Bad beat jackpot or lottery?

Which would be more +EV, paying the extra $.50 rake to play for a chance at the Bad Beat Jackpot or buying lottery tickets with the same money.

I ask because the Jackpot doesn't seem like a very good deal....but I've actually hit one on a different site and I don't know anyone who's ever hit the lottery.

[KingMedicine]

[ QUOTE ]
Which would be more +EV, paying the extra $.50 rake to play for a chance at the Bad Beat Jackpot or buying lottery tickets with the same money.

I ask because the Jackpot doesn't seem like a very good deal....but I've actually hit one on a different site and I don't know anyone who's ever hit the lottery.

[/ QUOTE ]

there are points at which both become EV+, but its so rare id focus your mental capacities on other things.

98% of the time, it's which is less EV- rather than which is more EV+.

but as for a number, i think i read somewhere that the party BBJ becomes EV+ when it reaches 450,000$ or so.

[L0QTiS]

[ QUOTE ]

but as for a number, i think i read somewhere that the party BBJ becomes EV+ when it reaches 450,000$ or so.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the chart on the bonuswhores website:

BBJ Level Required for +EV:
Level BBJ Level
$2-$4 $130,000
$3-$6 $149,000
$5-$10 $177,000
$10-$20 $189,000
$15-$30 $198,000

see BW Party review (http://bonuswhores.com/party-poker.php)

[MicroBob]

As I've stated before...just because bonus-whores says so doesn't make it so.
It's one way of interpreting the +EV points (that I still disagree with).


regardless, there are points at which the BBJ becomes +EV and it is not an excessively large amount.

There aren't very many points at which the lottery is +EV. Especially when you consider split jackpots and taxes.
Since you would be foolish to take the 'spread out over 30 yrs' option you are actually only getting a fraction of the amount that is advertised.



I sometimes play the BBJ tables when I believe the inferior play on the tables is +EV enough to make up for the extra $0.50 jp drop.
The jackpot is probably a little more than +EV when I play these tables.

I can't even remember the last time I have played the lottery. I believe I bought a ticket or two about 10 years ago..but I couldn't swear to it.

[maurile]

Just look at the payout rate of each one.

I believe most state lotteries pay out about 60% of what they take in. So playing the lottery has an EV of -40%. (I haven't ever looked the 60% figure up; I just remember reading it somewhere, but I don't know how reliable it is. Try to Google it if you care.)

I remember hearing somewhere that my local live casino charges some kind of "management fee" for collecting the jackpot drop -- something on the order of 50%, although I don't think that info is very reliable. But if we accept that figure as correct, then the jackpot drop has an EV of -50%. (Actually, it is more or less than this depending on how many other bonus-type things the player takes advantage of. Stuff like the guaranteed portion of tournament prize pools, drawings, bingo bonus balls, etc. are all funded out of the jackpot drop.)

So if you accept those two figures as being correct (and I can't vouch for either one), the state lottery would have a slightly higher (i.e., less negative) EV than the bad beat jackpot.

I have no idea what PartyPoker's "management fee" is that they take out of the jackpot pool, if any. Maybe someone could find the info on their site. I bet it's less than what a live casino takes out, though.

[MicroBob]

party takes 10% out of each jackpot for their own greedy little hands.

You seem to be overlooking the actual chances of hitting the jackpot/lottery compared with the total prize.

It's not like the lottery would suddenly become +EV if they didn't take 40% out (or whatever) for the school-funding or 'management' fee or whatever.

They could take 0 out for 'management' and it could still be -EV.
For example...if the chances of hitting are 100-million to 1...and the amount prize is only $10-million...then it really doesn't matter whether there is a 'management' fee.



The opposite can hold true as well.
Lets take the PP BBJ.
Lets say the jackpot is at $2-million...and the chances of hitting are only 100,000-1.
Party could take out 60% as their own 'management' fee and it would still be +EV for the player.

[SoftcoreRevolt]

[ QUOTE ]


I sometimes play the BBJ tables when I believe the inferior play on the tables is +EV enough to make up for the extra $0.50 jp drop.
The jackpot is probably a little more than +EV when I play these tables.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is my philosophy on the BBJ tables too. When I log into Party, I look for the best normal tables, and get on wait lists or sit down. If I don't have at least four open, I then go to the BBJ tables, and find the absolute juiciest BBJ tables. Usually there's not more than 1 or 2 per level that make up for the extra rake bad play wise, but the ones that do are just spectacular donk gardens.

[2+2 wannabe]

[ QUOTE ]
For example...if the chances of hitting are 100-million to 1...and the amount prize is only $10-million...then it really doesn't matter whether there is a 'management' fee.

[/ QUOTE ]

This wouldn't be the case if they took 0% - the prize money total would equal cost of tickets if 0 was taken out (making it EV-neutral)

[MicroBob]

in my example (just making sure):

chances of hitting lottery - 100-million
amount to win - 10-million


Did you think I was using the same number perhaps and just didn't see the extra zero in there? Or are you saying something that is about 9-zillion miles over my head?

