Visit http://www.viewonpoker.com for more great poker videos, poker strategy, freerolls, exclusive poker offers and much more.
Jennifer Harman suffers a terrible bad beat on High Stakes Poker as she loses twice in one hand to Daniel Negreanu!

Tags for this video: Jennifer Harman Daniel Negreanu High Stakes Poker Bad beat huge pot

Find more videos in the "People" category
See more videos uploaded by ViewOnPoker

Comments for this video on YouTube

@deuce1309 It ... ( 1 year ago by pmanngw)

@deuce1309 It doesn't offer an advantage to any player, running it once twice or three times does not matter, whether you are a big dog or a big favourite. Their expected profit is the still same. All it does is reduce the variance, which is usually preferable for very big stakes.

Jen took that ... ( 1 year ago by BigAlbinoDonky)

Jen took that better than a lot of male players would have. And women are supposed the be the emotional ones.

@bipseh They are ... ( 1 year ago by Wrdlbrnftey)

@bipseh They are professional poker players. They play in games like this every day...

@pmanngw That's ... ( 1 year ago by JTL14789)

@pmanngw That's incorrect. If behind on the turn and there are 40 cards left in the deck with 4 outs, then 4/40. If you did not win the first time, then you have 4/38 on the second time. You have 2/190 to WIN,153/190 to lose, and 35/190 to tie. Running it once, you have 19/190 to WIN and 171/190 to lose. Running it twice DOUBLES the chances for the person behind to NOT lose and also increases the chance for the person ahead to NOT lose by 85%. You can't equate expected profit to advantage.

@JTL14789 No - what ... ( 1 year ago by pmanngw)

@JTL14789 No - what I say is entriely correct. Do a little calculation of your EV in both scenarios and you will see that they are identical in each. The only difference is that by running it a few times, the variance is lower.

@pmanngw You ... ( 1 year ago by JTL14789)

@pmanngw You clearly didn't do the calculation correctly. The only way the EV might stay the same is if the cards from the first run are shuffled back into the deck. I could rest my case there, but I'll continue. You completely missed the point... The point is, EV does not equate to advantage. Please go read a book on statistical analysis and a book on logic.

Oh my god this is ... ( 1 year ago by pmanngw)

Oh my god this is just wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong!! For a start, you seem to be excluding the burn cards which is completely incorrect (the figures you need are 44 and 43, not 40 and 38 - just because a card is burnt you can't remove it from your equations!) Here is an example for you. 2 players, on the turn, run it twice. Say A has 4 outs. Only way anyone makes money is if A wins twice, or loses twice. He wins twice with probability (4/44*3/43) = 12/1892 and loses twice .......

@JTL14789 .... with ... ( 1 year ago by pmanngw)

@JTL14789 .... with probability (40/44*39/43) = 1560/1892. This gives an EV of 12/1892-1560/1892 = -1548/1892. And you may have noticed by now that 1548/1892 is identical to the EV if they run it once which is 4/44-40/44 = -36/44 So I'm afraid it is you that needs to go and read a book, you stupid CUNT LOL!!!

@pmanngw You're ... ( 1 year ago by JTL14789)

@pmanngw You're right about the burn, I was thinking too fast. But you're wrong about everything else. I recommend you account for ROUNDING ERRORS. By not shuffling the first run cards back into the deck, the problem changes. Write out the equations without hitting the equal button and see if it's REALLY the same. Spoiler alert: it's not the same. And you are still dodging the point, EV isn't advantage. Stop barraging me with your 6th grade mathematics and your infantile logic. GG noob.

@JTL14789 Rounding ... ( 1 year ago by pmanngw)

@JTL14789 Rounding errors?! WTF are you talking about? I expressed everything in fractions so there are no rounding errors at all! You are the 6th grader - I have a first class masters degree in mathematics thank you very much. And with regards to advantage, EV is the ONLY measurable way to determine which player has an advantage and as such it is what everyone is using. I've shown you why the maths works and you are STILL scraping the barrel. Just read up on it then come back and apologize.

@pmanngw Degree ... ( 1 year ago by JTL14789)

@pmanngw Degree from Phoenix university? I have BS in eng physics and aero eng from CU, master in systems eng and a phd in reliability (statistics) from SMU. I didn't actually read your garbage calculation until now because I know the EV are not the same, but I see where your error is. You assume that you win/lose same amount. You can lose what you put in ($100) and you can win ($200). EV isn't the only way to measure advantage. You can also consider utility among many MANY other variables.

@pmanngw 200*12/ ... ( 1 year ago by JTL14789)

@pmanngw 200*12/1892-100*1560/1892 does not equal 200*4/44-100*40/44. And before you go crying that utility is not measurable, I know it's not measurable, but it exists. You can measure certain things in physics, but they exist don't they? Someone with fewer chips has a higher utility for not losing. So if he can decrease his chances of losing, then he gains a greater advantage at the table.

@pmanngw Almost ... ( 1 year ago by JTL14789)

@pmanngw Almost forgot... apologize then do the human race a favor by killing yourself. It will greatly improve our mean intelligence as a species.

@deuce1309 wtf? it ... ( 1 year ago by disfiguration)

@deuce1309 wtf? it has nothing to let the underdog get a chop. It's to reduce variance to limit losses and create long term percentage accuracy

@JTL14789 You've ... ( 1 year ago by pmanngw)

@JTL14789 You've given me some sort of non-sensical argument about the two players winning different amounts. This is not a calculation of pot odds - it's about any advantage when running it multiple times. Both players are always playing for the same amount. As far as I am concerned you don't know enough about the subject to be discussing it and I won't be trying to convince you any more. Believe what you like, but I would encourage you to read more on the subject because you are not right.

6 to 1 ? errr - no ( 1 year ago by cardigan3000)

6 to 1 ? errr - no

@deuce1309 actually ... ( 1 year ago by cannydd)

@deuce1309 actually... jennifer harman is probably the only person daniel doesnt want to be in a pot with since their like best friends, other than that poker players are always looking forward to taking each others money

@deuce1309 The only ... ( 1 year ago by DzyLabram)

@deuce1309 The only reason they do it is to get your variance down, if you are a winning player it makes your income more consistent if you run it twice. The only reason not to do it is to fear your opponents that they won't be able to chop it and they are more afraid to play a big pot with you.

fark rebuy 100000 ... ( 1 year ago by yellowkiwi8)

fark rebuy 100000 just like that lol

@deuce1309 you cant ... ( 1 year ago by n8style)

@deuce1309 you cant be a pro if you wouldn't bust your granny, it says that in the rules...or somewhere

@deuce1309 As long ... ( 11 months ago by JeeRaph)

@deuce1309 As long as people don't shoot angles with that. I usually leave it to the underdog to say how many times they want to run it but keep notice of how many times they do it when they're ahead.

@deuce1309 it's not ... ( 10 months ago by dudderz1234)

@deuce1309 it's not really for that reason, its just to limit variance in bankroll swings, in the long term it will turn out the same that the favourite wins more but its not like its to give the dog a chance, they dont know whose behind a lot of the time before they even agree to it. Like here.

Running it multiple ... ( 3 months ago by JiveDadson)

Running it multiple times does not change the average result ("expected value"). It only smooths out the swings ("variance"). It favors neither player.