Party Poker Sidebets

[rwesty]

What is the EV of these bets?

[Vincent Lepore]

- 0 -

Vince

[tonypaladino]

-15%

[TomCollins]

EV = $8 *(1/8.5) - 1 *(7.5/8.5) = .94 - .88 = -6.25%

[yellowjack]

I hope this clears things up. Here is the player's EV for $1 wagered on red (black is the same):

P(all red) = (26/52)*(25/51)*(24/50) = 2/17 = 1/8.5
Payoff: +$7
P(not all red) = 1 - P(all red) = 7.5/8.5
Payoff: -$1

EV: (1/8.5)*(+$7) + (7.5/8.5)*(-$1) = -$0.05(8823)

[PokerGoblin]

This is the way I figured it:

If you place the bet after seeing your hole cards it is very slightly +EV.

If you have two black hole cards and bet red your probabilities are (26/50)*(25/49)*(24/48) = 0.1326.


the payout, 1/8, is .125, so you would have .7% +EV.

Still it doesn't seem right. It's as if I am forgetting something.

PG

[yellowjack]

You decide on a bet before getting your hole cards.

My math:

26/52 * 25/51 * 24/50 = 0.11764706 or 1 in just a hair more than 8.5

This gives odds of 7.5 to 1 against your making your flop.

By my line of thinking, for every 17 bets you place, you will win twice. This means you will lose 15 bets. On the last two, you will win and be paid 8 to 1, making 16 bets, for a total profit of 1 bet.

However, I'm quite convinced I'm missing something, as Party Poker would be very foolish to offer this sort of bet.

[Gabe]

[ QUOTE ]
- 0 -

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to share your work?

I don't see why they would offer a bet and not have the best of it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
- 0 -

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to share your work?

I don't see why they would offer a bet and not have the best of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Likewise.

[yellowjack]

I've posted the EV in several different threads now. I don't know what is so difficult about it. Obviously Vince did no work. He might have been joking with the 0 because if you do not bet then your EV is 0.

[ QUOTE ]
I've posted the EV in several different threads now. I don't know what is so difficult about it. Obviously Vince did no work. He might have been joking with the 0 because if you do not bet then your EV is 0.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it's amazing. Someone posts the correct math with working and noone wants to believe it or pay it any heed. This is what makes poker is such a great game.

[AJo Go All In]

[ QUOTE ]
you will win and be paid 8 to 1

[/ QUOTE ]

try here.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you will win and be paid 8 to 1

[/ QUOTE ]

try here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

Yellowjack, I understand your work, I'm just confused at to why an 8 to 1 pay off would be a +7 profit instead of +8?

Edit: Did anyone else notice the sidebet not being offered today? Any idea what this indicates?

[wickss]

[ QUOTE ]
EV: (1/8.5)*(+$7) + (7.5/8.5)*(-$1) = -$0.05(8823)

[/ QUOTE ]
Since you are getting paid 8 to 1 wouldn't the formula be:
EV: (1/8.5)*($8)+(7.5/8.5)*(-$1)=+$0.05(7647059)

What am I missing?

[yellowjack]

When it's 8 to 1, the payoff is $8 but you're actually winning $7 (of partypoker's money) + $1 (of your own money) since you momentarily lost the $1 that you used to make your bet with.

[wickss]

So its actually a 7 to 1 payoff right?

[yellowjack]

Yeah, I guess my phrasing is incorrect then. My bad.

[wickss]

PP said it wrong too. Kinda sneaky of them to say it pays off 8 for 1 so that the good gamblers will take the time to figure the odds then think it is a positive bet. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[BruceZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you will win and be paid 8 to 1

[/ QUOTE ]

try here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

Yellowjack, I understand your work, I'm just confused at to why an 8 to 1 pay off would be a +7 profit instead of +8?

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't pay 8 TO 1; it pays 8 FOR 1, which I understand means the same as 7 TO 1. That is, if you bet 1 dollar and win, you get 8 dollars back, 1 of which is the dollar you bet. So you only make a profit of 7 dollars per 1 dollar bet, which we normally refer to as 7 TO 1.

Yellowjack's calculation of the EV is correct. It is about -6 cents per dollar bet.

Note that the chance of winning is 1 in 8.5, or odds of 7.5 TO 1 against, so if they paid 8 TO 1, then the bet would be +EV, but not if they pay 7 TO 1.

I only heard about this "for" terminology recently in connection with craps payoffs. Is it new? Perhaps the latest attempt to fleece customers? I think it really adds confusion to a topic for which there is already much confusion over terminology.

