Must Hit's: Min bet vs Max bet
Poll
 | 1 vote (50%) | ||
| | 1 vote (50%) |
2 members have voted
There are 2 camps on how to bet:
1) Bet the smallest amount allowed in your time constraint. It minimizes variance.
I know of a AP who got a hotel room. He can lock the machine for hrs at a time to sleep a few hrs.
He would bet $5/spin ($1 denom, 5 lines).
That's alot of hrs even if it went to the half way point.
Also, betting small reduces the chances of a handpay. Machine lockups with W2-G's slows things down.
2) Bet max
ie: $50/spin ($1 denom, 10 lines @5x multiplier)
If you play Must Hits often, then your var is already lowered.
You're subject to the same House Edge as the $5 bet.
If you get lucky with a 400x Bonus then $20k win @$50 bet is better than $2k @ $5.
That $20k helps cushion the blow if the Must Hit goes high. $2k doesn't make much of a dent in mitigating your loses
Which would you do? WHY?
Quote: 100xOddsSay it's a $10k Must Hit.
There are 2 camps on how to bet:
1) Bet the smallest amount allowed in your time constraint. It minimizes variance.
I know of a AP who got a hotel room. He can lock the machine for hrs at a time to sleep a few hrs.
He would bet $5/spin ($1 denom, 5 lines).
That's alot of hrs even if it went to the half way point.
Also, betting small reduces the chances of a handpay. Machine lockups with W2-G's slows things down.
2) Bet max
ie: $50/spin ($1 denom, 10 lines @5x multiplier)
If you play Must Hits often, then your var is already lowered.
You're subject to the same House Edge as the $5 bet.
If you get lucky with a 400x Bonus then $20k win @$50 bet is better than $2k @ $5.
That $20k helps cushion the blow if the Must Hit goes high. $2k doesn't make much of a dent in mitigating your loses
Which would you do? WHY?
link to original post
I do both. I’ll bet as high as I can and if running good will continue to do that.
If i’m running bad and / or cash on hand is low I’ll bet small.
If I’m at a place where hand pays take a long time I’ll bet small.
As you mentioned EV is the same either way.
Quote: 100xOddsSay it's a $10k Must Hit.
There are 2 camps on how to bet:
1) Bet the smallest amount allowed in your time constraint. It minimizes variance.
I know of a AP who got a hotel room. He can lock the machine for hrs at a time to sleep a few hrs.
He would bet $5/spin ($1 denom, 5 lines).
That's alot of hrs even if it went to the half way point.
Also, betting small reduces the chances of a handpay. Machine lockups with W2-G's slows things down.
2) Bet max
ie: $50/spin ($1 denom, 10 lines @5x multiplier)
If you play Must Hits often, then your var is already lowered.
You're subject to the same House Edge as the $5 bet.
If you get lucky with a 400x Bonus then $20k win @$50 bet is better than $2k @ $5.
That $20k helps cushion the blow if the Must Hit goes high. $2k doesn't make much of a dent in mitigating your loses
Which would you do? WHY?
link to original post
On many games the probability of hitting a" must hit by" will be reduced in relation to the bet amount.
Quote: DRichQuote: 100xOddsSay it's a $10k Must Hit.
There are 2 camps on how to bet:
1) Bet the smallest amount allowed in your time constraint. It minimizes variance.
I know of a AP who got a hotel room. He can lock the machine for hrs at a time to sleep a few hrs.
He would bet $5/spin ($1 denom, 5 lines).
That's alot of hrs even if it went to the half way point.
Also, betting small reduces the chances of a handpay. Machine lockups with W2-G's slows things down.
2) Bet max
ie: $50/spin ($1 denom, 10 lines @5x multiplier)
If you play Must Hits often, then your var is already lowered.
You're subject to the same House Edge as the $5 bet.
If you get lucky with a 400x Bonus then $20k win @$50 bet is better than $2k @ $5.
