Party Bad Beat Jackpot: Absolute Crap?

[RydenStoompala]

Thought I would check out the rules on this popular beast. I am anxious to know the math when they pay out to quad 8's or better, set aside 30% of the jackpot, and...

[ QUOTE ]
Every time the jackpot is hit, 70% of the jackpot amount will be distributed and 20% will be used as seed amount for the next jackpot. 10% will be retained by Party Poker as administrative fee.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy vig, batman! Is it just me or is the mob running online poker? $8 grand plus on each payout for adding a junk gimic game to a site?

This is better than being legally able to sell tabacco!

[smartalecc5]

No one is forcing you to play them and they do actually becomes +EV after a certain size - so they're not THAT bad.

[Reef]

It's actually more than 10%, but I'm not going to elaborate.

[krazyace5]

You mean because they take the actual rake and then rake the rake for the jackpot.

[theblitz]

[ QUOTE ]
they do actually becomes +EV after a certain size

[/ QUOTE ]
I once asked that.
At what size does it become +EV to move over to the jackpot games?

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
they do actually becomes +EV after a certain size

[/ QUOTE ]
I once asked that.
At what size does it become +EV to move over to the jackpot games?

[/ QUOTE ]


www.bonuswhores.com (http://www.bonuswhores.com)

[SoftcoreRevolt]

If I were an anarcho Capitalist PartyGaming would be my favorite company on earth.

[AcmeSalesRep]

[ QUOTE ]
You mean because they take the actual rake and then rake the rake for the jackpot.

[/ QUOTE ]

No...the rake on the jackpot portion alone is more than 10% because the portion that seeds the next jackpot will partially go to Party as well...

Acme

[theblitz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
they do actually becomes +EV after a certain size

[/ QUOTE ]
I once asked that.
At what size does it become +EV to move over to the jackpot games?

[/ QUOTE ]


www.bonuswhores.com (http://www.bonuswhores.com)

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
they do actually becomes +EV after a certain size

[/ QUOTE ]
I once asked that.
At what size does it become +EV to move over to the jackpot games?

[/ QUOTE ]


www.bonuswhores.com (http://www.bonuswhores.com)

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


http://www.bonuswhores.com/party-poker.php

[theben]

its highway robbery

[RydenStoompala]

It's not a question of being forced to play. It's a question of +EV. I do not know the answer, which is why I made the post.

To a casual observer like myself, the 10% "admin" charge looks like a rediculously large vig for providing nearly nothing. I mean how hard is it to program these rooms? The house is getting a fantastic ride on the risk taken by the players. Given the probability of winning the jackpot, plus factoring in the normal rake that is also present, how does an operator justify the vig? Just because he can take it he does? OK. That is a good, legitimate answer.

[daryn]

in other news, casinos around the world offer games which, while popular to the casual gambler, actually feature a negative expectation value for the player.

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
in other news, casinos around the world offer games which, while popular to the casual gambler, actually feature a negative expectation value for the player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but is there really any proof of that? I would need some hard evidence before I believe this outlandish claim.

craig

[jb9]

[ QUOTE ]
how does an operator justify the vig? Just because he can take it he does? OK. That is a good, legitimate answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this is the answer.

Any advantage to playing the bad beat jackpot tables probably comes more from the looseness of the games vs. the non-bad beat jackpot tables rather than likelihood of winning the jackpot.

I've played at the 2/4 and 3/6 tables a fair amount, and they generally have fewer multitabling TAGs and more LPPs and LAGs than the normal tables -- especially 2/4 as it is the lowest of the BBJ tables and any .5/1 or 1/2 player who wants to take a shot at the jackpot ends up at these tables.

Whether or not this makes up for the extra rake, I'm not sure, and lately I've been suspecting that it really doesn't.

Perhaps if I get bored I'll try to find a way to compare pokertracker data for BBJ vs. normal tables (maybe by exporting sessions and sorting by table name??) and see if I notice anything interesting -- although I probably don't have enough hands played for any info to be reliable.

[timprov]

[ QUOTE ]

I've played at the 2/4 and 3/6 tables a fair amount, and they generally have fewer multitabling TAGs and more LPPs and LAGs than the normal tables -- especially 2/4 as it is the lowest of the BBJ tables and any .5/1 or 1/2 player who wants to take a shot at the jackpot ends up at these tables.

Whether or not this makes up for the extra rake, I'm not sure, and lately I've been suspecting that it really doesn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure they do, for me. They did this spring, and I noticed during the last bonus that they're even better now, I suspect because most of the multitabling TAGs are playing on skins with rakeback.

I'm sure they don't make up for not getting rakeback, but they're certainly nice for clearing the bonus. When I still had RB on Party, I ran the numbers and figured I was getting about 80% of jackpot rake I paid back in extra RB because of the substantially larger pot sizes than regular 2/4, and of course that I was paying less than my fair share of the jackpot drop.

[theblitz]

I have always wondered one thing about these BBJ tables:
Why are they only Limit?

Is there any reason not to have them on NL or PL?

[Maddenboy]

when last i checked, the Skins do not have jackpot tables.

Perhaps i misunderstood your post.

[timprov]

[ QUOTE ]
when last i checked, the Skins do not have jackpot tables.

Perhaps i misunderstood your post.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I mean -- Party killing rakeback means TAGs playing under RB accounts don't have access to the BBJ tables.