[BruceZ]

[ QUOTE ]
EV = $8 *(1/8.5) - 1 *(7.5/8.5) = .94 - .88 = -6.25%

[/ QUOTE ]

EV = $7 *(1/8.5) - 1 *(7.5/8.5) = -5.88%

The payout is 8 FOR 1, which means 7 TO 1, not 8 TO 1. Otherwise it would be +EV.

Thanks all, this "8 for 1" explanation makes everything clear.

That is very sneaky of them.

[TomCollins]

I stoopid.

[kelvin474]

Bruce,

In addition to craps, this sneakiness happens in video blackjack. "All winning hands pay 2 for 1". "Blackjack is an automatic winner and pays 2 for 1".

[RoundTower]

I haven't played this game, so I know very little about it, but I thought of this. I assume it is a push if there is no flop.

In that case if you have a significant chance of influencing whether there will be a flop or not, you could have an edge. For example: you bet $10k on all red in the .50-1 game, and you are dealt two red aces in the big blind. Someone raises, and it is folded around to you. You fold. If you were dealt 9 /images/graemlins/club.gif 4 /images/graemlins/spade.gif, you would call.

Right?

I like you're thinking, but unfortunately the maximum sidebet is 1BB on the 10$ SNGs. You could never gain enough leverage to make up for giving up the ev of pushing to prevent flops.

If you could selectively place bets after you've seen your 2 cards, I get a +ev of about 6.1%

[TomCollins]

It seems like you could collude to rip this game off real easily.

If you got a team of 10 players, all bet red. If the count of red cards is < x, see the flop. If not, someone raise and everyone else fold.

Getting ten people at a table to cooperate with each other doesn't sound real easy to me.

[yellowjack]

Sounds like a plan.

[TomCollins]

Find 10 friends, enter a tournament. I think you can even bet if you are watching too. Get 20 more friends to watch.

[TomCollins]

With 10 people at the table, if you know there are 9 red cards or fewer dealt, it makes sense to let the bet ride.

[TomCollins]

This has an EV of $.107 per $1 bet. Pretty fantastic. Who wants to do this?

[yellowjack]

?

Tell me you're kidding.

[Double Down]

I'm in.

[yellowjack]

The sidebets must be made before the cards are dealt for the next hand. There is a definite house edge that cannot be exploited here. That's a guarantee.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
The sidebets must be made before the cards are dealt for the next hand. There is a definite house edge that cannot be exploited here. That's a guarantee.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try reading what I said. If you can prevent a flop, you have an edge. Either that bet pushes or it is put onto the next hand. It requires obvious collusion, but it is beatable.

[TomCollins]

This keeps getting better... Omaha

[yellowjack]

Oh, that's what you meant. I see now.

I may have done my math wrong, but it looks like: If you play heads-up Omaha, agree out-of-band to bet on red before the game, and then only have the small blind play if he's holding 3 or more black cards, you're making about half a cent per dollar bet, more if you can 'stack' the bets. That's like being the house in blackjack.
...
Now, if you have 10 players participating, you're looking at seeing the flop with 7 (or more) of the remaining 12 cards of the right suit for a very respectable 1/4 or better edge, and you'll be getting it about 2/8 of the time.

So, with a table of 10 betting $10 each, you're getting about 6 slansky dollars per hand - 60 cents a head.

So, if you manage to, say, take over a 5/1 sng, you should be in the black by the time the 15/10 round is done.

[TomCollins]

I think they only allow you to do sidebets in tourneys.

[LetYouDown]

I'm in...PM me when we get this thing rolling on a $10 omaha tournament.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm in...PM me when we get this thing rolling on a $10 omaha tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in as well. You think the odds are good we'll all get banned for this? PM me.

[LetYouDown]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm in as well. You think the odds are good we'll all get banned for this? PM me.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL, I'd imagine they get very little traffic on their sidebets, relatively speaking. All of a sudden there's 10 guys all betting every single hand. I suspicion they'd catch on. I wonder if there's a loophole in the TOC about consented collusion.

Edit: Just realized it's capped at $10. That's a hell of a lot of collusion for an expected profit of $1. Granted, you could write a software program where everyone enters their cards and the software just tells you what to do.

[ThinkQuick]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm in...PM me when we get this thing rolling on a $10 omaha tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in as well. You think the odds are good we'll all get banned for this? PM me.

[/ QUOTE ]

[MikeBandy]

[ QUOTE ]
I only heard about this "for" terminology recently in connection with craps payoffs. Is it new? Perhaps the latest attempt to fleece customers? I think it really adds confusion to a topic for which there is already much confusion over terminology.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, the terminology isn’t new. I learned it about thirty-five years ago, and it had been around for quite a while then.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm in...PM me when we get this thing rolling on a $10 omaha tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in as well. You think the odds are good we'll all get banned for this? PM me.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]