Regarding Jek's/BW's break-even points for BBJ (long)

[J_B]

This is really two questions:

1. When is the amount I pay towards the jackpot +EV for the prize?
2. How does it affect my win rate vs. a normal non-drop game?

While #1 could be +EV, it could make #2 -EV and vice versa.

Think of it more like a carribean stud jp drop. At a certain point it becomes +EV. Same idea. Or for that matter, the lottery.

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
This is really two questions:

1. When is the amount I pay towards the jackpot +EV for the prize?
2. How does it affect my win rate vs. a normal non-drop game?

While #1 could be +EV, it could make #2 -EV and vice versa.

Think of it more like a carribean stud jp drop. At a certain point it becomes +EV. Same idea. Or for that matter, the lottery.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) http://www.bonuswhores.com/party-poker.php. Although, as I said, these numbers will be fine tuned relatively soon.

2) Your WR just from poker will be lower, but your overall long-run win rate, including promotions, will be higher than if you had played a normal table. If the BBJ is below the above mentioned thresholds, then your WR, even with all long-run promotions figured in, will still be lower than if you had played a normal table.

[Maddenboy]

Technical point that, in practice, covers itself, but should be stated for discussion purposes.

There is no "FREE" chance to hit it.

To qualify for jackpot, it must be a raked pot.

So if, for example, you have $4 at the start of the hand and go all in with your AA, and I 3bet with KK, and we go heads up with AAKK5, no jackpot will be paid, because the pot is only $11.

In practice, of course, two players with qualifying hands go to war on the river and it is easily a raked pot.

[J_B]

By $1, there should be a certain # where at all levels the $0.50 to win is +EV. Of course based on amount you'd get for winning, table share, etc. This # comes from chance of hitting vs. the amount you win. This has nothing to do with the stakes of the gamne or your win rate at the game.

ie: JP will be hit every X number of hands therefore # of hands * $0.50 = amount jp needs to be to be +EV.

The math of this is simlar to http://www.math.sfu.ca/~alspach/comp29/

Or this one: http://www.math.sfu.ca/~alspach/comp46.pdf

Now of course there is the rare instance where someone folds the 1 hand that would have made it. But, just the strait odds would probably be enough to answer question #1.

So, all this leads me to:

If we assume his math to be accurate:

We have a 1 in 155 000 chance of hitting it.

So, 155000 * $0.50 = $77500 for a $0.50 jackpot chance to be an even chance.

[MicroBob]

haven't gone to the links....but you have to also consider that party 'rakes' 10% that they keep for themselves...and they also leave a certain percentage to 'seed' the next jackpot.

Also....if the links didn't provide for the possibility of someone folding their 88 on flop of AQJ and thus missing their chance to catch runner-runner quads then it is definitely adding unwarranted EV to it.

[MicroBob]

As you observed..you really ARE getting a mostly 'free' shot at it.
Every time you are just DEALT a hand you have get that chance to hit it....it is assumed that if you DO hit it you will get enough action for the pot to be raked.

But at 2/4....there will be MANY hands where you were didn't hit it AND didn't have a rake taken out.
That doesn't mean that you didn't have a CHANCE to hit it though.

You start with 98s....the flop missing you completely...opponent with QQ bets his flopped quads and you fold.
You had a CHANCE to flop a straight-flush draw...but when you folded without a rake being taken you didn't have to PAY for that chance.
You got to take a shot at it for free.


This is why Jek believe that the 2/4 and 3/6 games are actually HIGHER EV for the jackpot. Because there are fewer raked hands, thus more 'free chances' without any jackpot drop being charged at all.
I'm seeing that logic as well....but my slow-motion brain is still working on how to successfully ditch my other logic.

In other words...I can see how Jek's (and others') logic is correct.
But I also still can't see why my 'alternate' logic is incorrect (even though it's virtually the OPPOSITE of Jek's logic).


I didn't sleep terribly well last night and I have a headache...so I'm pretty damn certain I'm not going to solve this personal connundrum right now.
You had a CHANCE

[RollaJ]

I think also that at 2-4 you have a greater chance of hitting as people wont fold any suited connectors or 1 gappers for $2 preflop. At 10-20 it is expensive to limp with 45s, at 2-4 it is not, as it is only $2....and you are more likely to have 7 people seeing the flop

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]


There is no "FREE" chance to hit it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. You are still dealt cards on the hands where the pot does not get to $20 in $2/$4 correct?

If you don't like your chances you are able to fold and sometimes not pay the $0.50

Maybe this is comparable to seeing your first 3 of 6 lottery #'s before deciding if you want to purchase it.

[pokerplayer28]

new 15/30 game offered
90% of the pots are raked
you have to pay $100 every raked pot for a 10% shot on every hand for a $800 prize
do you play this 15/30 game or a regular one?

now exact same situation except its a
2/4 game 60% raked
do you play this game or a regular 2/4 game?

[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.