Jackpots - good or bad ?

I just wonder why so many casinos have high hand or bad beat jackpots. On the Las Vegas strip I think all but Mirage and Bellagio have some sort of jackpot. All funded by extra rake. Is that really a good idea ? It's like a lottery within the the game, and when someone hits it, most of the money will probably be spend outside the pokerroom. I just look at it like extra rake. And I don't think it brings more players to the game. In fact, since there are more expences, there will be fewer players. But obviously many pokerroom bosses don't see it this way.

What does this forum think ?

[Vehn]

My card room likes it because a 25% of the jackpot drop goes to "administrative costs" instead of back to the players.

[D.J.]

I'm going to have to disagree w/you on your statement about jackpots not bringing more players in. That is the main purpose for jackpots to increase customer turnout, which it definitely succeeds in doing. I live in LA and also used to live in Vegas, so I'll give examples about both places. First in LA, Hawaiian Gardens Casino has pretty much sucked for a long time, recently they have had a promotion every day for a $75K jackpot for 3hrs at a time twice a day, man did this place turn around, sometimes you can hardly get a seat into a jackpot game, this place stays packed during these times and most of the people stay afterwards to keep playing. Another example is a place in Vegas like Boulder Station for example which has their jackpot start out at $50K, this place always has multiple games going for hopes that a player playing 4-8, can get lucky and run into thousands of dollars. Jackpots bring in customers plain and simple. Also, the reason that the Bellagio and Mirage don't have jackpots is that they are mainly places for higher limit players to play also known as the more "serious" poker players who frown on the extra dollar being raked from each pot. Jackpots are for lower limit players who hope to get lucky and win more money than they ever could playing 4-8. I just hope that I am lucky enough to one day hit one.

-D.J.

[Andy B]

Canterbury Park takes 10% for "adminstrative expenses," not 25%. They do take an additional 15% which goes towards promotional items--the drawings they have once in a while, tournament add-ons, the hats you get for a straight flush, etc. The back room contributes a lot more to the promotional stuff than the poker room does, from what I understand.

Jackpots do attract gambling types--the kinds of people you want in your game. On the other hand, they don't pay out 100%, and if you're playing reasonably well, you have a lesser chance of hitting than the average person, because you're playing fewer hands. The big share of one of the biggest jackpots in the history of Canterbury Park went to a guy who played K3o out of the small blind. I play that for one chip in most $15/30 and $30/60 games, but not in games where the small blind is half a bet. T3 won a sizable jackpot a couple of years ago. In the largest Omaha/8 jackpot in the history of the room, the winning hand was Kd7c5d2d, which made a steel wheel. I play $30/60, and I can't imagine throwing $4 after a hand like this. I could go on.

Mike Caro has said something to the effect that the best thing that could happen in poker is for someone to come around and give a few hundred dollars to everyone in the room. There would more games, a better selection of limits, etc. Jackpots have the exact opposite effect--they take a little money out of everyone's pockets and transfer it to a few people. A lot of that money leaves the poker economy permanently. People make down payments on houses, buy cars, furniture, or if they're really adventurous, put it away for the kids' college fund. Sometimes, however, it will cause a player to take ill-advised stabs at higher-limit games (I love this).

Overall, I think that jackpots are a bad thing. I think that in the case of a lot of low-limit gamblers, they turn players who might be small winners into small losers, turn players who lose acceptable amounts into players who lose unacceptable amounts, etc. I think that rooms should concentrate on promoting poker for the great game that it is, rather than trying to turn it into the lottery.

[Clarkmeister]

Jackpots are wonderful.

Your assertion that they don't bring in more people is clearly false. Others have mentioned examples, and I can think of many from Arizona, LA, and Vegas where large jackpots fill otherwise empty rooms.

For a good player, when these rooms get full, the $1/pot cost to you is more than made up for by the influx of trully terrible players who are there just to gamble and win a big pot. You can have the no jackpot game where everyone is grinding and you might be very lucky to make 1BB/hr, or you can get into a game with these horrific players where you expect double that. Take your choice.

Note that with all these terrible players, the pots are usually huge, making the overall effective rake significantly less. Would you rather pay $3 for a $50 pot, or $4 for a $200 pot, with a freeroll for a jackpot? Its not close.

Added to these factors is the fact that it attracts new players to the game who would never otherwise play poker. They learn, they have fun, they tell their friends. Lets face it. Poker is intimidating at first and it is difficult to attract new players. Jackpots do an exceptional job at overcoming this barrier to entry. They are a critical way to get new blood.

Jackpots are sweet.

[thebroker]

Can't speak as far as a casino goes. However I played in a home game for awhile with a high- hand jackpot. The game was only .50-1.00 rotation(stud,stud8,holdem), no rake. Pots $5.00 or more were raked .25 for the jackpot. I felt that the JP was good because it allowed the bad players a chance to actually have a decent night now and then.

[Bob T.]

Vehn and Andy,

I agree, and disagree. I don't like paying the jackpot drop, and I know that I have less chance of winning one of the big parts of the jackpots because I play fewer hands than many other Canterbury players. [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

But I work at the temple of -EV down the road, and when the Canterbury Jackpots get huge, there is a lot of talk there about who is going down after work to take their shot at the jackpot, and most of those people are the ones that you want in your game. I think the fact that you have to pay an extra 2 or 3 dollars an hour to have the gamblers in your game is probably well worth it.

When you say that the money doesn't go back into the game, it is probably true if one of us won it, but I know of one player who won two of the smaller holdem jackpots shortly after CP opened, and he blew it all back into the game within 6 months.

So I am not really a fan of them, but I do think that they do bring more gamblers into the game.

Good luck,
Play well,

Bob T.

[Ed Miller]

It's unclear to me whether tight players get less than their share of jackpot expectation or more. Tight players win fewer pots and, thus, pay less jackpot drop. Tight players also play fewer hands so get fewer chances at the jackpot... but many of the hands that tight players don't play are much less likely to win the jackpot than hands they do play. Overall, I would guess that tight players get more equity for their jackpot drop than the average player.

[Vehn]

In my opinion the biggest impact that the JP at CP has is it brings people in that are the low low limit players of $2/$4 to $4/$8. I doubt it affects the population of $6/$12 and $8/$16, which I play - there's rarely any mention of it at the table, unlike the constant JP prattle of the blue chip games. I think if the yellow chip players were polled (certainly the daytime crew) they would most likely do away with the JP drop. Unfortunately that's just not going to happen. Now I haven't been playing cards long, not even a year yet, but in approximately 500 hours of going to Canterbury I've seen 2 jackpots go off, 1 7CS and 1 omaha/8. I estimate I've paid around $1500 in hold'em JP tax in that time. When it becomes +EV for me to play in a JP game vs. a non-JP game I'll let you know. Saturday morning the hold'em jackpot was at a ridiculously low $4500, it having been hit "late last night". To be honest, if they would simply offer a non-JP hold'em game below $15/$30 I'd be happy; for that matter, I wish they would just offer a $10/$20 hold'em instead of $8/$16, I think its poor planning for them to spread $2/$4, $3/$6, $4/$8, $6/$12, and $8/$16, and then a big jump to $15/$30 with 2/3rd small blinds. Just IMO.

[Bob T.]

Hi vehn,

In fact when Canterbury opened, they spread 10-20 instead of 8-16. The first time the jackpot got large, the 10-20 players voted to play 8-16 instead so that their game would be jackpot eligible. At the time a red chip game couldn't be eligble.

I agree, I would like to see the 10-20 game come back.

Good luck,
Play well,

Bob T.