That $20k helps cushion the blow if the Must Hit goes high. $2k doesn't make much of a dent in mitigating your loses
Which would you do? WHY?
link to original post
On many games the probability of hitting a" must hit by" will be reduced in relation to the bet amount.
link to original post
Sorry, I know we just had a go-round on a different subject so not try to pile on, but can you explain that?
My understanding is the meter rises at the same rate. If it's a penny per dollar wagered, then betting $25 just makes the meter go up 25 times faster than betting a $1 but it's still at a penny per $1 wagered.
And the amount the must hit will pop is preset at the moment the prior amount was hit.
So if those two conditions are true (as I understand them) how could the probability of hitting a must hit be reduced (or raised) based on lowering or raising the bet?
We are talking about the really big must hits for thousands. Not the rinky-dink amounts like must hit by $50 etc. I never played those and maybe those are different?
One thing to consider is that even though betting lower is "safer" since it reduces variance, the extra time spent playing the game will be an opportunity cost that you could have spent playing other games. Or being at home watching hockey or something.
Quote: darkoz
Sorry, I know we just had a go-round on a different subject so not try to pile on, but can you explain that?
My understanding is the meter rises at the same rate. If it's a penny per dollar wagered, then betting $25 just makes the meter go up 25 times faster than betting a $1 but it's still at a penny per $1 wagered.
And the amount the must hit will pop is preset at the moment the prior amount was hit.
So if those two conditions are true (as I understand them) how could the probability of hitting a must hit be reduced (or raised) based on lowering or raising the bet?
We are talking about the really big must hits for thousands. Not the rinky-dink amounts like must hit by $50 etc. I never played those and maybe those are different?
link to original post
I probably didn't word that very well.
If you are betting $1 a spin or $10 a spin, the $10 bettor is 10 times more likely per spin to trigger the must hit.
Many non must hit progressives the denom played is correlated to the odds of hitting the jackpot. A $1 player is four rimes more likely to hit the winning combination over the $0.25 player. Basically just different reel strips in play.
Quote: DRichQuote: darkoz
Sorry, I know we just had a go-round on a different subject so not try to pile on, but can you explain that?
My understanding is the meter rises at the same rate. If it's a penny per dollar wagered, then betting $25 just makes the meter go up 25 times faster than betting a $1 but it's still at a penny per $1 wagered.
And the amount the must hit will pop is preset at the moment the prior amount was hit.
So if those two conditions are true (as I understand them) how could the probability of hitting a must hit be reduced (or raised) based on lowering or raising the bet?
We are talking about the really big must hits for thousands. Not the rinky-dink amounts like must hit by $50 etc. I never played those and maybe those are different?
link to original post
I probably didn't word that very well.
If you are betting $1 a spin or $10 a spin, the $10 bettor is 10 times more likely per spin to trigger the must hit.
Many non must hit progressives the denom played is correlated to the odds of hitting the jackpot. A $1 player is four rimes more likely to hit the winning combination over the $0.25 player. Basically just different reel strips in play.
link to original post
This doesn't seem correct based on both my experience and knowledge of must hits. Others can chime in here.
Cash Bull has some machines that are $5 to $200 range. I have played the $200 range and certainly didn't experience a 40 times better experience triggering the must hit.
Quote: darkozQuote: DRichQuote: darkoz
Sorry, I know we just had a go-round on a different subject so not try to pile on, but can you explain that?
My understanding is the meter rises at the same rate. If it's a penny per dollar wagered, then betting $25 just makes the meter go up 25 times faster than betting a $1 but it's still at a penny per $1 wagered.
And the amount the must hit will pop is preset at the moment the prior amount was hit.
So if those two conditions are true (as I understand them) how could the probability of hitting a must hit be reduced (or raised) based on lowering or raising the bet?
We are talking about the really big must hits for thousands. Not the rinky-dink amounts like must hit by $50 etc. I never played those and maybe those are different?
link to original post
I probably didn't word that very well.
If you are betting $1 a spin or $10 a spin, the $10 bettor is 10 times more likely per spin to trigger the must hit.
