Robl beats 2.7:1 odds against Antonius...four times

[Martini]

This hand is just plain silly. This is at the Aussie Millions cash game. Antonius raise/calls pre-flop then ends up with a Flush + wrap Straight draw and has Robl 73/27 after the Flop. Antonius check/raises on the Flop and Robl makes an ill advised shove with nothing but a relatively weak (in Omaha) hand of top pair/second kicker. They run it four times and Robl wins...every...single...one. Losing one run when you are almost 3:1 is bad enough but when each run takes increases Antonius' odds of hitting any of his many outs it just gets ridiculous. I'm too lazy to figure out what the odds are of losing all four runs after considering dead cards but it is bad beat worthy.

It is the first hand and starts about :30 in. http://pokertube.com/Movies.aspx?movie=9598

[plesner]

This hand is just plain silly. This is at the Aussie Millions cash game. Antonius raise/calls pre-flop then ends up with a Flush + wrap Straight draw and has Robl 73/27 after the Flop. Antonius check/raises on the Flop and Robl makes an ill advised shove with nothing but a relatively weak (in Omaha) hand of top pair/second kicker. They run it four times and Robl wins...every...single...one. Losing one run when you are almost 3:1 is bad enough but when each run takes increases Antonius' odds of hitting any of his many outs it just gets ridiculous. I'm too lazy to figure out what the odds are of losing all four runs after considering dead cards but it is bad beat worthy.

Well, when the odds at first are 73/27, you'd expect to win it once out of four. When considering the dead cards, Robl is going to win all four times once every 148 times. The chance of this happening is actually about 50% greater than the chance of being dealt pocket aces in a game of holdem. Then again, the chance of losing all four runs is roughly 1/3rd of the chance of hitting a one-outer. I suppose you could consider this a fairly bad beat.

plesner

[pathand]

I know deals are commonplace with the pros, but it seems to cheapen the game somewhat,IMO. I mean if you're making a decision knowing that you are gonna have multiple chances to gamble on the outcome, it seems to take the heart out of the game. Just a thought.

[hayjamawas]

I know deals are commonplace with the pros, but it seems to cheapen the game somewhat,IMO. I mean if you're making a decision knowing that you are gonna have multiple chances to gamble on the outcome, it seems to take the heart out of the game. Just a thought.

well in high stakes like this was they will multiple times to reduce the variance. i don't think it cheapens the game IMO.  I really would like to see this happen on Pokerstars cash games. at all stakes.  would make the game maybe less variant.

[Martini]

I know deals are commonplace with the pros, but it seems to cheapen the game somewhat,IMO. I mean if you're making a decision knowing that you are gonna have multiple chances to gamble on the outcome, it seems to take the heart out of the game. Just a thought.

well in high stakes like this was they will multiple times to reduce the variance. i don't think it cheapens the game IMO.  I really would like to see this happen on Pokerstars cash games. at all stakes.  would make the game maybe less variant.

I understand the concept and agree that it reduces variance. But I see pathand's point. It's not as "high stakes" when you are run the board multiple times.

[pathand]

Sure it reduces variance, but if you're looking for that, why not play a different game for lower stakes. I want the whole pot if it's available. Sure, I could get loser, but I'll be playing stakes that my bankroll is more than sufficient enough to support. I agree with Barry Greenstein on running the board once. It sure cost him against Dwan recently, but he knew he could sustain the potential loss. It's a whole different game when you create variance parachutes, IMO.

[Dr. Neau]

Just once, I'd like to see someone who has a mortal lock on the absolute nuts offer to run it twice, then have the other person accept, only to see that it's pointless.  That would be good theater.

[plesner]

Just once, I'd like to see someone who has a mortal lock on the absolute nuts offer to run it twice, then have the other person accept, only to see that it's pointless.  That would be good theater.

It would indeed. I'll remember that one. Some day that situation has to come up. 

plesner

[Martini]

Just once, I'd like to see someone who has a mortal lock on the absolute nuts offer to run it twice, then have the other person accept, only to see that it's pointless.  That would be good theater.

It would indeed. I'll remember that one. Some day that situation has to come up. 

plesner

Or how about this?

* Player A has AsKs against Player B's QhQd
* Flop is the all to predictable QsJsTs
* Player A check/calls Player B's bet
* Turn is Qc giving Player B Quads
* Player A checks, Player B bets, Player A now check/raises, Player B shoves and of course Player A insta-calls with the immortal Nuts
* Player A has Quads drawing dead and, before showing his hand, asks Player B if he wants to run it twice as a joke since there is no way for Player B to win the hand
* Player B with nothing to fear agrees
* Hands are shown and Player B gets the grim news. Player A even needles Player B a little and says "good luck."
* River #1 is 2c
* River #2 is another Js. Hand is invalidated due to a dupicate card in the deck and all bets are returned

Now THAT would be good theater!