Quote:rtpudThe main point of the question was to determine when the royal flush jackpot at UB becomes a good bet.

The jackpot tables rake a portion of any pot over 10 BB, up to 1 BB.

65% of the jackpot goes to the following distribution:

50% to the RF holder

25% to the rest of the players at the table

25% to the rest of the players at the same stakes.

25% of the remainder feeds the next jackpot, 10% to UB.

Are you saying that they rake up to an entire big blind for the JP? That would be horrible.

That said, what really determines whether the RF jackpot rake constitutes a "good bet" would largely depend on what percentage of the jackpot drop was ultimately returned to the players (including the seed money for the next jackpot). If it was 100% that would be a fair bet as far as that goes.

You said that 65% of the jackpot is divided among the players, and that 25% of the remainder seeds the next jackpot, and "10% to UB". What happens to the other 75% of the remainder, and 10% of WHAT goes to UB?

Even a jackpot scheme that returns 100% to the players favors the house, because the house always has custody of the jackpot amounts. It's sort of like the travelers' check "float"--they pay up willingly, but they always replenish the fund. It sounds like this setup allows the house to keep some portion of the jackpot money, though.

So the question of whether it is a good bet or not would depend on how many players there are, how many of those players see a flop, on average, and how much of the JP funds collected are returned to the players. I would definitely never play in such a game unless the table were full. Even then, if the drop is an entire big blind, that is probably WAY too much to overcome unless the jackpot got HUGE.

Quote:mkl654321Are you saying that they rake up to an entire big blind for the JP? That would be horrible.

That said, what really determines whether the RF jackpot rake constitutes a "good bet" would largely depend on what percentage of the jackpot drop was ultimately returned to the players (including the seed money for the next jackpot). If it was 100% that would be a fair bet as far as that goes.

You said that 65% of the jackpot is divided among the players, and that 25% of the remainder seeds the next jackpot, and "10% to UB". What happens to the other 75% of the remainder, and 10% of WHAT goes to UB?

Even a jackpot scheme that returns 100% to the players favors the house, because the house always has custody of the jackpot amounts. It's sort of like the travelers' check "float"--they pay up willingly, but they always replenish the fund. It sounds like this setup allows the house to keep some portion of the jackpot money, though.

So the question of whether it is a good bet or not would depend on how many players there are, how many of those players see a flop, on average, and how much of the JP funds collected are returned to the players. I would definitely never play in such a game unless the table were full. Even then, if the drop is an entire big blind, that is probably WAY too much to overcome unless the jackpot got HUGE.

Yeah, its a little convoluted...let me try again.

Of the total jackpot "fund", it gets divided the following way when it is hit:

65% Payout (defined below)

25% Seed to next jackpot

10% To the house

From the Payout portion, the following is paid to the players:

50% to the holder of the RF

25% to the other players at the table

25% to every player playing the same stakes

The JP funds come from pots that are greater than 10BB. At a pot of exactly 10BB, the JP gets 0.1 BB and scales up to, and is capped at, 1 BB scaling with the size of the pot.

So, at what point is the jackpot large enough that playing at one of these tables is a good bet?

If you win a hand, you are the one who pays the jackpot drop. All other things being equal, the average player wins one in every nine hands (at a nine-handed table, of course). So 1/9 of the time, you pay X amount of jackpot drop. This is your part of the table's overall contribution to the jackpot pool. Since 8/9 of the time, someone else is paying for the jackpot (i.e., the eventual winner of the hand), you are actually getting nine shots at the jackpot for your one jackpot drop. So you get 9/10,000 chances of hitting a royal for that bet.

So the answer would depend on the amount dropped in a particular pot. If it were $1, then the jackpot would have to be $1,112 for it to be a good value. If $2, then $2,224. Et cetera. Also note that the relative odds drop, and the amount of the payoff needed rises, as there are less players dealt in. A shorthanded jackpot drop is almost never a good deal.

All mathy types: I realize the above is an oversimplification, but all I'm purporting this to be is a rough estimation.

Quote:mkl654321If we use the Wiz's figures, any given hand, if played to the river, has about a one in 10,000 chance to hit the jackpot.

If you win a hand, you are the one who pays the jackpot drop. All other things being equal, the average player wins one in every nine hands (at a nine-handed table, of course). So 1/9 of the time, you pay X amount of jackpot drop. This is your part of the table's overall contribution to the jackpot pool. Since 8/9 of the time, someone else is paying for the jackpot (i.e., the eventual winner of the hand), you are actually getting nine shots at the jackpot for your one jackpot drop. So you get 9/10,000 chances of hitting a royal for that bet.

So the answer would depend on the amount dropped in a particular pot. If it were $1, then the jackpot would have to be $1,112 for it to be a good value. If $2, then $2,224. Et cetera. Also note that the relative odds drop, and the amount of the payoff needed rises, as there are less players dealt in. A shorthanded jackpot drop is almost never a good deal.

All mathy types: I realize the above is an oversimplification, but all I'm purporting this to be is a rough estimation.

Just as a general trend where human wants to see trend, it hits mostly between 2500-3500. So when I see it at 2500, I start playing.

I have seen it hit at 800 once, and at 5200 once. But I still wasn't convined I was improving my odds with my gentle trending, was hoping to get some math geeks in (FYI, this is 0.25-0.5 PLO).