Many non must hit progressives the denom played is correlated to the odds of hitting the jackpot. A $1 player is four rimes more likely to hit the winning combination over the $0.25 player. Basically just different reel strips in play.
link to original post
This doesn't seem correct based on both my experience and knowledge of must hits. Others can chime in here.
Cash Bull has some machines that are $5 to $200 range. I have played the $200 range and certainly didn't experience a 40 times better experience triggering the must hit.
link to original post
Obviously I do not know how they all work, just the ones that I dealt with. Generally a target amount of coin in is selected and the bet that meets or exceeds that target is the one that wins the prize. If you and I are both playing for the same must hit, my betting a $1 per spin is ten times less likely to hit or exceed the coin in target than your betting $10 per spin. Some machines will use "coin out" instead of "coin in" for the triggering amount.
And most slot APs know that in some cases the "random number" being picked is being picked from a pool of numbers that are weighted towards the top of the range.
Quote: DRichQuote: darkoz
Sorry, I know we just had a go-round on a different subject so not try to pile on, but can you explain that?
My understanding is the meter rises at the same rate. If it's a penny per dollar wagered, then betting $25 just makes the meter go up 25 times faster than betting a $1 but it's still at a penny per $1 wagered.
And the amount the must hit will pop is preset at the moment the prior amount was hit.
So if those two conditions are true (as I understand them) how could the probability of hitting a must hit be reduced (or raised) based on lowering or raising the bet?
We are talking about the really big must hits for thousands. Not the rinky-dink amounts like must hit by $50 etc. I never played those and maybe those are different?
link to original post
I probably didn't word that very well.
If you are betting $1 a spin or $10 a spin, the $10 bettor is 10 times more likely per spin to trigger the must hit.
Many non must hit progressives the denom played is correlated to the odds of hitting the jackpot. A $1 player is four rimes more likely to hit the winning combination over the $0.25 player. Basically just different reel strips in play.
link to original post
Does that represent a change of denomination, or a change of bet multiplier?
Quote: DieterQuote: DRich
Many non must hit progressives the denom played is correlated to the odds of hitting the jackpot. A $1 player is four rimes more likely to hit the winning combination over the $0.25 player. Basically just different reel strips in play.
link to original post
Does that represent a change of denomination, or a change of bet multiplier?
link to original post
It can be either. More likely denom from my experience.
Quote: DRichQuote: darkozQuote: DRichQuote: darkoz
Sorry, I know we just had a go-round on a different subject so not try to pile on, but can you explain that?
My understanding is the meter rises at the same rate. If it's a penny per dollar wagered, then betting $25 just makes the meter go up 25 times faster than betting a $1 but it's still at a penny per $1 wagered.
And the amount the must hit will pop is preset at the moment the prior amount was hit.
So if those two conditions are true (as I understand them) how could the probability of hitting a must hit be reduced (or raised) based on lowering or raising the bet?
We are talking about the really big must hits for thousands. Not the rinky-dink amounts like must hit by $50 etc. I never played those and maybe those are different?
link to original post
I probably didn't word that very well.
If you are betting $1 a spin or $10 a spin, the $10 bettor is 10 times more likely per spin to trigger the must hit.
Many non must hit progressives the denom played is correlated to the odds of hitting the jackpot. A $1 player is four rimes more likely to hit the winning combination over the $0.25 player. Basically just different reel strips in play.
link to original post
This doesn't seem correct based on both my experience and knowledge of must hits. Others can chime in here.
Cash Bull has some machines that are $5 to $200 range. I have played the $200 range and certainly didn't experience a 40 times better experience triggering the must hit.
link to original post
Obviously I do not know how they all work, just the ones that I dealt with. Generally a target amount of coin in is selected and the bet that meets or exceeds that target is the one that wins the prize. If you and I are both playing for the same must hit, my betting a $1 per spin is ten times less likely to hit or exceed the coin in target than your betting $10 per spin. Some machines will use "coin out" instead of "coin in" for the triggering amount.
link to original post
If I understand what you are saying is correct, you mean the only reason the $10 bettor has a ten fold better chance is because he is leapfrogging ten times quicker?
