Regarding Jek's/BW's break-even points for BBJ (long)

[MicroBob]

Party BBJ is +$300k now so of course I've been thinking about it some more.


I still don't know if jek's way of figuring out the +EV points for the BBJ that he did on bonus-whores is correct.
I've stated as much before in previous threads about it...but also admit that I'm not smart enough to know exactly why.


There were a couple of reasonable points made in one of the more recent threads about this a couple weeks ago.

One was that it shouldn't matter what limit you are playing at as far as the impact of the BBJ drop is concerned because you are essentially just paying the $0.50 SEPERATELY from the regular rake...kind of like taking the insurance-bet in blackjack (for those of you who count-cards/play advantage BJ and understand when it is +EV to do this).

That was interesting argument.
but then I thought about it...."Why should it really matter?"

It is an extra $0.50 that is taken out on each hand.
For purposes of that hand I don't really care whether $0.50 is going to play the jackpot and $2 is going to the rake...or vice-versa.

I'm not playing the jackpot until it gets big anyway....which is a result of EVERYONE ELSE paying their little $0.50/hand fee at a time to drive the jackpot up to a point where I determine that I want to play it.


Viewing the extra $0.50 as a 'seperate side-bet' is not quite correct imo.
What matters is how much is getting taken off the table per hand and how that impacts the game you are playing.

If it was a $0.50 max-rake but also a $3 jack-pot drop would that change things? No. I don't care where the money that is getting taken off is going.
The fact that the jackpot continues to grow from the extra $0.50 (or $3) jackpot drop doesn't mean anything to me really. I'm playing for the money that EVERYONE ELSE put in there.


The amount taken off DOES MATTER for each limit.

If I'm playing $1/$2 hold-em and they have a $7 max-rake up to 20% then obviously this is going to alter my bottom-line to the point where that game can no longer be beatable.

If I'm playing $400/$800 hold-em and they have a $7 max-rake up to 20% the difference for a player who is winning 1BB/100 in that game is going to be much smaller. The game is still beatable for the +1BB/100 player.


Thus, I still think that the $0.50 jackpot drop PER HAND is really much worse news for the 2/4 BBJ player. There are many pots in there that are raked just $1 or $1.50.
This is 25%-37.5% of a BB.
Tack on the extra $.50 removed for the jackpot drop and you are taking out another 12.5% of a BB.


At 5/10 through 15/30 the jackpot drop has a lesser bottom-line impact on the winning player.


I reiterate (again) that I don't really know my way around the math very well.
I was just thinking some of this stuff through a little bit and have come to the conclusion (again) that I think the impact of the extra $0.50 really DOES hit the 2/4 and 3/6 tables harder.


Of course, I'm not even addressing the idea that the players on these 2/4 BBJ tables are so much worse to still make them worth one's while.
That's really mostly up to the individual to determine.

[yoshi_yoshi]

I'm not sure I agree.

The BBJ after a certain period is essentially a slight +EV situation with extreme variance. Assuming each dealt hand has a 1 in xxxxx chance of winning the jackpot, what limit you are playing at doesn't really matter.

I think the 'side bet' explanation is correct. Consider this... you are playing at your regular game with regular rake. A friend approaches you and proposes: every time you win a pot over $20, he will let you make a $0.50 bet that, EV-wise, makes a profit on a $100,000 grand prize. You take that bet every time he offers it to you.

That is exactly the situation the BBJ puts you in. It doesn't matter what limit.

[MicroBob]

I'm not sure I agree with me either...still trying to figure it out.

but I still don't think your example applies.


I'm playing poker....and there's an extra $0.50 being taken off the table EVERY raked-hand.

No matter what BBJ table I'm playing on we will assume that my chances of hitting the jackpot are roughly the same.

The extra $0.50 impacts me much more when I'm playing 2/4.

I don't care whether the extra $0.50 is going into the jackpot or not.

Example:
Lets say there was no jackpot. You are just playing unwisely) on a site that charges a base $0.50 on every raked-hand that is ON TOP OF the 5% up to $3 (or whatever Party is).
I would think one would come to the conclusion that the extra $0.50 'base' hurts you more at 2/4 then it does at 15/30.

[jman220]

I'm definitely not good enough at math to attempt this. But the one thing I do know, is that there is a correct answer to this. I don't know what that answer is, but this shouldn't be a situation where people have different opinions, there is a correct way of figuring it out if you know the math. Your arguments look good, and are convincing, but of course, my math experience isn't extensive enough to know. I would really love it if someone who really really knew their stuff like Sklansky, took a shot at it and put the argument to rest once and for all (not saying Jek is wrong, just that I am not intelligent enough to know if he is wrong or not, and I guess I would trust someone like Sklansky more).

