Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?

[Pot Odds RAC]

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?

[JackInDaCrak]

[ QUOTE ]
the Casino isn't taking a rake from the those dollars

[/ QUOTE ]

There's your problem.

[Mr. AtlanticCity]

[ 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.

[Mr_Mxyztplk]

if i wanted to play the lottery, i'd buy my own tickets. i hate bad beat jackpots.

[JJH3984]

I'm pretty sure detroit doesn't take a rake. If they don't the BBJ is +EV so I like it.

[Mr. AtlanticCity]

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.

[chesspain]

[ 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.

[crashjr]

[ 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.

[psandman]

[ 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.

[Poshua]

[ 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.