|
Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
Hello all. First time Long time...
Was sitting at a Live table the other day and we started talking about the Bad Beat Jackpot that hit the night before: over $90K The Know-it-all Table General started pontificating (is a word like that going to get me flamed around here?) about how the BBJ was a bad deal. He'd been playing for 10 years 40 hours a day (curretly sitting @ a $1/$2 Table in Detroit) and he'd only cashed for $X thousand and probably paid $XX thousand in BBJ Rakes. So BBJ is a bad Deal... blah... blah... blah... I said: "The BBJ is a zero sum game, the Casino isn't taking a rake from the those dollars, the players eventually get it all. It isn't like the lottery where the payout is -ev. BBJ is 0 ev. The only drain is time value of the money being held by the Casino" Guy couldn't understand this principle and went back to his "BBJ is Bad for the Players" rant. One of the other guys at the table said: "Hey, a $90K BBJ generates interest and action, this place was packed the past two weeks with people just trying to get lucky" He was right, but those players were Uber tight just taking a chair playing for the BBJ. Any thoughts? |
Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
[ QUOTE ]
the Casino isn't taking a rake from the those dollars [/ QUOTE ] There's your problem. |
Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
[ QUOTE ]
I said: "The BBJ is a zero sum game, the Casino isn't taking a rake from the those dollars, the players eventually get it all. It isn't like the lottery where the payout is -ev. BBJ is 0 ev. The only drain is time value of the money being held by the Casino" [/ 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. 2. I agree that a BBJ attracts more players, but I would guess those players are only there to try and win the BBJ. I try not to play in places with a BBJ, cause the odds of hitting it is pretty high. Even in all my online play, I don't think I've ever seen a hand that would qualify for a BBJ. Also, you lose $1 from each winning pot. Yeah, it's only a $1, but estimate how many pots you taken down since you started to play poker, and multiply it by $1. That is a lot of money right there that could be in your pocket instead of in a pool. |
Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
if i wanted to play the lottery, i'd buy my own tickets. i hate bad beat jackpots.
|
Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
I'm pretty sure detroit doesn't take a rake. If they don't the BBJ is +EV so I like it.
|
Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
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. |
Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
[ 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. |
Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
[ 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 ] What?? This doesn't make any sense. Just because the chance of realizing the value is small does not mean that the act itself has a negative expected value. No rake lotteries are EV neutral. If I recall correctly, which I may or may not, California licensed card rooms do not take a vig from the BBJ, although the Indian casinos might. |
Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
[ 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 ] You clearly don't understand the concept of EV Just because something is positive EV doesn't mean you will win, Just because something is 0 EZ doesn't mean you will break even, And just because something is negative EV doesn't mean you will lose. |
Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
"playing for 10 years 40 hours a day "
thats a long day. |
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. |
Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
I read this thread and I'm so happy to not play in a jackpot room.
|
Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
Places like the Huslter, I believe pay promotions out of jackpot drops, eg Aces cracked during the weekdays. Saturday cash giveaway and the Sunday football/Basketball pools.
I wonder if the Bike takes out jackpot funds to reimburse the free food on their players cards? |
Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
FWIW, a regular who's pretty "with it" at Artichoke Joe's last night told me the house takes 15% off the top of every dollar that goes down the hole for the BBJP. He was quite sure of his information, and I have no reason to doubt him.
