Alert: Party BBJ now +EV through 5/10 level

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
we're not looking at table rake, we're looking at the jackpot drop, no?

[/ QUOTE ]


if it's an unraked hand then there is no JP drop.
That is the basis of JEK's argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

ya, I just caught that. I edited my post. I still wanna see #'s to back this up in terms of BB/100 taken by the JP drop.

[Gotmilk]

[ QUOTE ]

Just because fewer hands are raked at 2/4 doesn't mean it makes it more EV imo.
Every hand that gets raked $1 is now getting tagged for $1.50 which is a significant jump for a 2/4 table. Obviously you have the shot at winning the jackpot....but I'm looking at how many more BB's you are paying for that.


[/ QUOTE ]

This shouldn't affect the EV--Essentially the bad beat jackpot is a sidebet (much like insurance in blackjack). Though the extra .50c feels like it hurts your 2/4 results more than your 15/30 results, the flipside is that if you hit the jackpot, the jackpot is much larger in relation to the 2/4 game than it is in the 15/30 game. I don't really know jek's model, but it certainly seems logical that the jackpot would have to be smaller for the small games than the big games for other reasons than just the rake (more people playing more hands means much more likely to be players around to hit the jackpot). His numbers seem higher than I'd imagine (I would think that it would have to be somewhere around 40% larger than average in size to cover the 30% you lose off the top of their quoted number and jek's numbers seem much larger than that), but I also assume that these are the prices for someone paying 1/10th of the rake. If you are a tight-ass like most are here, the jackpot can be much lower I think (though maybe the decreased chance of winning big offsets the table shares?)?

I stand by none of my ramble as I'm just guessing :-), I was just saying why it's flawed to take into account how it hurts your results in the poker game by percentage more in the 2/4 game than the 15/30, because it's really a different game.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
much like insurance in blackjack

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

I stand by none of my ramble as I'm just guessing :-), I was just saying why it's flawed to take into account how it hurts your results in the poker game by percentage more in the 2/4 game than the 15/30, because it's really a different game.

[/ QUOTE ]



Okay - NOW I'm seeing it a bit better than before. As I've already stated...I'm an idiot on all this math stuff and am just guessing my way through it.

you are correct that it should be treated as a 'different' game and I'm not sure why I wasn't quite seeing that before considering that i already AM an advantage-BJ player and understand that insuring a 20 or a 13 is still the same thing (assuming the deck is 10-rich enough to make the bet worthwhile).


My only disagreement with your post is a minor one and that is in regards to the idea that the 2+2'ers are contributing less because they are playing like a tight-ass.
On the BBJ tables that I play on (5/10 and 10/20) I find that the play is often-times MORE passive than regular tables.
Folded all the way around to the blinds much more frequently.
To that end, I was raising MORE pots more often and probably had a higher VP than many of my opponents.

I was not using my GT+....just basing it on my general table-read and my success at bullying the table when I decided to start doing that.
Small sample-size and maybe I'm jhust hitting super-passive tables where I am the one playing the most hands. And perhaps it is different at 2/4 and 3/6.
Just expressing the idea that it's possible that the whole "tight-ass 2+2'er" element doesn't necessarily apply (but if I hadn't been playing these recently I would have otherwise agreed with you).

Very nice post and thanks for helping me start to see the light a bit better.

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At what level does it become +EV?

I remember there being a post working it out, but I can't find it for the life of me.

