Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?

[Milo]

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.