So let's say the must hit is 5 pennies away from trigger, and the meter goes up one penny per dollar.
You are betting $1 per spin so you need to make 5 spins to get the must hit.
I only need one spin because I am betting $10 per spin so that single next spin I make will leapfrog ten pennies, passing the trigger with just one spin instead of ten.
Is that the gist of what you are saying?
Quote: DRichQuote: DieterQuote: DRich
Many non must hit progressives the denom played is correlated to the odds of hitting the jackpot. A $1 player is four rimes more likely to hit the winning combination over the $0.25 player. Basically just different reel strips in play.
link to original post
Does that represent a change of denomination, or a change of bet multiplier?
link to original post
It can be either. More likely denom from my experience.
link to original post
That seems odd that selecting 5 coins per line (from 1) changes the reel strips.
I would understand if changing from a 5c coin to a 25c coin changed the reel strips.
Quote: DieterQuote: DRichQuote: DieterQuote: DRich
Many non must hit progressives the denom played is correlated to the odds of hitting the jackpot. A $1 player is four rimes more likely to hit the winning combination over the $0.25 player. Basically just different reel strips in play.
link to original post
Does that represent a change of denomination, or a change of bet multiplier?
link to original post
It can be either. More likely denom from my experience.
link to original post
That seems odd that selecting 5 coins per line (from 1) changes the reel strips.
I would understand if changing from a 5c coin to a 25c coin changed the reel strips.
link to original post
Plus even if the reel strips were different I fail to see how that would make hitting a predetermined meter location xxx odds better.
Until someone else like the Wizard verifies this I don't believe DRich is correct.
I also note he says "many NON must hit by..."
Is he talking about games with random hit bys? We are all talking about must hits here!!!
Quote: darkoz
If I understand what you are saying is correct, you mean the only reason the $10 bettor has a ten fold better chance is because he is leapfrogging ten times quicker?
So let's say the must hit is 5 pennies away from trigger, and the meter goes up one penny per dollar.
You are betting $1 per spin so you need to make 5 spins to get the must hit.
I only need one spin because I am betting $10 per spin so that single next spin I make will leapfrog ten pennies, passing the trigger with just one spin instead of ten.
Is that the gist of what you are saying?
link to original post
Yes, that is the gist of it.
Quote: darkozQuote: DieterQuote: DRichQuote: DieterQuote: DRich
Many non must hit progressives the denom played is correlated to the odds of hitting the jackpot. A $1 player is four rimes more likely to hit the winning combination over the $0.25 player. Basically just different reel strips in play.
link to original post
Does that represent a change of denomination, or a change of bet multiplier?
link to original post
It can be either. More likely denom from my experience.
link to original post
That seems odd that selecting 5 coins per line (from 1) changes the reel strips.
I would understand if changing from a 5c coin to a 25c coin changed the reel strips.
link to original post
Plus even if the reel strips were different I fail to see how that would make hitting a predetermined meter location xxx odds better.
Until someone else like the Wizard verifies this I don't believe DRich is correct.
I also note he says "many NON must hit by..."
Is he talking about games with random hit bys? We are all talking about must hits here!!!
link to original post
You know that different technologies exist in different jurisdictions. There’s many ways to skin a car ;)
Quote: DRichQuote: darkoz
If I understand what you are saying is correct, you mean the only reason the $10 bettor has a ten fold better chance is because he is leapfrogging ten times quicker?
So let's say the must hit is 5 pennies away from trigger, and the meter goes up one penny per dollar.
You are betting $1 per spin so you need to make 5 spins to get the must hit.
I only need one spin because I am betting $10 per spin so that single next spin I make will leapfrog ten pennies, passing the trigger with just one spin instead of ten.
Is that the gist of what you are saying?
link to original post
Yes, that is the gist of it.
link to original post
But that can't be it because you answered Dieter that the reel strips change?
