[gonores]

OK, lets say the game has 5 Schneiders, 3 BKs, and 1 Jimmy.

Since Schneider is straddling to keep Jimmy happy, he'll have to do all of the inherent -EV things that go along with it, namely calling all bets preflop and making a few loose calls/raises in the name of generating big pots. I think it's fair to assume that straddling costs $40-$50 per orbit for Schneider to straddle. Fortunately, he makes $20 off the 4 other Schneider straddles ($45/9 players * 4 straddles), and lets say $10 off of Jimmy's straddle, since he is more apt to do -EV activity while straddling. So lets say each Schneider is losing $15 off this proposition every orbit.

At 36 hands per hour, each Schneider is giving up 1BB of EV to keep Jimmy happy.

OK, now lets say Jimmy loses 16BBs* per hour (~$1k) to the table. That's 2BB per hour for all the BKs and Schneiders at the table, all things being equal, whereas the BKs and Schneiders would be playing a 0 EV game without Jimmy (obviously overlooking the rake to simplify things).

* In my PT DB, I have 5 players with >100 hands who lose more than 50BBs per 100 hands (and they are all a) pretty close to -50BB/100 and b) under 200 total hands, skewing the sample toward the extremities). That is the rate at which Jimmy must lose at to hit 16BB/hr live. If anything, the estimate of 16BB/100 is a little extreme.

Following the math, if Schneider sacrifices 1BB of EV per orbit, he needs to ensure that table-straddle tactics double the amount of Jimmy time in the game to make it a +EV decision.

I find it hard to believe Jimmy stays twice as long just as long as people straddle. Meanwhile, Schneider could just as easily use his boyish charm to engage Jimmy in interesting conversation to keep him there. Or engage in prop bets with him. Or something. Straddling is fun, but I don't think you can call that a +EV long term decision.

Oh yeah, and each BK makes almost 4 times as much as each Schneider in this scenario.