non-sticky casino bonus question

[Borno]

if I make $10 bets and bust out w/ my bonus money on a non-sticky bonus should I keep playing or just cash out?

should I deposit more if I lose my initial stake?

[Photoc]

It doesn't work that way.

Your deposit is put on top of the bonus, therefor you are wagering your deposit first. If you have 100 + 100 and lose 100 of it, you are now into your bonus money.

If it's a cashable bonus, you will be allowed to cash out the balance only if you met the wager requiremnts.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]

should I deposit more if I lose my initial stake?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Play until one of these two conditions is met, whichever comes first:
1. You have met the wagering requirement. In this case, cashout whatever you have left.
2. You bust. In this case, say oh well, and don't look back.

[DarkForceRising]

I believe there is an exception to this. If the wagering requirement is 10x bonus only (NOT 10x deposit+bonus) it is not a bad idea to make a larger initial deposit. My very 1st attempt at Blackjack whoring had me down to five bucks with a very small amount to go. Had I busted with $1 left to wager that would have been a very unfortunate and unnecessary occurence.

Keep in mind that this was flat betting a buck. I suppose if you are making larger wagers different considerations may apply.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe there is an exception to this. If the wagering requirement is 10x bonus only (NOT 10x deposit+bonus) it is not a bad idea to make a larger initial deposit. My very 1st attempt at Blackjack whoring had me down to five bucks with a very small amount to go. Had I busted with $1 left to wager that would have been a very unfortunate and unnecessary occurence.

Keep in mind that this was flat betting a buck. I suppose if you are making larger wagers different considerations may apply.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, that is a bad idea. You're tying up more of your bankroll for a few days without increasing your EV.

[AcmeSalesRep]

[ QUOTE ]
Wrong, that is a bad idea. You're tying up more of your bankroll for a few days without increasing your EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even worse...you are risking more money with no increase in EV. Unless this is a site where you will be back month after month and the wager requirement carries over, this is actually a -EV strategy.

Acme

[cassette]

Busting out increases EV. Learn to love it! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
Busting out increases EV. Learn to love it! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You know what, I've heard this a lot, and this is the wrong way of looking at it. The fact that youv'e busted out doesn't increase EV, its the fact that you CAN bust out that increases your EV. EV is not results oriented. You should be able to make an EV adjustment based on the fact that you can bust out and not have to complete the wagering requirement without actually busting out. So you get this EV bonus regardless of whether you actually do bust out, just because you can bust out and have a lower WR. I am not good enough at math though to set this equation up.

[hogua]

You're wrong.

When you bust before meeting WR, you reduce the HA because you wagered less.

Less HA = +EV

[cassette]

[ QUOTE ]
You're wrong.

When you bust before meeting WR, you reduce the HA because you wagered less.

Less HA = +EV

[/ QUOTE ]

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
You're wrong.

When you bust before meeting WR, you reduce the HA because you wagered less.

Less HA = +EV

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't read my post. I understand this. But the chance of you busting out is always there, whether or not you actually do bust out. Meaning to properly calculate EV, you should do it before you actually bust out or not. Doing it once you bust out is just results oriented.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're wrong.

When you bust before meeting WR, you reduce the HA because you wagered less.

Less HA = +EV

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

You also should reread my post. I'm not disputing that the chance of busting out increases your EV, just the way your analyzing it.

[cassette]

You can't accuratley determine EV until you are finished playing. Your initial assesment is just an approximation.

EV is directly related to the number of hands you play.

< hands = > EV.

Or at least this is how I understand it.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't accuratley determine EV until you are finished playing. Your initial assesment is just an approximation.

EV is directly related to the number of hands you play.

< hands = > EV.

Or at least this is how I understand it.

[/ QUOTE ]

EV is expected value, not value. I'm not disagreeing that increasing your bet size will increase your variance, increase your CHANCE of busting out, and therefore increase your expected value. It will, and this therefore means that betting higher will have a slight +EV effect. However, actually busting does nothing to your expected value, that has already been calculated. All it is is you experiencing one possible outcome to playing with higher variance. The difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying is subtle, but true; and therefore means that there is no reason to celebrate when busting out.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't accuratley determine EV until you are finished playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh boy, do you have to hit the books...