[Torr]

Maybe I am way off base but here goes.

Yes in term of win rate, the extra 50 cent drop will effect everyone's BB/100.

Yes at 2/4 this will hurt more than at 5/10 or 15/30.

The numbers for +EV determines when the winning person will come out ahead of the drop. I think the problem lies in that it is a jackpot, so only 1 person sees this +EV situation at a time.

If the +EV number is say $300,000 AND every single jackpot was above that number AND you knew that every 100k hands (its really a lot more but i don't have exact numbers) you played you'd end up losing a bad beat hand to win the biggest share of the BBJ. Then the 50 cent drop would be irrelevant because you are always +EV as long as you play enough hands to handle the variance. You may play 300k hands and never see one and then win four in your next 100k. As long as the BBJ is still over 300k at all times the odds are in your favor to still come out ahead.

The problem is that there is not a large enough sample size to play in over a lifetime to be guaranteed +EV. If you could play infinite hands over a certain BBJ size, you will come out ahead.

Is that what you were contemplating?

[yoshi_yoshi]

I don't think there's any math to it, more of a logic thing.

In response to Microbob, if we are playing the BBJ because we want to clean up on the extra-loose games, then yes, the added rake 'hurts' us, since we don't realistically expect to hit the jackpot.

However, from an EV standpoint, the EV from playing at a BBJ table will be the same regardless of what limit we are playing.

Here is another attempt to try to get my thoughts out: let's say you are playing at a play money table. Now, every time you win a pot, your friend offers you the same +EV deal as before. You take the offer because it is +EV. Even though it seems like your bb/100 at the play money table is -infinity/100, it's obvious that the BBJ is still a good deal and has nothing to do with that stakes you are at.

[sublime]

anyways-

i ask this question once a month, but how big does the jackpot have to be to be considered +EV?

BRAVO!!!!!! nail on the head!!!

Size of jackpot= XXX = +EV

XXX= $245,000 in my book

[Uglyowl]

Think of the jackpot as a complete seperate bet, it is incorrect not too. At least for the sake of these few paragraphs /images/graemlins/smile.gif

The prize is the same no matter the limit. Chances into this "lottery" cost 50 cents.

Same cost, same prize, so why the different levels of +EV you ask.

Well at the lower limits, they give you free tickets so to speak. There will be draws where no fee is collected. The chance to win was there, but no fee.

The chances of you being a winning player is not what is being discussed here, but the value of this "lottery" chance.

To take an extreme example if someone gave me a one time (1 ticket max), 1 in 100 chance to pay $10 to win $1,000,000 it is +EV, but yes most of the time I will walk away a loser.

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
If it was a $0.50 max-rake but also a $3 jack-pot drop would that change things? No. I don't care where the money that is getting taken off is going.
The fact that the jackpot continues to grow from the extra $0.50 (or $3) jackpot drop doesn't mean anything to me really. I'm playing for the money that EVERYONE ELSE put in there.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Bob,

I thinke everyone else has explained very well why it should be taken as a side bet, and thus why, at 2/4, with less raked hands, (ie cheaper side bets) the side bets cost less than 10/20, thus the BBJ doesn't need to be as high to make it +EV.

However, I do want to say that your above (quoted) example is right on. The only thing that matters is that the BBJ rake is $.50 higher than the rake at an equivalent table. How it's divided up doesn't matter.

Also, to everyone:
Recently we went through and refigured a lot of raked hand %s for various limits (using much more empirical data than before.) However, I forgot to update the BBJ table, so it is likely off slightly. This will be remedied in the next day or two.

[J_B]

This is really two questions:

1. When is the amount I pay towards the jackpot +EV for the prize?
2. How does it affect my win rate vs. a normal non-drop game?

While #1 could be +EV, it could make #2 -EV and vice versa.

Think of it more like a carribean stud jp drop. At a certain point it becomes +EV. Same idea. Or for that matter, the lottery.

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
This is really two questions:

1. When is the amount I pay towards the jackpot +EV for the prize?
2. How does it affect my win rate vs. a normal non-drop game?

While #1 could be +EV, it could make #2 -EV and vice versa.

Think of it more like a carribean stud jp drop. At a certain point it becomes +EV. Same idea. Or for that matter, the lottery.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) http://www.bonuswhores.com/party-poker.php. Although, as I said, these numbers will be fine tuned relatively soon.

