Bovada Tuesday match bonus - A complete scam or tell me why I'm wrong.
With the exception of perhaps 3 or 4 times, this game always runs below expected value. Now I understand why they offer promotions like this, if they have the machines set to function below normal, what do they have to lose?
Since they pay for this site, I'm sure this will be taken down as blasphemy, but If anyone really cared, I'd like to see those 10 times in a row analyzed and somebody tell me if I'm off base or not. Because playing 800 chips with a 50% financial stake at a 99.95% payback game, and going bust before a 40x rollover is met 10 times in a row seems pretty outside of paramaters that could be considered normal.
It's not even about the money, I'm just really ticked off because I feel deceived from this supposed "trustwothy" casino. I only even play the game anymore during a promotion, and now that's going to stop also.
I'm open to listen to a rationale explanation that this is just a bad run, but still within reality, but I'm not exaggerating the figures, and it seems ridiculous to me.
What is the amount of your deposit (before and after the bonus is applied) and what is your average bet? Are you varying your bets?
Quote: cardsharkMore information is required...
What is the amount of your deposit (before and after the bonus is applied) and what is your average bet? Are you varying your bets?
Bets are never varied, they're always the same. I always start with 700 or 800 chips, and I always play max chips (5) on every spin. So I'm always starting with 140 -160 units. Last nights session(#10 out of #10 busto's), I went bust on hand #4136 out of 5600 needed. So I ran at a 96.62% pay back. The "meat" hands as I like to call them mostly ran below expectation (as usual). 3 of a kinds were 112 (expected 124), straights were 17 (expected 21), full houses were 8 (expected 9.74) and of course quads 1 (expected 1.75). flushes ran slightly higher at 15 (expected 13) My experience with this game, is that you usually need to hit quads over expectation or a straight flush to have a winning session.In over 1 years playing, I've had only 1 session where I made a straight flush (hit 2 in 1 night). Now, i know they're rare at one every 38,500 hands,but I guess the point is, how is it that ALL the major paying hand types run below expectation over a large sample?
I mean, I could see quads or straight flushes running below as that's not that uncommon, but after the 50,000+ hands during this streak, isn't it odd that every larger paying hand type is running below expectation? I requested them to send me game logs for my last 10 sessions when using their bonus. (they said they would but would take a few days). I can give them their due for one thing, they have good game logs. It's very easy to scroll through hand histories quickly and count up only the larger paying hands because they're easy to spot since the larger payout jumps out from the page.
I'm not the brightest bulb on the christmas tree, but I'm not a moron either. Casino games are random games of chance with a built in house edge where the house is SUPPOSED to win. But if they're going to entice their customers with bonus offers, shouldn't we expect a fighting chance with a game?
According to my math (with isn't as good as some of the great minds that frequent here), if I play a session of 5600 hands, my chances of hitting a straight flush or royal is 14.92%. That means that if I play a 10 session block of 5600 hands each, I will be over an 80% favorite to at least hit 1 straight or royal flush during that 10 session block. Since I struggle with some bi-nomials, I don't know what the odds are of hitting 3 or more quads in one 5600 hand session, but my overriding beef is that I find it hard to believe that starting with 700 or 800 chips each time, i go bust before hitting a 40x rollover 10 times in a row. I mean, that has to be astronomical compared to even the long odds of having 10 losing sessions in a row.
Quote: shakhtarAccording to my math (with isn't as good as some of the great minds that frequent here), if I play a session of 5600 hands, my chances of hitting a straight flush or royal is 14.92%.
This is correct.
Quote: shakhtarThat means that if I play a 10 session block of 5600 hands each, I will be over an 80% favorite to at least hit 1 straight or royal flush during that 10 session block.
As long as you manage to play all 56,000 hands before busting or stopping voluntarily, this is also correct.
The probability of losing everything in all 10 sessions is roughly 92% to the power 10 or 4.34%. This is definitely in the realm of possible and is not an indication of an unfair game.
(1832213940/1832266800)^50000 = 23.6%
So not unusual at all.
Quote: cardsharkTo address your main question, if you have a bankroll of 140-160 units, you are running a very high risk of ruin! A quick calculation gives me a risk of ruin of 92.5% for 140 units and 91.7% for 160 units.
The probability of losing everything in all 10 sessions is roughly 92% to the power 10 or 4.34%. This is definitely in the realm of possible and is not an indication of an unfair game.
So what you're saying is that even playing a low-variance game like pick'em poker, with a 99.95% payback, I would have a 91.7% chance of going bust with 800 chips (playing 5 chips a spin) before reaching 5600 spins? Is this correct? Because that sure would be interesting to know if that's accurate.
As a side note, If you care to share, I'd love to know how to calculate risk of ruin.
And then for my final question : Let's use the following parameters. Player plays a promotion where casino gives 100% deposit match bonus with a 40x rollover. Player deposits $100 and casino matches $100. Player buys 800 .25 cent chips and plays pick'em poker at the .25cent machine playing max (5 chips/$1.25) every spin. What are the chances that player meets his rollover requirement AND turns a profit ? This means even a loss of $99.95 or less playing the game qualifies as profit due to deposit bonus.
Probability of 17 or less straights in 4136 hands = 22.9%
Probability of exactly 17 straights in 4136 hands = 6.5%
Probability of exactly 21 straights in 4136 hands = 8.7%
So again, your results are not unusual.
I think the conclusion here is that your results do not indicate an unfair game. If you believe in luck, I guess you could say you had an unlucky run, but not an impossible run by any stretch.
