Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
 

[ QUOTE ]
1. Depending on the casino, many of them take a certain percentage from the BBJ pot for "administrative/marketing". It usually runs around 10%. This isn't really published information, it's something you would find in the small print. Some casinos may not take a percentage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this is mostly driven by regulation. Some gaming jurisdictions require that all of the jackpot take be returned to players. Most jurisdictions that do not have this rule (and perhaps all, I'm not sure) at least impose a minimum percentage of the take that must be returned. This is why BBJ poker rooms that close have to come up with alternate promotions to return the BBJ pool to players.

A BBJ with no rake is zero sum overall, but some players are +EV with respect to the jackpot and others are -EV. Factors that make a player more likely to be +EV (with respect only to the jackpot, ignoring the poker game itself) include (1) seeing the flop with a greater percentage of hands that can make jackpot outcomes and (2) playing at a time when the jackpot pool is relatively large.

Edit to add: Is anyone aware of situations when a BBJ has grown so large that it was a compelling value play in its own right? I've often heard of similar situations with the progressive jackpot in Caribbean Stud Poker or various video poker/slot machines.

Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
 

"playing for 10 years 40 hours a [week] (curretly sitting @ a $1/$2 Table in Detroit)"

$1/$2 limit table???????

Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
 

The bad beat jackpot is a scam unless there's a regulation against it... I only know about Winstar, and there is A LOT taken out of the drop.

Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
 

BBJ is highly +EV if you only play in the room when the jackpot is very large. It is highly -EV if you're a room regular who plays day after day regardless of the jackpot. Sure, overall the BBJ is neutral if they don't take a rake. But for a specific player it may be -EV or +EV.

It's like buying lottery tickets when the jackpot is $5M vs $300M. One is ST00P1D beyond compare, and the other just not too smart.

I hate BBJ's. Don't mind the high hands long as the room returns 100% of the money in the form of the high-hand payouts. Alas, most do not--they take a high hand rake and only return some fraction in the form of payouts for high hands, and then use the rest to do various special promos that only special people qualify for (like most of the Vegas freeroll tourneys--they're funded from the HHJ rake, but only people who put in 40 hours/month get a crack at it and the rest of us are paying for it).

Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
 

I have heard that a lot of casinos keep a lot of the jackpot money for themselves. Someone told me the Commerce pays out less than half. Cardrooms often use some of this money for other player benefits like freeroll tournaments for regulars who have played a certain number of hours in a month. If you're not a regular who plays tourneys this is of no benefit to you though.

Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
 

1) On the math, IMO, BBJ's are -EV because less than the sum collected goes back to the player. OTOH,
A) It is VERY clear that BBJ's ATTRACT people to our games. I even try to play during 2X JP times.
B) A number of people who post here have had signficant additions to their bankrolls from JPs. This made it easier for them to "move up" faster.
C) My two table shares this year were worth almost $4/hr. (or .5BB/hr if you prefer) I don't include this $ in my poker stats.
D) So overall, for the slight -EV (and some casinos do fund some of their JP's so those ARE +EV), I like what they do for the action. If you play a lot, you'll catch at least your share and possibly more. No reason for "hate" here.

Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I semi-understand your view that BBJ is +EV becuase it is not raked, but how can you consider it +EV when you can not guarentee that *you* will get back every $1 you put in?

Even if the state lottery didn't take a rake, the EV would be negative becuase the odds of hitting it are so high you wouldnt win.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you understand the concept of EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess your right, I don't.

Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
 

[ QUOTE ]
"playing for 10 years 40 hours a [week] (curretly sitting @ a $1/$2 Table in Detroit)"

$1/$2 limit table???????

[/ QUOTE ]
"Week" is correct.

It was $1/$2 No Limit Tx Hold'Em (Buy-in $50-$200)

Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
 

[ QUOTE ]
1) On the math, IMO, BBJ's are -EV because less than the sum collected goes back to the player.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not true in Nevada. Gaming regulations prohibit them from raking more than 10% from a game, and raking the BBJ/HHJ drop would put 'em over 10%.

Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have heard that a lot of casinos keep a lot of the jackpot money for themselves. Someone told me the Commerce pays out less than half.

[/ QUOTE ]

Commerce is a wierd one. By law, they cannot keep half. So thats not what is going on . While I do not have any first hand knowledge, I do know how to figure out what makes logical sense.

Ten years ago, Commerce used to regularly get 20+ $6-12 LHE games going. The jackpot on that game was phenomenal....and only required Aces full beaten by four of a kind. The jackpot regularly would reach $50K and even 100K sometimes. The house did not add any money, and there were no double jackpots or other promotions.

Now, the jackpots for the $9-18 rarely reach even $15K. But Commerce has that crappy twice a day 100K jackpot that is nearly impossible to hit.

My very strong suspicion is that Commerce holds back a significant amount of money to fund any lucky streak on those 100K jackpots. Either that, or they pay a hefty insurance in case there is a lucky streak on those. I'd be very interested to see an accounting of what Commerce does with their jackpot money and what administrative fees are involved.