It makes no difference to your win-rate and from a theoretical perspective shouldn't matter. All it does is decrease variance. Whether you click it is an entirely personal decision based on if you would like to reduce the variance in these situations.

My personal choice is, all things being equal, to run it twice because I would like the luck factor reduced so that I minimize my downswings, but that's just me.

However, all things are rarely equal and there is actually an argument for choosing not to run it twice (imo), and that is that villains tilt. Assuming you can control yourself better than them during periods of adverse fortune, you are probably better off forcing your opponents to gamble, thus giving them a greater chance to get stuck and potentially start playing worse, thus increasing your winrate against them. Along the same lines, it might be nice to always run it twice against tilting villains so that it's harder for them to get even (although they can obviously un-click this option and make your decision moot). Equally, you could be a tilter, in which case running it twice might be very good for you.

Basically it just reduces variance so make your decision based upon that. If you are in a situation where you think increasing variance could have a positive impact on the game conditions, I would advise not opting to run it twice. If you are in a situation where decreasing it is ideal, go for it!

FWIW I have started to think about removing RIT while I grind stakes with a large bankroll and can handle the swings.  I am human and it irritates me when I RIT lose both times with a set against hands like GS+NFD.  When this happens twice in a row and I lose what is really only four races I start to wounder if this is real life?  I have lost many races and flips in a row, but something about losing twice in a row with the same hand just makes me shake my head at times and for what ever reason it irritates me more getting scooped twice while RIT, than losing ten or more BIs in a day.

I play in houston where most of the rooms offer insurance on the turn, most people take this no matter how many outs they are up against. This reduces the number of people who are willing to run it twice however I personally always tell them to rip it. I look at it from the stance of Ive already put my money in there I want to win the pot.

However what tom said about it reducing the variance couldnt be more right. It truly does.

Arguments like arukidinme gives are much stronger than the benefits of variance reduction. The variance reduction is only a small part of your overall variance, it reduces around 30% of your all-in variance (hard to give an exact figure since there are card removal effects and it also matters how wide you usually go all-in etc). But a large part of variance comes from non-showdown and hands that get played out to the river.

If you start to tilt faster when you lose twice with RIT, rather than losing the same amount of money with RIO, you should definitely RIO. Especially when you are rolled properly. Conversely, when your opponents tend to tilt faster from RIO or RIT, you can pick the option that makes them tilt the hardest.

The variance reduction is almost never worth tilting over.

I agree with arukidinme.

I am rolled for significantly higher stakes but am currently playing these until my PLO fundamentals are up to par. However things like this legitimately put me on tilt... where if it was run once it wouldn't phase me as the money isn't significant.

If you tilt from double-whammy suckouts, don't look. As to the effect of RIT on our opponents, we can only speculate. I RIT because, hey, who needs more variance than necessary. 

Thoughts on running it 3 times? I'm in these spots frequently at opponents expense (live games).

Thanks for all the info guys! 

I play a 1-3 (basically 1-5) cash game in new york where the players discuss a lot of business if deep (or generous). 

Most casinos in the states have the option to run it twice when it comes to plo.

For holdem, its usually only 5-10 or bigger.

A good rule of thumb: If its a time rake game, you can usually run it twice, and maybe make deals.

The bigger the game, the more lenient the casinos are on unusual deals etc.

I always run it twice, and would run it 3 or 4 times if it was possible. When the EV is the same going for less variance sounds like a no brainer to me. The only time when I would like to run it once is when I am down a few buyins vs a very weak and very spewy player at HUPLO and since I cant rebuy enough to match his stack I think it would be better to increase variance and give me more chances to play deepstacked with him where I expect to have a larger edge. But that situation happen so rarely that I am not even sure if it is possible to runitonce on only 1 table. When they introduced it I changed my default to RIT and never switched back.

There is some merit in running it twice for shortstackers, if they have a stack under the minimum buyin. If they run it once they will win or lose and will have to continue with at least the minimum buy in after the hand. If they run it twice and split the pot they keep their stacksize which give them a gametheoretical advantage.

Admittedly didn't read the whole thread. My two cents:

a) I only run it once with weaker players. You only get so many chances to felt them.. And if you do, great! If you don't, then the fish doubled up, and you will have another chance to win a big pot later on (hopefully). Particularly if I have position on a weaker player, then I always run it once. If we lose the all=in, then we still have position on a weaker player :) Against players who have position on me, I'm much more likely to run it twice (don't want to combat a deep stack with position on me if I don't have to). Would prefer to run it twice with a good player.

b) if you tilt from running it once, then run it twice. or, better yet, fix your tilt issues :)

c) if it tilts other players that you run it once, then run it once

d) if you're bankrolled, then run it once. it's good for your image. when other players know you only run it once, they will play more timidly postflop, and therefore, you can semi-bluff wider against them. 

e) if you are shot taking, then consider running it twice. better yet, sell some action and buy in deeper (sell to me if it's a good game though please!)

I try to run it once more often than not.  I've noticed that if I usually run it twice, people shove in to me with flush draws and weaker hands in general with greater frequency, figuring they'll either get me to fold, or in the worst case, they'll have 2 shots to hit on river.  So running it twice allows opponents to turn up pressure on me; since I often do have reasonable fold equity.  By running it only once, well, now there is only 1 card that can save them in case I don't fold, so people think twice before shoving. 

I wonder why we don't have the option to run it 3 or 4 times, like they do in high stakes live games.

Hello all,

I just joined
this forum and this is my first post; pls note English is not my mother language.

Obviously RIT
does not change the EV  but diminishes the
variance and therefore the bankroll needed which IMHO is one of the main concerns
of every pro.   

I am
surprised no one mentioned one important factor. Here it is:

Some players (including me)  are known to
propose RIT systematically. Even if RIT does not affect the EV  I noticed that many players, bad and good ones
alike, include the factor RIT in their reasoning process, so they often make
the wrong move due to this inclusion. All things being equal, they tend to pay
my flop or turn all in bet (or raise it all in if it is close) just because
they know it is “less risky” since we will RIT.

This is
great for me but I have to adjust my play against these players in the way of being
more cautious in bluffing them on the flop or the turn when we could be almost
all in.

In
contrast, some pro I respect are known to never RIT because they don’t want to encourage
some players to pay them all in before the river card.

IMHO one can
take advantage of either strategy (never or always RIT) as far as he makes it known
at the table.

To
illustrate this suppose a player having 10 outs faces a pot size all in bet on
the turn; obviously he should not call. Oddly some will call me because I always
RIT, while they will fold against the “Never RIT man”. Occasionally when I am
sure that they have not the proper odds I might even lure them into calling by letting
them know that I always RIT.

I feel like the EV does get lowered by a smidgeon. The fact that you don't reshuffle the cards on the first run means that something should change. Am I wrong here? You are trading a small amount of EV for a huge decrease in variance IMO.

yahtzeefish No, EV does not change.

I love to play online games that, I like to play casinos at https://welcomebonus.co/reviews/online-casinos/. It is safe and secure for playing.

I love to play online games and among that I like to play casinos at https://freerollsdb.com/888poker. It is quite interesting.