1
 |
dnagardi Hungary. Apr 19 2011 15:47. Posts 1778 | | |
does it worth to select it? whats your oppinion on the subject? also it says on the site: "* Please note that maximum rake might vary for hands that are dealt twice." they take more rake when you run it twice ?
|
|
|
1
 |
Highcard Canada. Apr 19 2011 15:54. Posts 5428 | | |
idk i thought total rake was $1 extra, maybe it caps at $5 |
|
| I have learned from poker that being at the table is not a grind, the grind is living and poker is how I pass the time | |
|
|
1
|
Arirang Canada. Apr 19 2011 16:02. Posts 1673 | | |
Pay more rake but less variance. Honestly, if I have the choice of running it twice, I rather want to run it three times, an odd number, so at least someone wins. |
|
|
1
|
Bejamin1 Canada. Apr 19 2011 16:24. Posts 7042 | | |
It's just a really stupid way to cost yourself more rake. Ridiculous that they'd require more rake to perform such a simple thing. Such a cash grab. |
|
| Sorry dude he Jason Bourned me. -Johnny Drama | |
|
|
1
 |
vlseph United States. Apr 19 2011 16:25. Posts 3026 | | |
It's up to $1 extra rake, and its your own preference if you want it on or not. It doesn't change the EV of the hand, except for the extra rake you pay. |
|
| The only hands a nit balances in his range are the nuts, the second nuts, and the third nuts. | |
|
|
1
| |
eh, i dont know how it works, but if its a case of if a fish asks for it, probably better to just do it to let him enjoy himself better |
|
| rockman255: its not easy being superman U N0 MySteeZ: mega man. rockman255: same thing U N0 MySteeZ: no | |
|
|
1
 |
ManofFire United Kingdom. Apr 19 2011 18:00. Posts 140 | | |
Running it twice is a huge +EV move as a short stacker. |
|
|
1
|
vlseph United States. Apr 19 2011 18:37. Posts 3026 | | |
| | On April 19 2011 17:00 ManofFire wrote:
Running it twice is a huge +EV move as a short stacker. |
running it twice does not change the equity of the hand |
|
| The only hands a nit balances in his range are the nuts, the second nuts, and the third nuts. | |
|
|
1
| |
i get the feeling he means like if your br aside from the stack is 0 for all intents and purposes. that'd be fun |
|
| rockman255: its not easy being superman U N0 MySteeZ: mega man. rockman255: same thing U N0 MySteeZ: no | |
|
|
1
 |
YoMeR United States. Apr 19 2011 19:58. Posts 12438 | | |
running it twice while paying more rake is the stupidest thing to a poker player who wants to maximize the EV of each hand.
The only reason why I can see someone running it twice is playing stakes they can't afford to play in (like taking an aggressive shot at a high stakes game) then the EV loss won't matter as much as it's a long term thing vs GOTTA WIN THE POT NOW OR I BUST.
In general I think it's retarded. I would actually love it myself if they didn't charge extra rake for it. |
| |
|
|
1
|
Maynard! United States. Apr 19 2011 21:31. Posts 4453 | | |
I play(played) 2-3 hours a week at 2/4 nlhe. Worth the extra three dollars to lessen variance. No shame in taking lower ev routes to lessen variance. |
|
| Now I really am a busto. Thanks FTP. | |
|
|
1
|
qwerty67890 New Zealand. Apr 19 2011 23:06. Posts 14026 | | | |
|
|
1
 |
LiLZhiMiNG Australia. Apr 19 2011 23:33. Posts 637 | | |
100% agreed with Yomer...only worth it if you playing games you cant really afford...like PLO with 10BI of the stake or something... |
|
|
|
Contact Users: 1137 Active, 2 Logged in - Time: 09:09
