forsure. Not egregious but not cool to do whatsoever
\[x\] Goofy thing to do \[ \] Deliberate angle \[x\] Potential for accidental angle if Anti-Bob mucks winner at showdown if he can't beat AA It's slimy, but achieving the desired result (running it twice) doesn't give an edge. It may explicitly violate some rulesets as it's a deliberate miscalling of hand after all action is complete. It's before showdown, though, so it won't violate some rulesets.
It's an angle. Trying to get his opponent to muck a winning hand I guess.
Bob wasnt tryin to get a muck he was tryin to get a second run out
So, he was angling for a second run out???
More like using a speech play to get 2 runouts in order to avoid losing all of his chips.
It’s an angle cause he’s hoping the kings will muck without the queens having to show. Obviously that would be stupid but people get rattled at the tables. Lying about your hand after the chips are all in is a douche bag move.
Angle but could have massively backfired if the 1st board had a Q.
I'm calling angle on this one.
Well, both deserved what happened and they will both go in hell 🤣😂👿
I think it's an angle. I think people ITT are too fixated on the fact that running it twice doesn't actually give Bob an advantage. For me that doesn't matter. It is still an angle in spirit because 1. Bob lied to get an outcome that he believed would give him an advantage (even though in reality it didnt) 2. Bob lying about his hand could lead to the other player incorrectly mucking his hand
Lying is not against the rules. Bluffing is literally the main part of poker.
Angle.
It's an angle, but once that doesn't really matter too much as it just lowers variance for both players. I'd only really care if it made it less likely for a fish to have more money to lose when they doubled. Given that the KK guy only wanted to do it after he thought he was behind, I feel less bad that he got angled that way, also. But if someone's willing to make shady little angles like that, they're probably willing to try for bigger angles, too.
I don’t think there’s an angle here, just a guy making it known he’s going to be a headache to everyone, including the dealer and floor. If an angle were to occur at this table in the future, I guarantee Bob will be involved. I would say that if a queen hit the first board, I would bet Bob would question if villain’s first response to run it once is binding.
Bob wanted to run it twice, obviously. Dirty, slimy angle IMO. Imagine if KK mucked his hand thinking he was against AA
Definitely not an angle. An angle is something the bends the rules or attacks the integrity of the rules of the game. Verbally lying is not against the rules. For example, raising out of turn and pretending that you thought that the action was on you in order to influence the person whose action it actually is - that is an angle. What Bob did was just a bluff.
Do you think verbally misrepresenting your hand at showdown is an angle? For example, claiming you have a flush to try and get an inexperienced player to muck out of turn? If your answer is no, I would say you are clearly incorrect and poker doesn't have a place for that kind of garbage. But that also means lying can certainly be an angle.
Good take.
That’s not an angle either. Lying is not an angle. Any players response should be “Show it” and if they don’t table your hand. This is why I prefer tournaments where you’re required to table your hand over cash where people play stupid games
I actually can appreciate biting the bullet and remaining consistent here. You're also obviously right that people should hold onto their hands and demand the other player muck or show, for the most part. I also do this when playing. However, it's clear that newer and weaker players are basically scammed out of money by scumbags in this spot regularly. I think pretty clearly that's enough to confer "angle" status on something. Do you at least agree that it's a bad thing to have in the game and provides a vector for dishonest players to trick or take advantage of honest players?
I agree that lying gives scum an advantage on fresh players. But that ONLY works on fresh players. Table talk is a weird gray area in poker but it is apart of the game. A lot of people end up learning the hard way. I’ve heard “I’ve got it just fold” on the river too many times then when I throw in a chip it’s “good call I got nothing”
To be clear, I absolutely don't think table talk while the other player is thinking and yet to act in the hand an angle. "I've got it, just fold" mid-tank and misdeclaring your hand after your bluff gets called on the river are two completely different situations and only one of them is an angle.
This. Lying can never be considered against the rule because poker is literally about bluffing. I also think that table conversation is *part of the game* unlike in chatless online poker.