Quote: darkoz
I also note he says "many NON must hit by..."
Is he talking about games with random hit bys? We are all talking about must hits here!!!
No, when I said "non must hit" I was thinking more about traditional games with progressive jackpots that are shared between denoms. In other words no matter what denom you are playing you win the same amount on the progressive.
Quote: darkoz
Until someone else like the Wizard verifies this I don't believe DRich is correct.
As much as I respect the Wizard, I think I know a bit more about how slot machines work than he does. Of course, I don't know if he would agree with that or not.
Quote: DRichQuote: darkoz
I also note he says "many NON must hit by..."
Is he talking about games with random hit bys? We are all talking about must hits here!!!
No, when I said "non must hit" I was thinking more about traditional games with progressive jackpots that are shared between denoms. In other words no matter what denom you are playing you win the same amount on the progressive.
link to original post
Several must hits also do this.
For example Cash Bull the must hit remains the same whether you are betting pennies, nickels or dollars
So to be absolutely clear you are not talking about must hits but regular progressive jackpots only.
Quote: darkozQuote: DRichQuote: darkoz
I also note he says "many NON must hit by..."
Is he talking about games with random hit bys? We are all talking about must hits here!!!
No, when I said "non must hit" I was thinking more about traditional games with progressive jackpots that are shared between denoms. In other words no matter what denom you are playing you win the same amount on the progressive.
link to original post
Several must hits also do this.
For example Cash Bull the must hit remains the same whether you are betting pennies, nickels or dollars
So to be absolutely clear you are not talking about must hits but regular progressive jackpots only.
link to original post
I was talking about both. If you tell me which statement you were referring to I will try and be clearer.
Quote: McSweeney
One thing to consider is that even though betting lower is "safer" since it reduces variance, the extra time spent playing the game will be an opportunity cost that you could have spent playing other games. Or being at home watching hockey or something.
link to original post
This is true, but another thing to consider is your on hand bankroll. If you try to save time by powering through an MHB with high bets it may be possible to run out of money before finishing it,
Even if the money doesn’t run out there is also the opportunity cost of not going on tilt,
If you lose $30k chasing a $10k MHB you may save time but then find yourself either in the wrong mental state to play at all anymore or worse playing bad numbers to chase the losses.
Quote: BrickapotamusQuote: McSweeney
One thing to consider is that even though betting lower is "safer" since it reduces variance, the extra time spent playing the game will be an opportunity cost that you could have spent playing other games. Or being at home watching hockey or something.
link to original post
“This is true, but another thing to consider is your on hand bankroll. If you try to save time by powering through an MHB with high bets it may be possible to run out of money before finishing it.”
This is a good point, and takes the question in a different direction. What’s the play if you don’t have enough to theoretically cover the cost of triggering the jackpot (but it’s still theoretically +EV)? Would you bet small and reduce variance or bet large to try to increase variance and hope it swings in your favour? Say you have only half the bankroll needed to trigger it or less.
And, if I may, if you don't have enough money, you don't have a play. If you want to take a gamble, that's your business.
If you are in a syndicate, it don't matter. Your group will play enough that you will be living in the long run in short order.
Quote: darkozPlus even if the reel strips were different I fail to see how that would make hitting a predetermined meter location xxx odds better.
Until someone else like the Wizard verifies this I don't believe DRich is correct.
I also note he says "many NON must hit by..."
Is he talking about games with random hit bys? We are all talking about must hits here!!!
link to original post
You can verify this yourself. Get some amount of money, divide it by number of denoms, play it through 1x on each denom, and compare rise rates on the progressive meter. You will increase same amount because each denom is playing for the same must-hit-by with same contribution to RTP.