2) Your WR just from poker will be lower, but your overall long-run win rate, including promotions, will be higher than if you had played a normal table. If the BBJ is below the above mentioned thresholds, then your WR, even with all long-run promotions figured in, will still be lower than if you had played a normal table.

[Maddenboy]

Technical point that, in practice, covers itself, but should be stated for discussion purposes.

There is no "FREE" chance to hit it.

To qualify for jackpot, it must be a raked pot.

So if, for example, you have $4 at the start of the hand and go all in with your AA, and I 3bet with KK, and we go heads up with AAKK5, no jackpot will be paid, because the pot is only $11.

In practice, of course, two players with qualifying hands go to war on the river and it is easily a raked pot.

[J_B]

By $1, there should be a certain # where at all levels the $0.50 to win is +EV. Of course based on amount you'd get for winning, table share, etc. This # comes from chance of hitting vs. the amount you win. This has nothing to do with the stakes of the gamne or your win rate at the game.

ie: JP will be hit every X number of hands therefore # of hands * $0.50 = amount jp needs to be to be +EV.

The math of this is simlar to http://www.math.sfu.ca/~alspach/comp29/

Or this one: http://www.math.sfu.ca/~alspach/comp46.pdf

Now of course there is the rare instance where someone folds the 1 hand that would have made it. But, just the strait odds would probably be enough to answer question #1.

So, all this leads me to:

If we assume his math to be accurate:

We have a 1 in 155 000 chance of hitting it.

So, 155000 * $0.50 = $77500 for a $0.50 jackpot chance to be an even chance.

[MicroBob]

haven't gone to the links....but you have to also consider that party 'rakes' 10% that they keep for themselves...and they also leave a certain percentage to 'seed' the next jackpot.

Also....if the links didn't provide for the possibility of someone folding their 88 on flop of AQJ and thus missing their chance to catch runner-runner quads then it is definitely adding unwarranted EV to it.

[MicroBob]

As you observed..you really ARE getting a mostly 'free' shot at it.
Every time you are just DEALT a hand you have get that chance to hit it....it is assumed that if you DO hit it you will get enough action for the pot to be raked.

But at 2/4....there will be MANY hands where you were didn't hit it AND didn't have a rake taken out.
That doesn't mean that you didn't have a CHANCE to hit it though.

You start with 98s....the flop missing you completely...opponent with QQ bets his flopped quads and you fold.
You had a CHANCE to flop a straight-flush draw...but when you folded without a rake being taken you didn't have to PAY for that chance.
You got to take a shot at it for free.


This is why Jek believe that the 2/4 and 3/6 games are actually HIGHER EV for the jackpot. Because there are fewer raked hands, thus more 'free chances' without any jackpot drop being charged at all.
I'm seeing that logic as well....but my slow-motion brain is still working on how to successfully ditch my other logic.

In other words...I can see how Jek's (and others') logic is correct.
But I also still can't see why my 'alternate' logic is incorrect (even though it's virtually the OPPOSITE of Jek's logic).


I didn't sleep terribly well last night and I have a headache...so I'm pretty damn certain I'm not going to solve this personal connundrum right now.
You had a CHANCE

[RollaJ]

I think also that at 2-4 you have a greater chance of hitting as people wont fold any suited connectors or 1 gappers for $2 preflop. At 10-20 it is expensive to limp with 45s, at 2-4 it is not, as it is only $2....and you are more likely to have 7 people seeing the flop

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]


There is no "FREE" chance to hit it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. You are still dealt cards on the hands where the pot does not get to $20 in $2/$4 correct?

If you don't like your chances you are able to fold and sometimes not pay the $0.50

Maybe this is comparable to seeing your first 3 of 6 lottery #'s before deciding if you want to purchase it.

[pokerplayer28]

new 15/30 game offered
90% of the pots are raked
you have to pay $100 every raked pot for a 10% shot on every hand for a $800 prize
do you play this 15/30 game or a regular one?

now exact same situation except its a
2/4 game 60% raked
do you play this game or a regular 2/4 game?

[MicroBob]

that's an interesting take too and I had kind of thought in a similar direction (that is....changing the cost of the rake or the JP to insanely high numbers to try to see it more clearly).


Actually...you don't even need the 'chance at hitting the jackpot' in this one either imo.
I think that factoring in the +EV of hitting the jackpot STILL might be a mistake (I'm seeing it the other way too of course...seriously...but I'm just still struggling with it)


let me look at this way:

On the following tables there is NO JACKPOT and a very simple rake-structure of $1 when the pot is large enough:

At 2/4 you have 60% of the hands raked exactly $1.
At 15/30 you have 80% of the hands raked exactly $1.