EV = Expected Value

expected
adj 1: considered likely or probable to happen or arrive

[cassette]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can't accuratley determine EV until you are finished playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh boy, do you have to hit the books...

EV = Expected Value

expected
adj 1: considered likely or probable to happen or arrive

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm maybe going out on a bit of a limb here, but I would like to argue that in the long run EV is actually so close to EXPECTED VALUE that for all intents and purposes, it is VALUE.

Let's try to summarize a serious bonus hunter's career:

Over a few years something like this might be reasonable:
500 casinos with an average bonus of 100/100/3000

So: EV = 500*100 - (1 500 000 *.0040) = $44 000

This assumes that you never bust a bonus. When you do bust a bonus you are effectively reducing the WR, which reduces the HA.

Let's say you bust half of your bonuses half way through the WR:

So: EV = [250*100 – (750 000 * .0040) ] + [250*100 – ( 375 000 * .0040)] = 22 000 + 23 050 = $45 050

Regardless of bet size, if you do not bust bonuses you will have less money at the end of the day because you are paying more “rake” in the form of HA. Is this flawed thinking?

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can't accuratley determine EV until you are finished playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh boy, do you have to hit the books...

EV = Expected Value

expected
adj 1: considered likely or probable to happen or arrive

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm maybe going out on a bit of a limb here, but I would like to argue that in the long run EV is actually so close to EXPECTED VALUE that for all intents and purposes, it is VALUE.

Let's try to summarize a serious bonus hunter's career:

Over a few years something like this might be reasonable:
500 casinos with an average bonus of 100/100/3000

So: EV = 500*100 - (1 500 000 *.0040) = $44 000

This assumes that you never bust a bonus. When you do bust a bonus you are effectively reducing the WR, which reduces the HA.

Let's say you bust half of your bonuses half way through the WR:

So: EV = [250*100 – (750 000 * .0040) ] + [250*100 – ( 375 000 * .0040)] = 22 000 + 23 050 = $45 050

Regardless of bet size, if you do not bust bonuses you will have less money at the end of the day because you are paying more “rake” in the form of HA. Is this flawed thinking?

[/ QUOTE ]

You've just made my point for me. You did an EV equation based upon the (correct) analysis that you will bust out more often if you increase your bet size, thus increasing your EV. Notice, you did this formula without actually busting out. Actually busting out has no effect on the Expected value, only the fact that you are more LIKELY to bust out has an effect on expected value.

[cassette]

No matter how likely you are to bust out, if you never do your profits will be the first figure. If you bust out half the time your profits will be the second.

This is starting to sound pretty convoluted. But I think that increasing bet size increases your likelyhood of busting out, which in turn increases EV when you do bust out. Increased bet size is the catalyst but not the independent variable responsible.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
which in turn increases EV when you do bust out

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right about everything except for that statement above. I really can't argue the same point anymore except to say, as I already have, that it is Expected Value. It refers to a value based on an uncertain outcome. Once you bust out, you already know the outcome, there no longer is any expected value, there is just value. Look at it this way, I assume that you are familiar with the gambler's fallacy that past results can determine future outcomes. That is essentially what you are trying to do here. Once you bust out, the event has already happenned, it doesn't increase your Expected Value for future casino whoring because past results do not affect future outcomes, and it can't change the expected value for what you have already done, because I can't stress this enough, results are irrelevant in EV calculations.
Your argument would be analagous to arguing that hitting your flush on the river increased the EV of the hand, on the flop and turn, because you don't look at the hand till it completes. This is simply not how expected value works. You are being results oriented.

Edit: I'm definitely not the best person to explain this, and this probably isn't the best forum where other people who might be able to explain it better than me frequent. I'll cross-post it to the probability forum when I get a chance, they can certainly explain it better.

[jman220]

Ok, I x-posted this to the probability forum HERE (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=3762510&page=0&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1) we'll let them sort it out.