Quote: cardsharkOk last calculation! Looking at your 17 straights versus 21 expected:
Probability of 17 or less straights in 4136 hands = 22.9%
Probability of exactly 17 straights in 4136 hands = 6.5%
Probability of exactly 21 straights in 4136 hands = 8.7%
So again, your results are not unusual.
I think the conclusion here is that your results do not indicate an unfair game. If you believe in luck, I guess you could say you had an unlucky run, but not an impossible run by any stretch.
Those go without saying, my point was, how can EVERY major paying hand (3of akind, strgt, flsh, full house, etc) run below expectation 10 times in a row (each time minimum of 3000 hands). That seems a lot harder to chalk up to variance.
Quote: shakhtarSince they pay for this site, I'm sure this will be taken down as blasphemy.
Huh?
Quote: shakhtarSo what you're saying is that even playing a low-variance game like pick'em poker, with a 99.95% payback, I would have a 91.7% chance of going bust with 800 chips (playing 5 chips a spin) before reaching 5600 spins? Is this correct? Because that sure would be interesting to know if that's accurate.
As a side note, If you care to share, I'd love to know how to calculate risk of ruin.
Yeah, that is exactly what I am saying. 800 chips makes it sound like a lot of bankroll, but it is really only 800/5 or 160 units. And you have to run those 160 units through 5600 hands. 99.95%, but 1% of that is held in straight flushes and royals, which are unlikely to hit in 5600 hands.
Pick em poker is the lowest variance video poker game I know of, but I wouldn't consider it low variance.
For the formula, I don't want to get into calculations of risks of ruin on a forum, because it requires too much time to explain, its too hard to write out formulas here and I'm not a good teacher. However, I am sure there are all sorts of free web calculators. I remember using qfit.com back in my card counting days.
Quote: shakhtarThose go without saying, my point was, how can EVERY major paying hand (3of akind, strgt, flsh, full house, etc) run below expectation 10 times in a row (each time minimum of 3000 hands). That seems a lot harder to chalk up to variance.
That's not true. You said your actual flushes exceeded expectations in your 10th session.
But let's suppose they weren't and all actuals were lower than expectations. I couldn't give you the probability of such a thing because it is incredibly complex to calculate!! I guess it would call for a simulation - maybe you can ask some of our expert simulators on this forum (I don't have strong programming skills).
Quote: cardsharkYeah, that is exactly what I am saying. 800 chips makes it sound like a lot of bankroll, but it is really only 800/5 or 160 units. And you have to run those 160 units through 5600 hands. 99.95%, but 1% of that is held in straight flushes and royals, which are unlikely to hit in 5600 hands.
Pick em poker is the lowest variance video poker game I know of, but I wouldn't consider it low variance.
For the formula, I don't want to get into calculations of risks of ruin on a forum, because it requires too much time to explain, its too hard to write out formulas here and I'm not a good teacher. However, I am sure there are all sorts of free web calculators. I remember using qfit.com back in my card counting days.
Well, this is good to know. Thanks for taking the time and answering my questions. If I would have known I'm over 90% to go broke meeting a 40x rollover (playing 800 chips), even with a 100% deposit match, I would have never been dumb enough to think I was +ev on these Tuesday promotions.
If you could indulge me one final time, I'd love to know the question of the chances of a player coming out ahead that i posed earlier in this thread. Thats the one where a player deposits $100, casino matches $100, and player plays .25 cent machine with 800 chips for 6400 spins at max (5 chip spins). If he's close to 92% to go broke, he must be less than 5% to turn a profit?
I don't need exact, approximations are more than adequete.
Quote: cardsharkThat's not true. You said your actual flushes exceeded expectations in your 10th session.
But let's suppose they weren't and all actuals were lower than expectations. I couldn't give you the probability of such a thing because it is incredibly complex to calculate!! I guess it would call for a simulation - maybe you can ask some of our expert simulators on this forum (I don't have strong programming skills).
I meant as an aggregate between them all 10 times, but thats OK, If I'm 92% to go broke anyway, thats enough information for me. I thought I was +ev, and apparently, that's not the case at all, so I'll chalk this whole ordeal up to a learning experience and me being stupid.
Quote: shakhtarI meant as an aggregate between them all 10 times, but thats OK, If I'm 92% to go broke anyway, thats enough information for me. I thought I was +ev, and apparently, that's not the case at all, so I'll chalk this whole ordeal up to a learning experience and me being stupid.
You don't understand what +ev means.
You keep qouting 99.95% but admit you might make an error 'now and then'. The 99.95% presupposes perfect play. Exactly how many errors you make is unknown.
Your results just seem 'unlucky', but there is no way to tell if your assertion that the games are fixed against you is correct. It certainly is possible, but the fact that you are the only one here making this assertion makes it seem unlikely. I doubt that Bovada would just single you out.
But the bottom line is this, if YOU think you are being cheated, it is time to stop playing there. If you play there tomorrow and lose, what are you going to be thinking about those results?
Quote: sabreYou don't understand what +ev means.
The OP acknowledged (quite humbly, i might add) that because of the advise of the forum he is convinced that his original thought that he was +EV was wrong. The thread sat dead for over a week. You then revived it in order to post a cheap insult. Do I have that right?
Quote: JimRockfordThe OP acknowledged (quite humbly, i might add) that because of the advise of the forum he is convinced that his original thought that he was +EV was wrong. The thread sat dead for over a week. You then revived it in order to post a cheap insult. Do I have that right?
It depends.
