party badbeat jackpot tables - Page 2

baronzeus · #11 07-26-2005, 05:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That depends on the limit you're playing. You're giving up around 1BB/100 at 2/4 (or slightly more) and this declines as you go up.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd really like to see some math showing that I'm giving up a full BB/100.

EDIT: I play 2/4.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. Let's say you are fairly tight preflop and you win 10% of the total hands you are dealt. (Being tight at BBJ tables is the way to go, BTW). Let's say, that of these 10%, 8% are raked, and 2% are not. And for each of these 8%, 0.5 is taken in addition to the normal rake.

So, for 100 hands, if 8 of the ones that you win are raked, you are giving up exactly $4 which is 1BB in 100 hands.

Edit: of course, if the tables are abnormally loose, 1BB/100 is nothing compared to a) the amount you win if you or someone at your tables wins the jackpot and b) the amount of EV gained each hadn by the bad players.

Padawan Learner · #12 07-26-2005, 05:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'd really like to see some math showing that I'm giving up a full BB/100.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assume you win 7% of your hands. Out of 100 hands, you win 7 and pay an extra .50 on each hand. 7 x 0.50 = $3.50 with is 0.875BB/100 hands at 2/4.....about 0.35BB/100 hands at 5/10.

crunchy1 · #13 07-26-2005, 05:49 PM

I was under the impression from previous discussions that I'm not responsible for carrying the entire .50 load on each raked hand I win. Does that amount not spread out across the rest of the players at the table somewhat?

baronzeus · #14 07-26-2005, 05:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I was under the impression from previous discussions that I'm not responsible for carrying the entire .50 load on each raked hand I win. Does that amount not spread out across the rest of the players at the table somewhat?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the entire "load" of the 50 cents does, but remember, for 100 hands, about 80 are raked, and that means $40 in extra rake is taken per 100 hands. Unless you win every hand, you are only paying for a small portion of this 10BB/100, which is what I think you mean.

No matter how you look at it, you're losing $4 in value every 100 hands.

Harv72b · #15 07-26-2005, 05:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I was under the impression from previous discussions that I'm not responsible for carrying the entire .50 load on each raked hand I win. Does that amount not spread out across the rest of the players at the table somewhat?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think of it that way, then you are also paying a portion of the 50 cents every time you do not win a hand but put money into the pot (either by seeing the flop or folding a blind). Unless you are one lucky S.O.B., you're not winning more than 50% of the time you flip a chip onto the table, so you'd actually be losing more/100 hands by breaking it down in this fashion.

crunchy1 · #16 07-26-2005, 06:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you think of it that way, then you are also paying a portion of the 50 cents every time you do not win a hand but put money into the pot (either by seeing the flop or folding a blind). Unless you are one lucky S.O.B., you're not winning more than 50% of the time you flip a chip onto the table, so you'd actually be losing more/100 hands by breaking it down in this fashion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps that's the discrepency between what I recall and what you guys are posting.

SeaEagle · #17 07-26-2005, 06:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Unless you are one lucky S.O.B., you're not winning more than 50% of the time you flip a chip onto the table, so you'd actually be losing more/100 hands by breaking it down in this fashion.

[/ QUOTE ]
I always thought it was the opposite. I always get more back in rakeback than PT reports I actually paid in pro rata rake. I've been told rakeback is paid against the average rake while at the table and PT reports the actual rake taken from your pots. This pattern is consistent amongst other 2+2ers I've talked to and I thought it meant we were paying less than our fair share.

Which reminds me, are those of you playing BBJ tables getting a rakeback? That's my main reason for not playing them.

baronzeus · #18 07-26-2005, 06:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unless you are one lucky S.O.B., you're not winning more than 50% of the time you flip a chip onto the table, so you'd actually be losing more/100 hands by breaking it down in this fashion.

[/ QUOTE ]
I always thought it was the opposite. I always get more back in rakeback than PT reports I actually paid in pro rata rake. I've been told rakeback is paid against the average rake while at the table and PT reports the actual rake taken from your pots. This pattern is consistent amongst other 2+2ers I've talked to and I thought it meant we were paying less than our fair share.

Which reminds me, are those of you playing BBJ tables getting a rakeback? That's my main reason for not playing them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does party offer rakeback?

Anyhow, I don't have rakeback. But the extra 50 cents wouldn't be contributed to rakeback anyhow.

SeaEagle · #19 07-26-2005, 06:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But the extra 50 cents wouldn't be contributed to rakeback anyhow.

[/ QUOTE ]
But I'd be giving up my entire rakeback if I played on the skin that offers BBJ tables.

baronzeus · #20 07-26-2005, 06:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the extra 50 cents wouldn't be contributed to rakeback anyhow.

[/ QUOTE ]
But I'd be giving up my entire rakeback if I played on the skin that offers BBJ tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. Rakeback is about 0.5BB/100 per 2/4 table I think, so you're really losing 1.5BB/100 total vs playing normal games. I still think you have enough +EV with huge jackpots to take the plunge.