New type of bad beat jackpot

parttimepro · #1 02-07-2005, 05:22 PM

When most people talk about bad beats, they talk about terrible suck-outs. Their flopped boats getting beaten by a runner-runner draw to a straight flush after capping on all streets. So why are bad beat jackpots defined only on the basis of the final hands?

Here's an idea for looser games and better bad-beat jackpots. The jackpot is awarded only when a player needs and gets two perfect cards to beat their opponent, despite bets on the flop and the turn.

Example: Player 1 has A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], Player 2 has 5[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]8[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img].
Flop is A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]5[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. 1 bets, 2 calls.
Turn is 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 1 bets, 2 raises, 1 reraises, 2 caps.
River is 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].
By any measure, this is a horrible beat, but it won't get you the jackpot.

This seems like the perfect way to get huge pots, by rewarding people for dumbass drawing-near-dead plays. My back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest this would happen with about the same frequency as the standard BBJ.

What do you guys think? Like it, hate it?

liquidboss · #2 02-07-2005, 05:51 PM

Interesting idea but the Jackpot would never get very big. It would hit nearly every minute on low limit tables.

Paul2432 · #3 02-07-2005, 06:11 PM

Suppose in your example a third player held a flush draw. Would the JP still be awarded?

Paul

Paul2432 · #4 02-07-2005, 06:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting idea but the Jackpot would never get very big. It would hit nearly every minute on low limit tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Hitting a perfect-perfect is around 1000:1. My guess is that flopping a perfect-perfect opportunity is probably at least 100:1 maybe 200 or 300:1. Hitting this bad beat is at least an every 100,000 hand event.

Paul

MicroBob · #5 02-07-2005, 06:35 PM

I've never had a hand that would qualify for a regular bad-beat jackpot.

I've had several hands that would qualify for this type of jackpot....and that doesn't even include all the times that it has happened on one of my tables but I was busy on a different table so I didn't notice.

Additionally, I think this type of jackpot will be difficult for the site to work with.
You have to actually have support analyse the hand to make sure it qualifies and confirm that it really was perfect-perfect to make it.

Lots of players would think they hit a perfect-perfect without realize that they had other outs.
And I don't think it would be easy to progrm the site to automatically recognize such perfect-perfect's.

It's a reasonably interesting idea to try to help generate superhuman-fishy play. But I don't think that paying jackpots on these types of hands would be very practical.

If you really want to generate super-fishy play you could just pay a jackpot for every time someone wins a hand with 72o.

I don't think it's really in the site's interest to generate super-fishy play though...I mean, they get some extra-rake out of the deal but it doesn't seem like they would get that much more profits than they already do on regular tables or current BBJ tables.

parttimepro · #6 02-07-2005, 06:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting idea but the Jackpot would never get very big. It would hit nearly every minute on low limit tables.

[/ QUOTE ]
So here's how I figure it. If you need 2 perfect cards to win, you must be drawing to a straight-flush or quads, versus at least a made flush. The main ways this could happen would be:
-baby flush vs. bigger flush, with baby flush needing 2 gutshots to the straight flush (e.g. 579 or 569, but not 679)
-bottom or middle pair vs. overset
-straight flush draw vs. boat or quads

The math is non-trivial, but this doesn't happen every hand, or every 10 hands. Conservatively, let's say every 100 hands. Also, a lot of these draws are obviously bad, and even donkeys will fold. Other times the leader will slow-play, making the hand ineligible for the jackpot. Let's say this takes care of half of those hands. Once you get to a 2-perfect-cards situation, the odds of hitting are 1/23 * 1/45 = 1/1000. So I would estimate this would hit every 200,000 hands or so. If someone else has a better intuition about the math I'd like to hear it.

If this is correct, and there's a 50 cent drop, the average jackpot would be something over $100,000, and you'd often see jackpots above $200,000 or $300,000.

parttimepro · #7 02-07-2005, 06:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose in your example a third player held a flush draw. Would the JP still be awarded?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. This would be like the current BBJs, where if a straight-flush beats quads, and a third player has a flush, 1/2 of the jackpot goes to the quads, 1/4 to the straight-flush, and the rest to the rest of the table.

parttimepro · #8 02-07-2005, 06:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You have to actually have support analyse the hand to make sure it qualifies and confirm that it really was perfect-perfect to make it.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is easy. A moderately skilled programmer could do this in an hour or two. If you trust the sites to keep track of your deposit information, generate random numbers, and manage security, you should trust them to do this correctly.

[ QUOTE ]
Lots of players would think they hit a perfect-perfect without realize that they had other outs.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a good point. You should never underestimate the stupidity of people who draw to perfect-perfect outs. Support might have to come up with an automated reply system to explain why there were 2 outs on the river instead of 1. Maybe even a button to press: "Why didn't I win the jackpot?" This would also be fairly easy to implement.

[ QUOTE ]
I've had several hands that would qualify for this type of jackpot

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? Are you sure they were perfect-perfect? See my other post for odds calculations.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's really in the site's interest to generate super-fishy play though

[/ QUOTE ]
With the current rake structure, the bigger the pot (up to $60), the more the site makes. Until you get up to 5/10 or so, it's definitely in the site's interest to encourage fishy play. Plus, at least at PP, the site keeps 12% of the jackpot. It's in their interest to generate the fishiest play possible and generate the most jackpot drops. I'm just throwing this idea out as a way to generate fishier play and more drops than the current system.

Petro · #9 02-07-2005, 07:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Lots of players would think they hit a perfect-perfect without realize that they had other outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's an interesting point. The e-mail traffic from "why didn't I get the jackpot" questions would probably get pretty annoying for the site.

cardcounter0 · #10 02-07-2005, 07:17 PM

First, the fish don't realize how many outs they are drawing to in the first place, or that they are beat.

Second, even when they do hit perfect-perfect they don't realize what they have done.

So, you have a jackpot the fish don't know what it takes to win and don't know what they did to win it.

Ever hear one fish try to explain to another fish how to win the current Party Badbeat Jackpot? I shudder to think of what the explanation for this one would be.

Besides, why would you want a fish to be thinking about how many outs he has, or if he is beat what he needs to draw to, in the first place?