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

[MicroBob]

Party BBJ is +$300k now so of course I've been thinking about it some more.


I still don't know if jek's way of figuring out the +EV points for the BBJ that he did on bonus-whores is correct.
I've stated as much before in previous threads about it...but also admit that I'm not smart enough to know exactly why.


There were a couple of reasonable points made in one of the more recent threads about this a couple weeks ago.

One was that it shouldn't matter what limit you are playing at as far as the impact of the BBJ drop is concerned because you are essentially just paying the $0.50 SEPERATELY from the regular rake...kind of like taking the insurance-bet in blackjack (for those of you who count-cards/play advantage BJ and understand when it is +EV to do this).

That was interesting argument.
but then I thought about it...."Why should it really matter?"

It is an extra $0.50 that is taken out on each hand.
For purposes of that hand I don't really care whether $0.50 is going to play the jackpot and $2 is going to the rake...or vice-versa.

I'm not playing the jackpot until it gets big anyway....which is a result of EVERYONE ELSE paying their little $0.50/hand fee at a time to drive the jackpot up to a point where I determine that I want to play it.


Viewing the extra $0.50 as a 'seperate side-bet' is not quite correct imo.
What matters is how much is getting taken off the table per hand and how that impacts the game you are playing.

If it was a $0.50 max-rake but also a $3 jack-pot drop would that change things? No. I don't care where the money that is getting taken off is going.
The fact that the jackpot continues to grow from the extra $0.50 (or $3) jackpot drop doesn't mean anything to me really. I'm playing for the money that EVERYONE ELSE put in there.


The amount taken off DOES MATTER for each limit.

If I'm playing $1/$2 hold-em and they have a $7 max-rake up to 20% then obviously this is going to alter my bottom-line to the point where that game can no longer be beatable.

If I'm playing $400/$800 hold-em and they have a $7 max-rake up to 20% the difference for a player who is winning 1BB/100 in that game is going to be much smaller. The game is still beatable for the +1BB/100 player.


Thus, I still think that the $0.50 jackpot drop PER HAND is really much worse news for the 2/4 BBJ player. There are many pots in there that are raked just $1 or $1.50.
This is 25%-37.5% of a BB.
Tack on the extra $.50 removed for the jackpot drop and you are taking out another 12.5% of a BB.


At 5/10 through 15/30 the jackpot drop has a lesser bottom-line impact on the winning player.


I reiterate (again) that I don't really know my way around the math very well.
I was just thinking some of this stuff through a little bit and have come to the conclusion (again) that I think the impact of the extra $0.50 really DOES hit the 2/4 and 3/6 tables harder.


Of course, I'm not even addressing the idea that the players on these 2/4 BBJ tables are so much worse to still make them worth one's while.
That's really mostly up to the individual to determine.

[yoshi_yoshi]

I'm not sure I agree.

The BBJ after a certain period is essentially a slight +EV situation with extreme variance. Assuming each dealt hand has a 1 in xxxxx chance of winning the jackpot, what limit you are playing at doesn't really matter.

I think the 'side bet' explanation is correct. Consider this... you are playing at your regular game with regular rake. A friend approaches you and proposes: every time you win a pot over $20, he will let you make a $0.50 bet that, EV-wise, makes a profit on a $100,000 grand prize. You take that bet every time he offers it to you.

That is exactly the situation the BBJ puts you in. It doesn't matter what limit.

[MicroBob]

I'm not sure I agree with me either...still trying to figure it out.

but I still don't think your example applies.


I'm playing poker....and there's an extra $0.50 being taken off the table EVERY raked-hand.

No matter what BBJ table I'm playing on we will assume that my chances of hitting the jackpot are roughly the same.

The extra $0.50 impacts me much more when I'm playing 2/4.

I don't care whether the extra $0.50 is going into the jackpot or not.

Example:
Lets say there was no jackpot. You are just playing unwisely) on a site that charges a base $0.50 on every raked-hand that is ON TOP OF the 5% up to $3 (or whatever Party is).
I would think one would come to the conclusion that the extra $0.50 'base' hurts you more at 2/4 then it does at 15/30.

