Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


It may be legal, but it certainly destroys any zero sum claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

The notion of jackpots being zero sum came from players, not from the casinos. Certain promotions may be zero sum, but most jackpots will be negative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless every jackpot ever hit had a full table sitting in at the time the jackpot was hit it can still be +EV. The winner of a jackpot taking the money and running did not effect the chances that you might have won the money. People talk about a so called "poker economy" like some sort of closed loop system exists. Poker is an "open market", for every tourist that stays in Vegas for a weekend then leaves his contributions have added to your EV after the fact if the jackpot did not hit while he played.

Jackpots being +EV is so obvious (even after administrative expenses) I do agree that they are not zero sum but actually that becomes irrelevant. Poker with any rake at all has never been a zero sum game, why should the BBJ be any different? That said since I am a pretty tight player it becomes even more +EV for me. Not just because I will play less pots but also because the type of hands I play are more likely to be a part of the large portion (winners hand or losers hand) than the random loose player who does become more likely to hit a bad beat jackpot in general but will contribute a great deal more to the BBJ than I.


Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

There is something you are leaving out of the calculation. If the current bad beat is sitting at $90k there is probably another $60k in a back up jackpot. Losing players would have kept this money and lost it to the winning players if they had been able to keep it. I will not pretend to be able to calculate the EV of this, but poker does not exist in a vacuum. Any change to the rake/jackpot structure will change the entire dynamics of the game.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


It may be legal, but it certainly destroys any zero sum claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

The notion of jackpots being zero sum came from players, not from the casinos. Certain promotions may be zero sum, but most jackpots will be negative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless every jackpot ever hit had a full table sitting in at the time the jackpot was hit it can still be +EV. The winner of a jackpot taking the money and running did not effect the chances that you might have won the money. People talk about a so called "poker economy" like some sort of closed loop system exists. Poker is an "open market", for every tourist that stays in Vegas for a weekend then leaves his contributions have added to your EV after the fact if the jackpot did not hit while he played.

Jackpots being +EV is so obvious (even after administrative expenses) I do agree that they are not zero sum but actually that becomes irrelevant. Poker with any rake at all has never been a zero sum game, why should the BBJ be any different? That said since I am a pretty tight player it becomes even more +EV for me. Not just because I will play less pots but also because the type of hands I play are more likely to be a part of the large portion (winners hand or losers hand) than the random loose player who does become more likely to hit a bad beat jackpot in general but will contribute a great deal more to the BBJ than I.


Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

There is something you are leaving out of the calculation. If the current bad beat is sitting at $90k there is probably another $60k in a back up jackpot. Losing players would have kept this money and lost it to the winning players if they had been able to keep it. I will not pretend to be able to calculate the EV of this, but poker does not exist in a vacuum. Any change to the rake/jackpot structure will change the entire dynamics of the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Randy, I understand you have forgotton more about poker room management than I will ever learn but I've never sat down at a poker table that had no losers in it. For every two that go busted there are three more on the waiting list. Money that goes into a bad beat jackpot is not money I can't win because a poker player I never played with would have lost ten more dollars in his poker session. I think you have listened to one too many tight regulars complain about this subject. One crabby dealer will cost me more money than all the money I might ever lose by a player quitting poker forever because the BBJ drop busted him.


Now to address the backup BBJ, that changes nothing as long as you are still able to win it someday, it is not like it went down a blackhole or something. In fact this is preferable since it would be more frustrating to win a BBJ reset to $1000 seeded with all house money than one reset to $60K seeded by the BBJ drop.

Jimbo

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
Randy, I understand you have forgotton more about poker room management than I will ever learn but I've never sat down at a poker table that had no losers in it. For every two that go busted there are three more on the waiting list. Money that goes into a bad beat jackpot is not money I can't win because a poker player I never played with would have lost ten more dollars in his poker session.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well this is true only if there is an unlimited waiting list of fish for you. But here in Vegas the waiting lists are drying up, the number of games going is dwindling. And its quite obvious that their isn't the endless waiting list there used to be.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
Now to address the backup BBJ, that changes nothing as long as you are still able to win it someday, it is not like it went down a blackhole or something. In fact this is preferable since it would be more frustrating to win a BBJ reset to $1000 seeded with all house money than one reset to $60K seeded by the BBJ drop.


[/ QUOTE ]

From EV you are completely correct. I am looking at the health of the game. I would prefer that the money stay spread out rather than being won all at once so I can continue to rake it instead of it sitting in a cage someplace. From the card room perspective it is simply a matter of figuring out {loss rake from money being in the jackpot hole} vs. {added business from having a jackpot}. That is very difficult to figure out because there are players that play for jackpots that will give you more games, but lower the per table.

edit to add: A jackpot is clearly +EV to the player if he plays in a market that allows him to pick a big jackpot to play for or alternatively only plays when the JP is big.

[MrMore]

I don't mind the jackpot, because generally it's disproportionately funded by looser players. The type of hands that win jackpots are pretty premium, and thus really it's people winning with non-premium hands who are -EV on the deal.

I hate the lack of accountability on the money. None of us know how much the casinos might be stealing/charging.

But the real problem I have is with NL jackpots being pooled with limit, or even 1/2 NL. I've twice in the last year folded hands, for valid poker reasons, that would have won jackpots, folds that I wouldn't have made in limit, and most wouldn't have folded in low NL. For ex, I folded an AJ off to a well-meant raise about a month ago, the board ending up AAA26, my opponent having KK. That jackpot gets hit in limit and low NL, so higher NL is, I think, greatly -EV on jackpots if pooled with other HE games like they always seem to be.

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets see, abunch of Harrah's owned joints run freeroll were you win seats to events at the WSOP, now I don't know, but I'd be willing to bet they buy the seat at full price from the jackpot drop and then the WSOP takes the rake from the entry.

[/ QUOTE ]
I gave some thought to putting a complaint in writing to Harrah's about this, and perhaps to the Gaming Commission when they started these silly things a couple years ago. When Wynn or Venetian or Palms or Monte Carlo or whomever does a freeroll, they actually give the players CASH. Hard, cold, money. Harrah's joints are the only ones that scam you, giving you a non-transferable, non-refundable, use-it-or-lose-it seat to their own tourney, which they also take a vig for. I SERIOUSLY don't like this. But decided I didn't dislike it enough to try to rattle any cages. 'Course now that Harrah's has started on the $5 rake policy, I'm more annoyed with them... sooooo maybe...

[fatshark]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't mind the jackpot, because generally it's disproportionately funded by looser players. The type of hands that win jackpots are pretty premium, and thus really it's people winning with non-premium hands who are -EV on the deal.
I hate the lack of accountability on the money. None of us know how much the casinos might be stealing/charging.

But the real problem I have is with NL jackpots being pooled with limit, or even 1/2 NL. I've twice in the last year folded hands, for valid poker reasons, that would have won jackpots, folds that I wouldn't have made in limit, and most wouldn't have folded in low NL. For ex, I folded an AJ off to a well-meant raise about a month ago, the board ending up AAA26, my opponent having KK. That jackpot gets hit in limit and low NL, so higher NL is, I think, greatly -EV on jackpots if pooled with other HE games like they always seem to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I rarely agree wholeheartedly....this is one of those times.