[/ QUOTE ]

$2-$4 $193,205.51
$3-$6 $222,151.66
$5-$10 $247,629.10
$10-$20 $275,848.94
$15-$30 $262,267.69

[/ QUOTE ]

this is so wrong it's not even funny.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's materially wrong, this is the 1st I've heard of it, and I crunched those numbers quite awhile ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

apologies Jek if I'm in over my head, but it just seems fundamentally wrong for the jackpot to have to be HIGHER for 15/30 players.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's no problem, these are honest concerns. Here's why 2/4 needs a lower jackpot than 15/30:
Assume that anytime there's a real jackpot, the hand will be raked.
$.50 is raked per raked hand
At 2/4 maybe 60% of the hands are raked (this % may be off, I don't have the exact data in front of me.) So, at 60 hands/hr, the table is paying $.50*60*.6 = $18 for 60 chances to hit a BBJ.
At 15/30, maybe 95% of the hands are raked. So, this would be $.50*60*.95 = $28.50 the table pays for 60 chances at the BBJ. When you pay less per chance, you need a smaller payoff for it to become +EV, thus 2/4 needs a smaller BBJ than 15/30.

Gotmilk made a good post as to why the % of the pot doesn't matter.

There are of course further calculations (probability of a BBJ going off, what a tight player actually pays in rake) but I hope that the theory behind why 2/4 needs a lower BBJ than 15/30 is clear now.

[Karatitis]

Ok yes, that's interesting and I concur that your calculations are probably correct and that the Bad Beat Jackpots become +EV but....

...is it not an overlay on a low-probability event ? In other words, for the time you have to sit there and swing in a ring game with BBJ the ring game itself should still have a positive +EV for the effort to be worthwhile.

Otherwise, isn't this all really just an academic exercise for theoreticians?

For example, we have a lottery in Canada that's called 6-49, and you must get 6 numbers correct out of 49 numbers drawn to win the jackpot. Now, we all know that it's ~ 13 Million - 1 to win the jackpot, but if the jackpot sometimes rises to $16, even $20 Million I don't buy a ticket because I'm still risking $2 on a very improbable event.

Anyone shed any light on my analysis, or is this much different with the BBJ poker?

Thanks,

Karatitis
Toronto, Canada

[evans075]

You have to figure in that the person that wins the BBJ isn't the only person that is paid. The entire gets a portion. That is where it becomes +EV

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]



I played on one of those 2+2 tables when the JP was at a then-record $450k and I disagree that it's EV+++++.

It's mostly a waste of time and effort actually. (alobar was one of those who was there and may or may not agree).

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, especially since it wouldnt take to much investigative work to realize what we were doing (hell all the railbird chat that table generated alone, ratted us out), and I'm 99.9% sure party wouldnt have awarded the jackpot to us if we had hit it.

I had a lot of fun at that table that night, but its not something I would do again.

[Benholio]

The true EV analysis of BBJ tables has more to do with game conditions than the JP (and I do not know what the differences are). However, it is nice to know when you are not paying 'extra' to play at these tables vs. a normal table of the same limit.

[joda mas]

[ QUOTE ]
The true EV analysis of BBJ tables has more to do with game conditions than the JP

[/ QUOTE ]
This is true. Jackpot games are much looser. People chase all pp and suited connectors (or 2-3gappers).

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok yes, that's interesting and I concur that your calculations are probably correct and that the Bad Beat Jackpots become +EV but....

...is it not an overlay on a low-probability event ? In other words, for the time you have to sit there and swing in a ring game with BBJ the ring game itself should still have a positive +EV for the effort to be worthwhile.

Otherwise, isn't this all really just an academic exercise for theoreticians?

For example, we have a lottery in Canada that's called 6-49, and you must get 6 numbers correct out of 49 numbers drawn to win the jackpot. Now, we all know that it's ~ 13 Million - 1 to win the jackpot, but if the jackpot sometimes rises to $16, even $20 Million I don't buy a ticket because I'm still risking $2 on a very improbable event.

Anyone shed any light on my analysis, or is this much different with the BBJ poker?

Thanks,

Karatitis
Toronto, Canada

[/ QUOTE ]

Lotteries are a somewhat of a different beast due to the fact that there can be multiple winners, forcing a split pot.

There is a point though with any jackpot game where it becomes a reasonable move to play.

It is human nature to want to take a shot to win big and luckily there are times where it is actually to your advantage to do so.

It isn't like you are missing out huge by not running to your computer every time these events happen. But we are lucky there are opportunties like this to take a shot.