Party Bad Beat Jackpot EV

[Gotmilk]

[ QUOTE ]
An interesting conclusion, does this consider the extra 10% party charges in adminstrative fees when the jackpot is won?


[/ QUOTE ]

yes his conclusion does, thats why he gets 7% equity (10% of 70%). waffle is a genius! anyhow, given his conditions I would tend to fudge the number needed for a jackpot a little higher. 1/400,000 might be correct, but if we are only winning 5% of hands we have to lower our equity a little bit too because we will be getting a table share more than our fair share, but winning or losing less than fair share. Our equity may be closer to like 4 oe 5%? That said I'm more inclined to play 88 and 99 when the jackpot is huge (limp UTG, call in 3 way raised pots with potential to have more players in etc).

It's particularly useful for me to lower our ev to like 5% and maybe increase the odds of hitting to 1 in 500,000 because that would be much closer to my number of $200,000 that I've been using as rule of thumb. I always like to fudge statistics in ways that make me look right. :-)

The other way I had been thinking about it is like this...if 100% was returned, then you'd play when the jackpot was higher than average. Since only 70% is returned, you'd play when 70% of the jackpot = the size of the average jackpot. I figure the average size is some where in the mid $100s which gave my estimate to be around $200k.

Thanks for the simulation waffle, that's basically what I wanted to see.

[IggyWH]

[ QUOTE ]
I wrote a computer simulation. 10 players in a ring game. Players will play all pocket pairs, any two cards ten or above (like AK, KJs or QT), any suited ace, and all suited connectors except 23s 34s. Puts them at about 20-23% VPIP. Everyone always went to the river. The odds for the BBJ hitting in these conditions are 1 in 200,000 games.

Assume that the BBJ happens 1 in 400,000 games (because people are sometimes folding before the river). Assume that you win 5% of hands played - so you pay 2.5 extra cents per hand of BBJ rake. Finally, given party's payout structure, if you're at a table that hits the BBJ, your equity in the jackpot is 7%.

SO: Jackpot * (.07) >= .025 * 400000

This means given my assumptions, Jackpot needs to be >= about 143,000 to make playing at the tables +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice work... I see 1 problem though that would be pretty hard to factor in with your way. Both players must play both their hole cards. So a hand with a flop of 99988 with someone holding pocket 8's and someone holding a pocket 9 wouldn't count as a Bad Beat. It's rare that things would end up that way... but since Bad Beats are so rare, this makes it even more rare than what you figured out because it takes away a chunk of possible Bd Beats.

[MrX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wrote a computer simulation. 10 players in a ring game. Players will play all pocket pairs, any two cards ten or above (like AK, KJs or QT), any suited ace, and all suited connectors except 23s 34s. Puts them at about 20-23% VPIP. Everyone always went to the river. The odds for the BBJ hitting in these conditions are 1 in 200,000 games.

Assume that the BBJ happens 1 in 400,000 games (because people are sometimes folding before the river). Assume that you win 5% of hands played - so you pay 2.5 extra cents per hand of BBJ rake. Finally, given party's payout structure, if you're at a table that hits the BBJ, your equity in the jackpot is 7%.

SO: Jackpot * (.07) >= .025 * 400000

This means given my assumptions, Jackpot needs to be >= about 143,000 to make playing at the tables +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice work... I see 1 problem though that would be pretty hard to factor in with your way. Both players must play both their hole cards. So a hand with a flop of 99988 with someone holding pocket 8's and someone holding a pocket 9 wouldn't count as a Bad Beat. It's rare that things would end up that way... but since Bad Beats are so rare, this makes it even more rare than what you figured out because it takes away a chunk of possible Bd Beats.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would count as a bad beat as long as his kicker was T or higher.

[VeryTnA]

Hello Ricky,
I guess there will not be a WSEX trip to San Diego this year. Too bad.

To answer your question.
Out of 90,000 Poker Tracker hands I have one bad beat KKKK beat by AAAA. Prior to Poker Tracker I had one in 7 years of online poker. At the old poker.com site I beat TTTT with AAAA.

In 20 years of poker I have never won a bad beat or had a table share. I have been in the room when one hit at least 10 times. Two weeks ago I watched $75,000 counted out in Lake Charles. So close, yet so far away.

My guess would be somewhre between 75,000 and 100,000 to 1. I say this because it "seems" like most Jack Pots get hit in that range.

Good Luck!!!

[waffle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wrote a computer simulation. 10 players in a ring game. Players will play all pocket pairs, any two cards ten or above (like AK, KJs or QT), any suited ace, and all suited connectors except 23s 34s. Puts them at about 20-23% VPIP. Everyone always went to the river. The odds for the BBJ hitting in these conditions are 1 in 200,000 games.

Assume that the BBJ happens 1 in 400,000 games (because people are sometimes folding before the river). Assume that you win 5% of hands played - so you pay 2.5 extra cents per hand of BBJ rake. Finally, given party's payout structure, if you're at a table that hits the BBJ, your equity in the jackpot is 7%.