In the absense of a rake (fee) the lottery is not EV-neutral.
Selective players have a definite edge over chronic players.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
Selective players have a definite edge over chronic players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is very important, to only play when your numbers are going to come up!! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
in my example (just making sure):

chances of hitting lottery - 100-million
amount to win - 10-million


Did you think I was using the same number perhaps and just didn't see the extra zero in there? Or are you saying something that is about 9-zillion miles over my head?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bob,

You are forgetting the payouts other than the top prize. If the lottery payed out every dime it took in it would be EV neutral, since there is no lottery which does this (nor a reasonably simple method to accomplish said goal) the point is moot.

Jimbo

This is not even close to what I meant.

A selective player can wait for the game to be +EV by only playing when the jackpot hits a certain point.

Where is he making this money? Where is the +EV coming from? Money is not being invented. He is effectively taking it from the players that play every time.

The only way I can see the lottery being EV-neutral is if exactly X people played exactly X-tickets every week and no one new started playing and no one ever stopped playing.

Perhaps someone should explain why I am wrong.

[Skipbidder]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not even close to what I meant.

[/ QUOTE ]
He knew that.

[ QUOTE ]
A selective player can wait for the game to be +EV by only playing when the jackpot hits a certain point.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which will end up being the same frequency that I play the lottery, which is never. (Or aren't you taking into account taxes, splits, and the decreasing marginal utility of extra dollars in a large prize?) You are going to have an extremely difficult time finding +EV situations.

[ QUOTE ]
Where is he making this money?

[/ QUOTE ]
He isn't making any money.

[ QUOTE ]
Where is the +EV coming from?

[/ QUOTE ]
You made it up.

[ QUOTE ]
Money is not being invented.

[/ QUOTE ]
Correct.

[ QUOTE ]
He is effectively taking it from the players that play every time.

[/ QUOTE ]
He is effectively donating his money just like everyone else.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps someone should explain why I am wrong.

[/ QUOTE ] I really can't explain WHY you are wrong. Perhaps you weren't paying any attention in your classes.

I guess I should try again to clarify my position...

All of my posts have been in reference to a hypothetical lottery where there the total prize pool is exactly equal to the total number of tickets sold since the last jackpot.

A post claimed that such a game would be EV-neutral for ALL players. I refuted this claim under the grounds that selective playing can allow you to make the game +EV.

I did not say these situation come up often, but they can.

Imagine a simple lottery with a 1 in 100 chance of winning and a population of 3 people (a,b,c). Each week a and b play the lotto and basically throw their money back and forth. c only plays when the lottery hits 100+ (50 weeks with no winner) I am claiming that c has found an +EV situation and that this lottery, despite having no fees extracted, is not EV-neutral, and is -EV for the chronic player.

Please tell me why this thinking is wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
I really can't explain WHY you are wrong. Perhaps you weren't paying any attention in your classes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am sorry if I am not yet smart enough to post on this forum. Thankfully, your reply will be my first step to understanding a little more about EV,etc.

[ QUOTE ]
This wouldn't be the case if they took 0% - the prize money total would equal cost of tickets if 0 was taken out (making it EV-neutral)

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. If they took 0%, then it would be Zero-Sum for the players, but not EV-neutral. Whether it's +EV or -EV always depends on how big the jackpot has gotten. Above a certain pot size, it becomes +EV for the player.

TheDrizzle in on the right track -- a player who only plays when the pot is big enough can be +EV on a jackpot. HOWEVER, it is not enough to compare them and the person who plays "chronically." You have to also consider the variance.

When the +EV payoff is adequatly rare, you need to modify your thinking. Let's say the chronic player plays 1,000 hands per month, 12,000 hands per year, always playing the bad beat. Let's say the smart player plays 2,000 hands per month, and they only play the jackpot half the time, when it is over the profitability threshold, so they both play 12,000 jackpot hands per year.

The smart player's odds of hitting are pretty much the same as the poor player's odds: VERY POOR! In fact, at their play rates, they can not expect to hit this year, or the next. . . they can probably only expect to hit once, on "average," over the course of many, many years. And when your frequency of hitting is measured in years, common variance can easily mean that you never hit in a lifetime. (Think about it -- if your odds of hitting a 1 in 10 per year, how odd is it to have 20 years with no hits? Actually, not rare at all.)

If the variance is so big that not hitting in a lifetime is a possibility, then the +EV nature of the bet is irrelevant; you can only expect to experience the cost half of the equation, and the cost half is all -EV.

So the upshot for a smart player: unless they play so many hands that they can approach the long term (and long term is defined not in terms of poker hands, but in terms of jackpot HITS), then they can not consider the jackpot to be +EV. It's merely a $.50 loss per raked hand, much like a lottery ticket. It's money thrown in with no realistic hope of return.

Bad Beat games are worthwhile if the game there is better -- better to the tune of $.50 per hand won -- and it might be worthwhile if you play so many hands that you can expect to approach an average number of Bad Beat hits. For other cases, the jackpot is best considered non-existant!

Then again, you may ENJOY playing the Bad Beat. Adds some fun to what is otherwise a grind, and the awful play there rewards the savvy better. If you can expect to get value for that $.50 per winning hand, well, then you've got your Expected Value right there!