[Art Vandelay]

[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps if I get bored I'll try to find a way to compare pokertracker data for BBJ vs. normal tables (maybe by exporting sessions and sorting by table name??) and see if I notice anything interesting -- although I probably don't have enough hands played for any info to be reliable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does PT count the jackpot drop as rake? I'd assume it does but I have no clue.

You have a good point about the lack of rakeback TAGs populating the BBJ tables; I believe I'll try clearing my next Party bonus there to see if the level of play is any better.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]

Does PT count the jackpot drop as rake? I'd assume it does

[/ QUOTE ]


You assume wrong.

Even though the 10% vig is ridiculous..most of that jackpot IS going back to the players.
The BBJ jackpot that Party does not keep obviously doesn't count as part of your MGR.

And they certainly wouldn't bother to take the time to calculate the 10% that they keep for themselves and somehow work out how much of that was your MGR.

[Art Vandelay]

I wasn't talking about MGR, I was referring to Pokertracker counting the jackpot drop in your rake paid.

I'd be shocked if the BBJ drop counted towards your MGR on Party. They already cornhole you on rake etc enough I can't imagine they'd suddenly become generous on this matter.

No, I'm just interested in seeing if in PT I can track how much rake hit I'm really taking by playing a BBJ table.

[timprov]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Does PT count the jackpot drop as rake? I'd assume it does

[/ QUOTE ]


You assume wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, he assumes right. BBJ rake doesn't count against MGR, but PT does count it, as it should.

[hashi92]

Does anyone know why they dont include any no limit games in this bad beat jackpot?

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone know why they dont include any no limit games in this bad beat jackpot?

[/ QUOTE ]

N/L games generate much less total rake.

[jon593]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps if I get bored I'll try to find a way to compare pokertracker data for BBJ vs. normal tables (maybe by exporting sessions and sorting by table name??) and see if I notice anything interesting -- although I probably don't have enough hands played for any info to be reliable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does PT count the jackpot drop as rake? I'd assume it does but I have no clue.

You have a good point about the lack of rakeback TAGs populating the BBJ tables; I believe I'll try clearing my next Party bonus there to see if the level of play is any better.

[/ QUOTE ]

the level of play is absolutely horrible. you will find people playing any 2 cards to the river even if they have no chance at winning the jp

[SoCalRugger]

[ QUOTE ]
I've played at the 2/4 and 3/6 tables a fair amount, and they generally have fewer multitabling TAGs and more LPPs and LAGs than the normal tables -- especially 2/4 as it is the lowest of the BBJ tables and any .5/1 or 1/2 player who wants to take a shot at the jackpot ends up at these tables.

Whether or not this makes up for the extra rake, I'm not sure, and lately I've been suspecting that it really doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]
I finally got around to hitting up the Party IGMPAY bonus. Decided to clear it at the 5/10 BBJ tables this time. The difference was incredible. There were a lot more bad players than at the regular 5/10 full games. If I had to only play at Party, I'd definitely take the extra $.50 hit to play at those tables. It's where I'm going to clear all the Party bonuses from now on.

[MicroBob]

aha.

sorry. my misunderstanding (that's what i get for semi-skimming a post and then replying)

[Guthrie]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because he can take it he does?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. He also thinks he has the right to confiscate your funds at any time for any number of reasons without even telling you the reason.

[RydenStoompala]

[ QUOTE ]
The difference was incredible. There were a lot more bad players than at the regular 5/10 full games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Finally. One reason to play. If it's that good, then it's +EV despite the mafia rake.

[stone_7]

[ QUOTE ]
in other news, casinos around the world offer games which, while popular to the casual gambler, actually feature a negative expectation value for the player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought Casinos were in business to give me money.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because he can take it he does? OK. That is a good, legitimate answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, they offer a service to degenerate gamblers, and actually manage to prove that there is a sucker born every minute. What a shocker.

Capitalism is what you can get away with. Nike seems to be doing nicely selling sneakers that cost $2 to manufacture for $199.

Now, off course, all these suckers should get rid of the middle man and just wire me their cash, but as that doesn't seem to be happening any time soon I guess I'll have to live, grudgingly, with Party offering a $12.99 service for $4000.

[jb9]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps if I get bored I'll try to find a way to compare pokertracker data for BBJ vs. normal tables...

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I got bored enough to give this a quick try...

I exported game data from pokertracker to Excel, sorted by table title, and then cut and pasted the BBJ tables to a new spreadsheet so I could compare them vs. normal tables.

Sample size was too small to compare win rates, but I think it is OK for avg. pot and rake comparisons (but I'm not great with statistics, so tell me if I'm wrong).

Anyway, this is what I found, pot size and rake in bb/hand:

2/4 BBJ: 6.47 pot, 0.31 rake (~10,000 hands)
2/4 normal: 6.36 pot, 0.22 rake (~3,000 hands)

3/6 BBJ: 6.25 pot, 0.29 rake (~3,500 hands)
3/6 normal: 6.09 pot, 0.22 rake (~1,000 hands)

I'm not too sure what to make of this, although my first thought was "at BBJ 2/4 $124.00 leaves the table every 100 hands vs. $88.00 at normal 2/4".

However, the increase in average pot size was larger than the increase in average rake (although sample size and table selection could be factors here).

I'm still not sure what this says about playing the BBJ tables. I think for the next few months, I'll play the normal tables more often and see if I can really notice much of a difference.

I'd be curious to see the results if someone with more data than I could do a similar comparison.