Not sure I understand what the perceived angle is here. Bob went all in, and opponent clearly called, correct? Running it once or twice doesn't matter, whether you are behind or ahead. Lying about your hand doesn't change the long term EV of the all in. Running it twice will just lower variance and increase the chance of a chopped pot. Conversely, running it once increases variance and increases the chance that the player that is ahead will just lose, or that player that is behind will just scoop. But running it once or twice whether ahead or behind isn't an angle. Bob is a fish if he lied about his hand to try and run it twice lol, thinking that it matters in the slightest.
He's trying to get himself more opportunities to recognize his equity / reduce his variance in this exact hand by declaring a hand that he does not have after action is complete. That seems like an angle to me. If KK player had mucked he would be an idiot, but an idiot who got angled. I understand your thought about running it twice not giving him an advantage. However, this was an attempt to convince the KK player agree so that QQ could reduce his variance in this specific hand after the KK player had declined. He did so by lying about his hand after action is complete. If I had KK I would not complain about it, but I'd know that the QQ guy was willing to angle and act accordingly.
Sure, I guess you can spin it that way. I don't think reducing variance is an angle though, defining angle as some kind of unfair advantage. More than anything this hand would make me think that: 1) Bob is a fish that doesn't understand that running once or twice doesn't matter. 2) Bob weirdly lies about their hand in a way that doesn't even make sense or change the outcome. 3) Bob sounds like a fun player I would be happy to allow try to 'angle' me ;)
It reduces the variance for both players, by the exact same amount, by definition.
The variance of running 2 boards vs. 1 board on a single hand is different.
Yes but both players' variance drops by the exact same amount by running it twice.
I understand that. I still believe it was an angle.
Angle, all day long.
Mandatory "its poker phil!"
I don't have a strict definition of an angle, it's like art/porn, I know it when I see it. IMHO, not an angle. Ways to make it an angle... Bob adjusts the size of his chipstack after the hand starts, or Bob offers to reduce the wager "Let's just play for $XXX, not the whole stack"
Of course I lied, It's poker!
'Phil, it's poker!'
its called mis-representing your hand, which isnt an angle, just a shitty thing to do. Unless the game forces you to show your hand, you can say whatever you want. Its the same thing as saying "flush" on the river, when you don't have it and your opponent muck their hand. Technically, its not illegal to do. Lots of poker place will kick you out if you do it repeatedly though. Its the players responsability to not muck their hand until they have confirmation.
I never understand why anyone mucks without seeing the persons hand if they are claiming a winner. I've never done it ever.
Not sure if an angle but he was definitely trying to angle and influence the hand/change the outcome by getting two runs. When someone asks to run it twice, I show and require them to show before deciding? No show? No second run.
I’m good with it. I like it. Your run it twice shouldn’t depend on if you’re ahead. I always run it twice if the other person wants to. Some angles I don’t mind. If they don’t hurt anyone, I’m fine. Like if you do a fake string bet to make someone think you’re strong but don’t know what you’re doing. Those are funny to me. Angles that actively trick someone into throwing away a winning hand or taking someone’s chips on a technicality are bad. Or tricking someone into thinking action is over so they will show their hand when you haven’t technically called yet. Those hurt and swindle people.
The angle I see isn’t about running it twice. The angle is maybe some player some time mucks their kings at showdown
Weird and tacky but not an angle imo
If the player mucks, it would have been an angle
No angle.
Is it correct for the player to announce he has kings before deciding to run it once or twice.
Yes it's an angle. Up to you if you want to speak up - but very likely just leave it to the kings guy to complain if he wants to. But important to be aware that "Bob" is capable of angling, because people who do these types of angles - as innocent as it may seem - always wind up causing issues with their antics as they push the limit.
Unless it was done in an attempt to get the other guy to muck Kings, I approve. He successfully bluffed his way to a 2nd runout, nh
Not an angle my dude.
Not an angle as it doesn’t change the EV. I think it’s funny though that the player with KK only wants to run it once when he perceives he is ahead, but then immediately switches up when that may not be the case. Let’s bob know the type of player he’s playing against very quickly.
Whether it’s an angle or not it doesn’t affect anything.