The second part can be seen in PAR sheets. For most modern games, increasing bet level within a denom has no effect on RTP. Odds of progressive prizes change proportionally based on the amount of money you play. $10 bet on pennies has same chance of $10 bet on two pennies, which has the same chance of $10 bet on nickels, which has the same chance of $10 bet on dimes, [...] which has the same chance as $10 bet on dollas. Certain "experts" on Youtube will claim otherwise, but this is in the game rules. Probability of winning progressives is proportional to currency value of bet.
Quote: Roberto21Quote: BrickapotamusQuote: McSweeney
One thing to consider is that even though betting lower is "safer" since it reduces variance, the extra time spent playing the game will be an opportunity cost that you could have spent playing other games. Or being at home watching hockey or something.
link to original post
“This is true, but another thing to consider is your on hand bankroll. If you try to save time by powering through an MHB with high bets it may be possible to run out of money before finishing it.”
This is a good point, and takes the question in a different direction. What’s the play if you don’t have enough to theoretically cover the cost of triggering the jackpot (but it’s still theoretically +EV)? Would you bet small and reduce variance or bet large to try to increase variance and hope it swings in your favour? Say you have only half the bankroll needed to trigger it or less.
link to original post
In theory I think betting small in this case gives you the best chance of hitting it.
In reality, I carry around a ton of bank cards and phone numbers of friends that would be willing to chop these so this scenario doesn’t happen. :)
Quote: BrickapotamusQuote: Roberto21Quote: BrickapotamusQuote: McSweeney
One thing to consider is that even though betting lower is "safer" since it reduces variance, the extra time spent playing the game will be an opportunity cost that you could have spent playing other games. Or being at home watching hockey or something.
link to original post
“This is true, but another thing to consider is your on hand bankroll. If you try to save time by powering through an MHB with high bets it may be possible to run out of money before finishing it.”
This is a good point, and takes the question in a different direction. What’s the play if you don’t have enough to theoretically cover the cost of triggering the jackpot (but it’s still theoretically +EV)? Would you bet small and reduce variance or bet large to try to increase variance and hope it swings in your favour? Say you have only half the bankroll needed to trigger it or less.
link to original post
In theory I think betting small in this case gives you the best chance of hitting it.
In reality, I carry around a ton of bank cards and phone numbers of friends that would be willing to chop these so this scenario doesn’t happen. :)
link to original post
If what you say is true you have physically one chance of being pulled over and you being screwed simply because the police will drag their feet and assume you don’t have the rights to use any of those things and just charge you to make you have to go through the process even if you have the right to use those things of other people and their time confirming that with each and every persons stuff you have. Makes me think of the darkoz threads of him multi carding … can’t even freaking imagine it with debit cards or bank cards as you called them
Quote: heatmapQuote: BrickapotamusQuote: Roberto21Quote: BrickapotamusQuote: McSweeney
One thing to consider is that even though betting lower is "safer" since it reduces variance, the extra time spent playing the game will be an opportunity cost that you could have spent playing other games. Or being at home watching hockey or something.
link to original post
“This is true, but another thing to consider is your on hand bankroll. If you try to save time by powering through an MHB with high bets it may be possible to run out of money before finishing it.”
This is a good point, and takes the question in a different direction. What’s the play if you don’t have enough to theoretically cover the cost of triggering the jackpot (but it’s still theoretically +EV)? Would you bet small and reduce variance or bet large to try to increase variance and hope it swings in your favour? Say you have only half the bankroll needed to trigger it or less.
link to original post
In theory I think betting small in this case gives you the best chance of hitting it.
In reality, I carry around a ton of bank cards and phone numbers of friends that would be willing to chop these so this scenario doesn’t happen. :)
link to original post
If what you say is true you have physically one chance of being pulled over and you being screwed simply because the police will drag their feet and assume you don’t have the rights to use any of those things and just charge you to make you have to go through the process even if you have the right to use those things of other people and their time confirming that with each and every persons stuff you have. Makes me think of the darkoz threads of him multi carding … can’t even freaking imagine it with debit cards or bank cards as you called them
link to original post
I didn't interpret his comment as having a ton of "other" people's bank cards.