|
Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
[ QUOTE ]
I read this thread and I'm so happy to not play in a jackpot room. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, I agree. I hate playing with bad players who chase negative ev money. I'd much rather play where they respect my raises. |
Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
[ QUOTE ]
He'd been playing for 10 years 40 hours a day (curretly sitting @ a $1/$2 Table... [/ QUOTE ] I'm pretty sure I played with this guy before. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] If the BBJ is unraked and you do not know how much the jackpot is the EV will be 0 (without regard to interest). If you know the jackpot is higher than it is on average it will be +EV, if it's lower than it is on average it will be -EV. Also, when it's 90k it probably draws players who wouldn't otherwise play to the table (this should be +EV). |
Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
[ QUOTE ]
Gaming regulations prohibit them from raking more than 10% from a game, and raking the BBJ/HHJ drop would put 'em over 10%. [/ QUOTE ] Wouldn't that only be true if the $1 that constitutes the jackpot drop is also counted toward the raked pot? For example, take a 1/2NL game with a 10% to $4 rake. The last dollar is taken out at $40, and the jackpot drop is taken out at $20. Consider a gross pot of $40. $1 got taken out for the jackpot at $20, leaving $39. Only $3 got taken out for rake, because pot after jackpot drop < $40. Total rake is $3 + $.10 that will be raked from the jackpot. $3.10 < 10% * $40. Now consider a gross pot of $41. $1 got taken out for the jackpot at $20, leaving $40. As a result, $4 was raked from the pot. Total rake is $4 + $.10 on the jackpot. $4.10 = 10% * $41. |
Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
Pretty sure BBJs are -EV because I hit one once and I'm still a net loser in them lifetime. The [censored] is so rigged!
|
Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Gaming regulations prohibit them from raking more than 10% from a game, and raking the BBJ/HHJ drop would put 'em over 10%. [/ QUOTE ] Wouldn't that only be true if the $1 that constitutes the jackpot drop is also counted toward the raked pot? For example, take a 1/2NL game with a 10% to $4 rake. The last dollar is taken out at $40, and the jackpot drop is taken out at $20. Consider a gross pot of $40. $1 got taken out for the jackpot at $20, leaving $39. Only $3 got taken out for rake, because pot after jackpot drop < $40. Total rake is $3 + $.10 that will be raked from the jackpot. $3.10 < 10% * $40. Now consider a gross pot of $41. $1 got taken out for the jackpot at $20, leaving $40. As a result, $4 was raked from the pot. Total rake is $4 + $.10 on the jackpot. $4.10 = 10% * $41. [/ QUOTE ] That ain't the way they count the pot anyplace I've ever played. Pot hits $10, and $2 comes out--1 for jackpot, 1 for rake, leaving $8 in the pot. When $10 more goes in, $1 comes out. I suppose yes, if the house does it your way, they could probably get away with it. If at $40 $3 comes out for rake, fine, they can take 10% of the $1 jackpot and be legal and make 10 cents. Or they can just not rake the jackpot and take the full $1 rake at $40. Not sure that's a good trade off for them, but maybe. Does kinda seem like it might make 'em a bit more, at least on games that regularly get >$40 pots. It'd be sorta like raking with dimes instead of dollars, only raking with a single dime only when the jackpot is dropped. Hope the Harrah's execs aren't reading this thread. If we see 10% of the jackpot drop being raked next year and dimes being used for the rake, we'll know where they got the idea. |
Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
[ QUOTE ]
Pretty sure BBJs are -EV because I hit one once and I'm still a net loser in them lifetime. The [censored] is so rigged! [/ QUOTE ] I estimate that I payed about 10k in BBJ and only won a $300 table share. I don't care how loose they are, it's a bum rap. |
Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
[ QUOTE ]
Hope the Harrah's execs aren't reading this thread. If we see 10% of the jackpot drop being raked next year and dimes being used for the rake, we'll know where they got the idea. [/ QUOTE ] No need to be concerned, Harrah's executives can not read. |
schmuck boy right but for the wrong reasons
"Pontificating" might get you in trouble with the wpt fans. Toooo many letters. Plus I might hafta kick you in the nuts, but then I will probably do that eventually anyway.