SO: Jackpot * (.07) >= .025 * 400000

This means given my assumptions, Jackpot needs to be >= about 143,000 to make playing at the tables +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice work... I see 1 problem though that would be pretty hard to factor in with your way. Both players must play both their hole cards. So a hand with a flop of 99988 with someone holding pocket 8's and someone holding a pocket 9 wouldn't count as a Bad Beat. It's rare that things would end up that way... but since Bad Beats are so rare, this makes it even more rare than what you figured out because it takes away a chunk of possible Bd Beats.

[/ QUOTE ]

OH NO Don't worry I included that condition in my simulation. At first the Bad Beats were going off WAY TOO often and it was because it didn't check to see if both players were using the hole cards. And it gets all the cases, even the marginal ones, like if there's trips on the board, and you have the fourth card, AND only sometimes the kicker plays from your hand. I can post the source code if you want, it's in Perl.

[waffle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An interesting conclusion, does this consider the extra 10% party charges in adminstrative fees when the jackpot is won?


[/ QUOTE ]

yes his conclusion does, thats why he gets 7% equity (10% of 70%). waffle is a genius! anyhow, given his conditions I would tend to fudge the number needed for a jackpot a little higher. 1/400,000 might be correct, but if we are only winning 5% of hands we have to lower our equity a little bit too because we will be getting a table share more than our fair share, but winning or losing less than fair share. Our equity may be closer to like 4 oe 5%? That said I'm more inclined to play 88 and 99 when the jackpot is huge (limp UTG, call in 3 way raised pots with potential to have more players in etc).

It's particularly useful for me to lower our ev to like 5% and maybe increase the odds of hitting to 1 in 500,000 because that would be much closer to my number of $200,000 that I've been using as rule of thumb. I always like to fudge statistics in ways that make me look right. :-)

The other way I had been thinking about it is like this...if 100% was returned, then you'd play when the jackpot was higher than average. Since only 70% is returned, you'd play when 70% of the jackpot = the size of the average jackpot. I figure the average size is some where in the mid $100s which gave my estimate to be around $200k.

Thanks for the simulation waffle, that's basically what I wanted to see.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good thinking about the reduced equity - I've been using 200K as a rule-of-thumb too [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] One thing I'm not sure about is the reduction from 1 in 200,000 to 1 in 400,000. I haven't tried putting it in my simulation, but my guess is that if everyone folds their hand HALF of the time before they get to the river, then it's only going to hit a QUARTER as often. So it'd be 1 in 800,000. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] But then again, most of the time, if you were going to qualify for the BBJ, you were going to like the flop, right? Hrrrmmmm.. maybe I should try to make rudimentary flop logic (if good draws, then stay in till river, otherwise fold, so runner runner straight flush hands would fold.) I just don't know what conditions to use for 'good draw' ...

[waffle]

BTW, using 1/500,000, 2.5 cents per hand charge, and 5% jackpot equity, the jackpot has to be >= 250,000 - Pretty big difference!

[modaddy]

Nice work.

Does anyone have some BB/100 comparisons for the BBJ tables vs non-BBJ tables? One thing not considered by the simulation is the fact that your table is probably going to be playing a little worse than normal due to the JP... e.g. cold-calling raises w/ suited connectors. This in itself contributes to positive EV...

[brandon]

In my 15,000 hand history, I had quads beat beat by a straight flush one time. It wasnt a jackpot hand because there where 3 queens on the board and I had one queen in the hole.

[Flawed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I asked this a while back, and we couldn't figure out an answer, but I found a stat in Pokerstat that might allow as a group to come up with some kind of reasonable guess. If you go into Misc. Stats it gives you showdown % for different types of hands. For example, I have 27,000 hands in my database. I have shown down quads or straight flush 11 times. My showdown percentage is 100%. Looking at the hands, in none of the instances would my victory have triggered the bad beat, so to our group stats I add 27,000 losing hands. If we get a bunch of us to post those stats, we can guesstimate something at least.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wrote a computer simulation. 10 players in a ring game. Players will play all pocket pairs, any two cards ten or above (like AK, KJs or QT), any suited ace, and all suited connectors except 23s 34s. Puts them at about 20-23% VPIP. Everyone always went to the river. The odds for the BBJ hitting in these conditions are 1 in 200,000 games.

Assume that the BBJ happens 1 in 400,000 games (because people are sometimes folding before the river). Assume that you win 5% of hands played - so you pay 2.5 extra cents per hand of BBJ rake. Finally, given party's payout structure, if you're at a table that hits the BBJ, your equity in the jackpot is 7%.

SO: Jackpot * (.07) >= .025 * 400000

This means given my assumptions, Jackpot needs to be >= about 143,000 to make playing at the tables +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

using your numbers youre +EV at $0

[ QUOTE ]

BTW, using 1/500,000, 2.5 cents per hand charge, and 5% jackpot equity, the jackpot has to be >= 250,000 - Pretty big difference!

[/ QUOTE ]
jackpot has to be > 0

at 1 in 450,000 raked hands
Win 7%
JPE 6%
jackpot has to be > $37500