I interpreted it as him having a ton (used in exaggeration and probably only weighing an ounce) of cards under his own name in case he runs really bad he can access more money.
And if he runs even worse after that he always has his friends to call on with who would be happy to take over and I assume share some of the already invested profit.
Quote: darkozQuote: heatmapQuote: BrickapotamusQuote: Roberto21Quote: BrickapotamusQuote: McSweeney
One thing to consider is that even though betting lower is "safer" since it reduces variance, the extra time spent playing the game will be an opportunity cost that you could have spent playing other games. Or being at home watching hockey or something.
link to original post
“This is true, but another thing to consider is your on hand bankroll. If you try to save time by powering through an MHB with high bets it may be possible to run out of money before finishing it.”
This is a good point, and takes the question in a different direction. What’s the play if you don’t have enough to theoretically cover the cost of triggering the jackpot (but it’s still theoretically +EV)? Would you bet small and reduce variance or bet large to try to increase variance and hope it swings in your favour? Say you have only half the bankroll needed to trigger it or less.
link to original post
In theory I think betting small in this case gives you the best chance of hitting it.
In reality, I carry around a ton of bank cards and phone numbers of friends that would be willing to chop these so this scenario doesn’t happen. :)
link to original post
If what you say is true you have physically one chance of being pulled over and you being screwed simply because the police will drag their feet and assume you don’t have the rights to use any of those things and just charge you to make you have to go through the process even if you have the right to use those things of other people and their time confirming that with each and every persons stuff you have. Makes me think of the darkoz threads of him multi carding … can’t even freaking imagine it with debit cards or bank cards as you called them
link to original post
I didn't interpret his comment as having a ton of "other" people's bank cards.
I interpreted it as him having a ton (used in exaggeration and probably only weighing an ounce) of cards under his own name in case he runs really bad he can access more money.
And if he runs even worse after that he always has his friends to call on with who would be happy to take over and I assume share some of the already invested profit.
link to original post
Exactly.
Quote: BrickapotamusQuote: darkozQuote: heatmapQuote: BrickapotamusQuote: Roberto21Quote: BrickapotamusQuote: McSweeney
One thing to consider is that even though betting lower is "safer" since it reduces variance, the extra time spent playing the game will be an opportunity cost that you could have spent playing other games. Or being at home watching hockey or something.
link to original post
“This is true, but another thing to consider is your on hand bankroll. If you try to save time by powering through an MHB with high bets it may be possible to run out of money before finishing it.”
This is a good point, and takes the question in a different direction. What’s the play if you don’t have enough to theoretically cover the cost of triggering the jackpot (but it’s still theoretically +EV)? Would you bet small and reduce variance or bet large to try to increase variance and hope it swings in your favour? Say you have only half the bankroll needed to trigger it or less.
link to original post
In theory I think betting small in this case gives you the best chance of hitting it.
In reality, I carry around a ton of bank cards and phone numbers of friends that would be willing to chop these so this scenario doesn’t happen. :)
link to original post
If what you say is true you have physically one chance of being pulled over and you being screwed simply because the police will drag their feet and assume you don’t have the rights to use any of those things and just charge you to make you have to go through the process even if you have the right to use those things of other people and their time confirming that with each and every persons stuff you have. Makes me think of the darkoz threads of him multi carding … can’t even freaking imagine it with debit cards or bank cards as you called them
link to original post
I didn't interpret his comment as having a ton of "other" people's bank cards.
I interpreted it as him having a ton (used in exaggeration and probably only weighing an ounce) of cards under his own name in case he runs really bad he can access more money.
And if he runs even worse after that he always has his friends to call on with who would be happy to take over and I assume share some of the already invested profit.
link to original post
Exactly.
link to original post
Thank the lawd
Max bet on Must Hits
i believe the current administration will reduce the # of workers at the IRS thus all those w2-G's will be near meaningless. (Tax program says $100k+ increases audits significantly. From green to Red zone)
Will report results on Jan 1,2026 unless i'm broke and live under a bridge with no internet