Bad beat jackpots do suck, but schmuck boy doesn't really know why. I've played in casinos 11 years and have never gotten so much as a table share, but my failure to get lucky is not why I dislike them either. The fact they are bad for poker is why I dislike them. You've got the players attracted to jackpots right. "Jackpot retirement plan" players are exactly the players you don't want to attract, they generally drive away the ones you want. Mostly weak-tight local whiners like big jackpots. I recall getting yelled at years ago for betting the turn in a 2-4 game at palace station because there was already $20 in the pot. Jackpots also remove a lot of money from the poker economy. I've asked numerous winners how much of that big score will ever see a poker table again. Mostly the answer is "none." This is an old idea and not something I've just discovered. Zero sum? Maybe not. With the reserves these places keep, all the money may eventually go back, but any given player can't win both the jackpot and all the reserves. Even lotteries may eventually get big enough to have a +ev, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to play them. I don't mind $1 going down the slot when the money gets spread around between lots of players. Excalibur's wheel is my favorite promotion because lots of people get a little of that money, and it all pretty much winds up back on the tables. Freerolls are generally a bad way to spend jackpot dollars, especially if they require many hours over several months to qualify. These spread a lot of tourist money to a few locals who are able to qualify. Al |
Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
It does feel fairly unbelievable; I mean, I can count on one hand the number of times I've even been in a poker room when the BBJ has been hit, and these jackpots are generally like $3000-$10000, so it's not even like hitting one would make up for paying a couple years' worth of drops.
|
Re: schmuck boy right but for the wrong reasons
One local casino is running a freeroll scam.
If you read the rules the freeroll isn't free, there is a $10 fee, but the house will issue $10 to each player to enter the freeroll. So if the freeroll is has $10,000 in prize money, and 100 players, they pay $10,000 out of the jackpot drop. But they also pay a $10 fee to the casino for each player, so they transfer $1000 from the jackpot money to the poker room revenue. |
Re: schmuck boy right but for the wrong reasons
[ QUOTE ]
One local casino is running a freeroll scam. If you read the rules the freeroll isn't free, there is a $10 fee, but the house will issue $10 to each player to enter the freeroll. So if the freeroll is has $10,000 in prize money, and 100 players, they pay $10,000 out of the jackpot drop. But they also pay a $10 fee to the casino for each player, so they transfer $1000 from the jackpot money to the poker room revenue. [/ QUOTE ] "There is a $10 fee, but the house will issue $10..." You're implying, I think, but not saying, that the $10 they issue is coming out of the freeroll prize pool? If so, I'd send a letter to Gaming and ask 'em to put their noses in. Or you can tell the joint to knock it off and explain why and give 'em a couple weeks to make it so before you sick Gaming on 'em. I just don't see much reason to put up with shenanigans in a town with 50 poker rooms and a Gaming Commission to keep 'em 10% honest. |
Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
[quote]
Quote:
I think some may be confused with cardrooms/casinos that don't take a BBJ collection and set asside a percentage of the rake for BBJ. I would be very interested to see if anyone could confirm that Commerce actually gets away with taking a service charge of any kind out of the players pool. As far as freerolls/high hand/aces cracked and other promotions can come out of player's pools. |
Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Gaming regulations prohibit them from raking more than 10% from a game, and raking the BBJ/HHJ drop would put 'em over 10%. [/ QUOTE ] Wouldn't that only be true if the $1 that constitutes the jackpot drop is also counted toward the raked pot? For example, take a 1/2NL game with a 10% to $4 rake. The last dollar is taken out at $40, and the jackpot drop is taken out at $20. Consider a gross pot of $40. $1 got taken out for the jackpot at $20, leaving $39. Only $3 got taken out for rake, because pot after jackpot drop < $40. Total rake is $3 + $.10 that will be raked from the jackpot. $3.10 < 10% * $40. Now consider a gross pot of $41. $1 got taken out for the jackpot at $20, leaving $40. As a result, $4 was raked from the pot. Total rake is $4 + $.10 on the jackpot. $4.10 = 10% * $41. [/ QUOTE ] On a pot of $35 or more, the house rounds up and the rake would be $4. So the information is not correct. The BBJ collection can be taken at what ever the house decides is a qualifying pot. |
Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
[ QUOTE ]
On a pot of $35 or more, the house rounds up and the rake would be $4. [/ QUOTE ] Uhhhh... Not even slightly true in Nevada. They CANNOT rake more than 10% ever, and they don't get to round. They rake $3 at $39, $4 at $40. I believe Posh got it completely right. |
Re: schmuck boy right but for the wrong reasons
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] One local casino is running a freeroll scam. If you read the rules the freeroll isn't free, there is a $10 fee, but the house will issue $10 to each player to enter the freeroll. So if the freeroll is has $10,000 in prize money, and 100 players, they pay $10,000 out of the jackpot drop. But they also pay a $10 fee to the casino for each player, so they transfer $1000 from the jackpot money to the poker room revenue. [/ QUOTE ] "There is a $10 fee, but the house will issue $10..." You're implying, I think, but not saying, that the $10 they issue is coming out of the freeroll prize pool? If so, I'd send a letter to Gaming and ask 'em to put their noses in. Or you can tell the joint to knock it off and explain why and give 'em a couple weeks to make it so before you sick Gaming on 'em. I just don't see much reason to put up with shenanigans in a town with 50 poker rooms and a Gaming Commission to keep 'em 10% honest. [/ QUOTE ] Hmmm. This might be me not understanding the design of the freeroll, but I can see how they might be working this. If you are essentially giving each players $10 and a seat into a freeroll for $10, that I think would be okay. Basically what they're doing is shortcutting around doing paperwork on each player that would receive $10 out of the player's pool by just having them essentially buy-in and then awarding them $10 after the tournament starts and the funds are released from the Cashier's Station. Then they write the paperwork up as the 100 players X$10 +$10,000 in prizes. There is one sheet of paper that will exhaust $11,000 from the player's pool and all $11,000 does go back to the players in form of a $10 token/etc and the prizes. It probably seems like they are doing something wrong, but I doubt they are.....unless, they say that there are actually 120 players and get some extra cash and pocket it that way. The players never get to see the paperwork and the surv usually isn't as good at the podiums as it is at the cashier's cage. I don't know. Maybe I confused everyone more! Lol |
Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
I believe Canterbury takes a bit out, but for the sake of this argument, I'll assume a BBJ that returns 100%.
The upside is that large BBJs often bring more players who like to gamboooool. This happens A LOT at CP. When the BBJ is big, like over $80K, the games get uber-loose and uber-stupid. Even stranger is that they just ADDED the jackpot for higher limit games (15/30 and 30/60 had been exempt), reportedly AT THE PLAYERS' REQUEST. In short, BBJs can bring about some very good games. The downside of these really big BBJs is that they remove $$ from the poker economy. While a bad 15/30 player may bleed back the $20K he wins eventually, that same player probably would have bled that $20K anyway. A few months back, this 19-year-old playing 3/6 got the big end of a $150K+ BBJ. He called his Mom, and she came to join him and help him carry out 7+ racks of black. He will never return this money to the poker economy. Which of these factors is more potent? Not sure, but over the past three years at CP, I've played 1640 hours and have been kicking about $0.11/hand to the BBJ. Assuming 30 hands per hour (a bit of an underestimate for CP) over these hours, this means I've kicked over $5,000 into the BBJ. This is not inconsequential. |
Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] On a pot of $35 or more, the house rounds up and the rake would be $4. [/ QUOTE ] Uhhhh... Not even slightly true in Nevada. They CANNOT rake more than 10% ever, and they don't get to round. They rake $3 at $39, $4 at $40. I believe Posh got it completely right. [/ QUOTE ] Really, thanks for that, I had no idea. The few times I spot checked to confirm that I guess the dealers got a little "pinchy"! How about the commission/service charge on player's pools? can they do that too in NV? |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.