Which table does the rake of a greater impact?

Looking at it again:

At 2/4 you have a rake of $6 on 60% of the hands.
At 15/30 you have a rake of $6 on 80% of the hands.

I think this clears up the answer a bit...because clearly the 2/4 game is virtually unbeatable, while one would STILL be able to break-even on the 15/30 game.


Okay - now lets throw in one further element....
On EVERY hand you have a chance to hit this gigantic jackpot....but you're still just playing regular poker.
The size of the jackpot that you could hit is the SAME regardless of which table you are on.

Sooooooo......my question is:
If the 15/30 game is better EV without the jackpot....then why does the 2/4 game become better EV with the jackpot?


Sorry gang...but I'm still not convinced that looking at the jackpot as a side-bet is entirely a mistake.

I do indeed see the logic behind analyzing it in such a way.
But I just can't figure out why doing it 'my way' (for lack of better term) is actually incorrect.


If you play ANY of the jackpot tables then you have the chance of hitting the jackpot.
IMO, the only additional jackpot EV from the lower tables comes from more players hanging onto their hands longer thus giving one a better chance of hitting it.
I think the jackpot 'drop' (i.e. 'additional flat $0.50 rake') at those tables still hurts you more at the lower limits.


Arrrrrgggghhh.
Am I the only one who thinks this way?
Does EVERYONE think I'm completely wrong in my logic here?

I've seen a lot of arguments proving the opposite to a greater or lesser degree.
But I still can't see anything that DISPROVES my argument (if that makes any sense at all).


Sorry for wasting everyone's time on this. But I do find it interesting...and it STILL is quite a little puzzle for me.

[pokerplayer28]

[ QUOTE ]

I think the jackpot 'drop' (i.e. 'additional flat $0.50 rake') at those tables still hurts you more at the lower limits.




[/ QUOTE ]

why do you see the drop as additional rake? say youre playing a .1/.2 game and every hand you put $1 in a jar when you get a royal flush you take your money out and start over. Is this game unbeatable?

Lets change the game to 1000/2000 does it make a difference?

[MicroBob]

I still don't care about ME putting the money into the jar or into the rake.
It gets taken out of the pot and that's all I care about.


I only play when the jackpot is high enough.
So the fact that the extra $1 is going into the royal-flush jar is irrelevant to me.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
On the following tables there is NO JACKPOT and a very simple rake-structure of $1 when the pot is large enough:

At 2/4 you have 60% of the hands raked exactly $1.
At 15/30 you have 80% of the hands raked exactly $1.

Which table does the rake of a greater impact?

[/ QUOTE ]

As in online poker, slots, etc. the % raked is smaller as you move up in stakes. You will pay more money in rake/vig at higher level, but the percentage is less.

The reason people play the lower limits is they can't afford to lose an amount needed to play there and/or they are not skilled enough to beat the skill level.

If someone offered me a one in 20 chance to wager my house to win $10 million, although obviously +EV, I would never be able to do.

This game is very hard to beat you would have to agree, being a loser 95% of the time.

I think this can be compared to a NL tournament. If you have a 52% chance of doubling up (risking all your chips), it is not always correct to take this bet. +EV is purely a mathematical concept.


[ QUOTE ]


Looking at it again:

At 2/4 you have a rake of $6 on 60% of the hands.
At 15/30 you have a rake of $6 on 80% of the hands.

I think this clears up the answer a bit...because clearly the 2/4 game is virtually unbeatable, while one would STILL be able to break-even on the 15/30 game.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a number that makes it +EV, although it is alot higher than the BBJ we are discussing.

At $2/$4 you need less of a jackpot to be +EV. It absolutely has no bearing on you being able to walk away a winner more often.

Take 100 hands at each:

$2/$4 you pay $360 towards the jackpot
$15/$30 you pay $480 towards the jackpot

A skilled player would have an easier time making the $480 at the higher level back than $360 at the lower level, but think of the people who lose.

Are they going to feel the same way?

Would your rather spend $360 to win a large jackpot or $480 to win this same jackpot?

As in my betting the house example, +EV does not need to mean ability to walk away a winner most of the time.

You have the ability to beat $15/$30 it seems and is probably +EV to you but not the average person. The pursuit of the jackpot does not factor into this by the way.

It is an interesting concept

[MicroBob]

Sorry sorry sorry...and a million times sorry.
but I'm still stuck.

Lets disregard the +EV of the jackpot for a sec.

