[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.