[jman220]

I'm definitely not good enough at math to attempt this. But the one thing I do know, is that there is a correct answer to this. I don't know what that answer is, but this shouldn't be a situation where people have different opinions, there is a correct way of figuring it out if you know the math. Your arguments look good, and are convincing, but of course, my math experience isn't extensive enough to know. I would really love it if someone who really really knew their stuff like Sklansky, took a shot at it and put the argument to rest once and for all (not saying Jek is wrong, just that I am not intelligent enough to know if he is wrong or not, and I guess I would trust someone like Sklansky more).

[Torr]

Maybe I am way off base but here goes.

Yes in term of win rate, the extra 50 cent drop will effect everyone's BB/100.

Yes at 2/4 this will hurt more than at 5/10 or 15/30.

The numbers for +EV determines when the winning person will come out ahead of the drop. I think the problem lies in that it is a jackpot, so only 1 person sees this +EV situation at a time.

If the +EV number is say $300,000 AND every single jackpot was above that number AND you knew that every 100k hands (its really a lot more but i don't have exact numbers) you played you'd end up losing a bad beat hand to win the biggest share of the BBJ. Then the 50 cent drop would be irrelevant because you are always +EV as long as you play enough hands to handle the variance. You may play 300k hands and never see one and then win four in your next 100k. As long as the BBJ is still over 300k at all times the odds are in your favor to still come out ahead.

The problem is that there is not a large enough sample size to play in over a lifetime to be guaranteed +EV. If you could play infinite hands over a certain BBJ size, you will come out ahead.

Is that what you were contemplating?

[yoshi_yoshi]

I don't think there's any math to it, more of a logic thing.

In response to Microbob, if we are playing the BBJ because we want to clean up on the extra-loose games, then yes, the added rake 'hurts' us, since we don't realistically expect to hit the jackpot.

However, from an EV standpoint, the EV from playing at a BBJ table will be the same regardless of what limit we are playing.

Here is another attempt to try to get my thoughts out: let's say you are playing at a play money table. Now, every time you win a pot, your friend offers you the same +EV deal as before. You take the offer because it is +EV. Even though it seems like your bb/100 at the play money table is -infinity/100, it's obvious that the BBJ is still a good deal and has nothing to do with that stakes you are at.

[sublime]

anyways-

i ask this question once a month, but how big does the jackpot have to be to be considered +EV?

BRAVO!!!!!! nail on the head!!!

Size of jackpot= XXX = +EV

XXX= $245,000 in my book

[Uglyowl]

Think of the jackpot as a complete seperate bet, it is incorrect not too. At least for the sake of these few paragraphs [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

The prize is the same no matter the limit. Chances into this "lottery" cost 50 cents.

Same cost, same prize, so why the different levels of +EV you ask.

Well at the lower limits, they give you free tickets so to speak. There will be draws where no fee is collected. The chance to win was there, but no fee.

The chances of you being a winning player is not what is being discussed here, but the value of this "lottery" chance.

To take an extreme example if someone gave me a one time (1 ticket max), 1 in 100 chance to pay $10 to win $1,000,000 it is +EV, but yes most of the time I will walk away a loser.

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
If it was a $0.50 max-rake but also a $3 jack-pot drop would that change things? No. I don't care where the money that is getting taken off is going.
The fact that the jackpot continues to grow from the extra $0.50 (or $3) jackpot drop doesn't mean anything to me really. I'm playing for the money that EVERYONE ELSE put in there.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Bob,

I thinke everyone else has explained very well why it should be taken as a side bet, and thus why, at 2/4, with less raked hands, (ie cheaper side bets) the side bets cost less than 10/20, thus the BBJ doesn't need to be as high to make it +EV.

However, I do want to say that your above (quoted) example is right on. The only thing that matters is that the BBJ rake is $.50 higher than the rake at an equivalent table. How it's divided up doesn't matter.

Also, to everyone:
Recently we went through and refigured a lot of raked hand %s for various limits (using much more empirical data than before.) However, I forgot to update the BBJ table, so it is likely off slightly. This will be remedied in the next day or two.