Is the extra money that you would pay at 15/30 (extra $0.50 per raked-hand or whatever) still worse than the money at 2/4 (extra $0.50 per raked-hand as well)?

Again...since you get to play for the jackpot on EITHER table I fail to see how thinking of it as 'an extra $0.50 to play the jackpot' makes a difference.

I'm playing poker...and X is the amount that is getting taken off of various tables...and no matter which table I play I also happen to have this jackpot opportunity.


Sorry for harping on it gang...and I guess I'll stop now because I'm really pretty damn stuck and there's not much use in boring the crap out of everyone with my thoughts (and general ignorance) about this.

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry sorry sorry...and a million times sorry.
but I'm still stuck.

Lets disregard the +EV of the jackpot for a sec.

Is the extra money that you would pay at 15/30 (extra $0.50 per raked-hand or whatever) still worse than the money at 2/4 (extra $0.50 per raked-hand as well)?

Again...since you get to play for the jackpot on EITHER table I fail to see how thinking of it as 'an extra $0.50 to play the jackpot' makes a difference.

I'm playing poker...and X is the amount that is getting taken off of various tables...and no matter which table I play I also happen to have this jackpot opportunity.


Sorry for harping on it gang...and I guess I'll stop now because I'm really pretty damn stuck and there's not much use in boring the crap out of everyone with my thoughts (and general ignorance) about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's pretend you aren't playing poker for a minute.

I'm going to use some simplified numbers that are in no way accurate, but will hopefully make my point.

The odds of being a part of a BBJ are 100,000:1. If the BBJ is at $50,000, $40,000 goes to the players, and for all intents and purposes, is evenly distributed amongst the seated player, so each player has a 1 in 100k chance of winning $4k. The value of that chance is $4k/100k or $.04.

If you pay the $.50 extra once every 10 hands, that's an extra $.05/hand. Obviously, paying $.05 for a $.04 value is not a good idea. This would come up at 10/20, where you basically are paying $.05 on 100% of the hands. But, what if you're playing at a limit that only has 60% of the hands raked? You're still getting the $.04 EV on every hand, but only paying an average of $.03/hand ($.05*60%).

If you can get $.04 EV out of a $.03 purchase, then you should do it (provided bankroll considerations don't cause you to put the breaks on.)

Does this help?

Also, one more time, these numbers were made up to be simple, so please nobody try to correct them.

[MicroBob]

Yes...I understand that and it doesn't seem very different from how somany others are putting it.

It still doesn't address my ideas though.
Being mostly that you are playing poker, and if they take an extra $0.50 'base' out of each hand it would have a greater impact on you at 2/4 than at 15/30.

Thanks for trying JEK...but your post didn't illuminate anything more than I already had read.

I'm not sure that I'm explaining my argument correctly...but I've attempted to so many times that I'm not going to do that anymore.

[HesseJam]

Uncoordinated thoughts:

Everything else being equal, the 50c drop influences your bottom line independantly of the limit you are playing. In relative terms the hit is higher to your BB/100 rate of raked hands in a lower limit than as in higher limits. In absolute terms (bottom line) it is the same.

If you could determine the probablility of hitting the Jackpot and gameplay would be the same in all limits there would also be no difference to your bottom line. It would be either +EV or - EV depending only on the size of the bounty - not on the limits or the amount of raked hands per 100 hands. Every raked hand is a lottery ticket. If you have more raked hands / 100 you are buying more tickets per hour thus either increasing your hourly rate if +EV or decreasing it if -EV.

I think the main factor driving the +EV threshhold for the jackpot to be different for different limits is: What type of hands are typically raked in the different limits? For example: If lower limits are looser, could it be that, compared to higher limits, relatively more hands of all raked hands have a lower probability to hit the jackpot at the time that they are raked.

[HesseJam]

Another thought to not let the thinking go astray:

We are discussing only the stone cold EV and not a risk/ utility function. You buy one ticket to the Lottery and the drawing takes place immediately. Buying a ticket has a certain EV and it is either positive or negative and it does not matter how many lotteries you hold per hour or per 100 hands. If risk did not matter, you would try to do as many Lottery drawings as you could if they were +EV.

[J_B]

Another thought too... The table is reallyt buying the ticket, not a single person. So, really your cost of the ticket would be # people/ticket cost. Of course that changes by how many hands you play, etc. Same concept as who's paying most of the rake anyhow.

[HesseJam]

Right. Also, it seems to be important to play at a complete full ring table because every additional player increases the chances to hit it overproportionally.