10% refund question

[Fraubump]

This problem is a tricky one. "Bet it all at once and it's +ev" was the first thing that occurred to me too. Ok, say you bet $100 and lose. If you really think the proposition is +ev, nothing has changed. You still have exactly the same proposition. Why not make another bet if that proposition was +ev. The fact that you have already done it once cannot matter to whether doing it now makes sense. So, while I can't quite wrap my brain around it, I'm in the -ev camp on this one.

Let's imagine that the rebate on losses is 90%. This suddenly seems like a fantastic deal. Is it? I can easily imagine people bankrupting themselves trying martingales on this.

Anyway, I'm curious to see the definitive math on this.

One other consideration here is that Total Bet has a monthy casino bonus: I forget what the wagering req is, but if nothing else, this deal should increase the ev of clearing that bonus.

[Benholio]

[ QUOTE ]
This problem is a tricky one. "Bet it all at once and it's +ev" was the first thing that occurred to me too. Ok, say you bet $100 and lose. If you really think the proposition is +ev, nothing has changed. You still have exactly the same proposition. Why not make another bet if that proposition was +ev. The fact that you have already done it once cannot matter to whether doing it now makes sense. So, while I can't quite wrap my brain around it, I'm in the -ev camp on this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason you can't keep making bets is because the refund if for the net result of all of your play. You don't get to play one hand, get a 10% refund, then play another. You don't get the refund on a per-hand basis, but only at the end of the qualifying period of time.

Back to your example, say you lost a hand, and decide to do it again, and now win a hand, you LOSE that 10% rebate that you were lined up to receive after the first hand, since you are not at a net loss now.

[Fraubump]

[ QUOTE ]
Back to your example, say you lost a hand, and decide to do it again, and now win a hand, you LOSE that 10% rebate that you were lined up to receive after the first hand, since you are not at a net loss now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, that's the missing piece of the puzzle. So, maybe the way to play this is to organize a consortium: decide how much to risk and then all players in the group make a single wager of equal value on their accounts and then lump the results and share the profits. This removes the penalty for winning bets after losing ones.

[AcmeSalesRep]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Back to your example, say you lost a hand, and decide to do it again, and now win a hand, you LOSE that 10% rebate that you were lined up to receive after the first hand, since you are not at a net loss now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, that's the missing piece of the puzzle. So, maybe the way to play this is to organize a consortium: decide how much to risk and then all players in the group make a single wager of equal value on their accounts and then lump the results and share the profits. This removes the penalty for winning bets after losing ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, you have it...but you can do this as an individual by doing it over numerous such offers. Say you know of several casinos that offer such a deal every month. ..you can split your bankroll into bets that you can stomach losing and then run the bonus at each site month after month. Since each bet is +EV overall, you are likely to end up with more money than you start with.

Naturally, there is no guarantee -- just as you can bust a dozen stickies in a row, you can bust one a dozen (or more) rebate offers in a row. But that does not change the fact that the long-term result of this offer is +EV.

Contrary to another poster's thinking, the fact that you CAN lose money does not mean the deal is -EV.

From the casino's perspective, the only real way for this to hurt them is if a large number of people play these as 1-bet bonuses. They are counting on people making many bets and, thus, ensuring that the rebate simply reduces their overall advantage. And they are ok with reducing their HA some if it significantly increases the action.

Acme