Poll

5 votes (14.7%)
No votes (0%)
13 votes (38.23%)
5 votes (14.7%)
1 vote (2.94%)
11 votes (32.35%)
6 votes (17.64%)
3 votes (8.82%)
1 vote (2.94%)
5 votes (14.7%)

34 members have voted

ChumpChange
ChumpChange
Joined: Jun 15, 2018
  • Threads: 56
  • Posts: 2482
Thanks for this post from:
gordonm888
October 20th, 2020 at 1:41:12 PM permalink
If you're expecting a 105.22% payback and don't hit your sequential royal that pays 11% of the total payback, you're really playing a 94.25% machine. You'll need that sequential royal to break even.
gordonm888
Administrator
gordonm888
Joined: Feb 18, 2015
  • Threads: 50
  • Posts: 3375
October 20th, 2020 at 2:32:28 PM permalink
Quote: ChumpChange

If you're expecting a 105.22% payback and don't hit your sequential royal that pays 11% of the total payback, you're really playing a 94.25% machine. You'll need that sequential royal to break even.



This is exactly correct.. There is less than 1 in a million chance (per deal) of making a sequential royal - and 11% of your equity is tied up in this long-shot. If you don't make a reversible royal, then this is a dog of a VP game.

And if you do hit the $40,000 jackpot remember that it will be reported to the IRS and income tax will take a bite out of it. It's difficult to be an AP.
So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1398
  • Posts: 23612
Thanks for this post from:
Chuckleberry
October 20th, 2020 at 8:01:48 PM permalink
I returned to the Red Rock today to investigate Alan's game.

Good news: The jackpot is almost twice as much.
Good news: Better base pay tables.
Bad news: Jackpot requires betting 10 coins (as opposed to 5 coins for the games by the Starbucks in the food court)

All things considered, the returns are nearly the same:

Starbucks: 105.22%
Buffet: 105.26%

The expected win per hour (assuming 1,000 bets per hour) is also much better:

Starbucks: $14.33/hr.
Buffet: $23.63/hr.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
Mental
Mental
Joined: Dec 10, 2018
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 114
Thanks for this post from:
JoemanWizardChuckleberrydjtehch34tcamaplRomes
October 21st, 2020 at 6:32:42 AM permalink
Quote: ChumpChange

If you're expecting a 105.22% payback and don't hit your sequential royal that pays 11% of the total payback, you're really playing a 94.25% machine. You'll need that sequential royal to break even.



This is not the way any decent career AP looks at expected value. The play has an hourly EV and a variance per hand. Over a very long time frame, the standard deviation of an AP's results is determined only by their accumulated variance. There are a number of tools available to calculate risk of ruin and bankroll requirements. If an AP has an appropriate bankroll such that the the RoR is low, then the only question is is the EV/hour worth it versus other opportunities. The Kelly criteria are another way of deciding the same question. If the max bet is 25 or 50 cents and Kelly says you could risk $2 per hand if that was an option, then your bankroll is adequate to play this game.

There is no basis for removing any of the winning hands from the EV without putting it in context of bankroll calculations. For every single-line VP game that I know of, the most likely result over a session of exactly one hand is a 100% loss. Extending the logic of the comment above, I need a paying hand to get any ROI and I am unlikely to get a paying hand. Therefore, I should eliminate all paying hands from my EV calculation and assign every VP game with a 0% ROI if I intend to only play one hand. This is absurd.

The real question is does the gambler have the bankroll and stomach to undertake the variance offered by the opportunity. I have a cell in my spreadsheet that tracks my estimated variance for VP play. I have an accumulated lifetime variance of 140B dollars2 just from video poker and more from other forms of gambling. If I estimate that the total is really 160B dollars2, the square root of this is $400K. My lifetime standard deviation is roughly +/- $400K. If I added one SRF chase, it would be a drop in the ocean compared to my lifetime variance -- whether or not I hit the SRF.

Even if you don't have great records, you can easily estimate how much variance you incur in a year doing what you already do. You can see how this play stacks up in comparison to your other gambling. Variance is simply additive. Over the long term, a million dollars2 variance from chasing a SRF progressive is the same as a a million dollars2 of variance from blackjack. The variance of the game in the OP is about 18K.
100xOdds
100xOdds
Joined: Feb 5, 2012
  • Threads: 543
  • Posts: 3275
October 21st, 2020 at 8:49:01 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I returned to the Red Rock today to investigate Alan's game.

Good news: The jackpot is almost twice as much.
Good news: Better base pay tables.
Bad news: Jackpot requires betting 10 coins (as opposed to 5 coins for the games by the Starbucks in the food court)

All things considered, the returns are nearly the same:

Starbucks: 105.22%
Buffet: 105.26%

The expected win per hour (assuming 1,000 bets per hour) is also much better:

Starbucks: $14.33/hr.
Buffet: $23.63/hr.

you might want to clarify how come the buffet game is so much more per hr profit.
ie: that the starbucks game is .25 and the buffet one is nickels.

and what are pay tables offered at the buffet ones?
Craps is paradise (Pair of dice). Lets hear it for the SpeedCount Mathletes :)
billryan
billryan
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 202
  • Posts: 12053
October 21st, 2020 at 9:16:11 AM permalink
Quote: Mental

This is not the way any decent career AP looks at expected value. The play has an hourly EV and a variance per hand. Over a very long time frame, the standard deviation of an AP's results is determined only by their accumulated variance. There are a number of tools available to calculate risk of ruin and bankroll requirements. If an AP has an appropriate bankroll such that the the RoR is low, then the only question is is the EV/hour worth it versus other opportunities. The Kelly criteria are another way of deciding the same question. If the max bet is 25 or 50 cents and Kelly says you could risk $2 per hand if that was an option, then your bankroll is adequate to play this game.

There is no basis for removing any of the winning hands from the EV without putting it in context of bankroll calculations. For every single-line VP game that I know of, the most likely result over a session of exactly one hand is a 100% loss. Extending the logic of the comment above, I need a paying hand to get any ROI and I am unlikely to get a paying hand. Therefore, I should eliminate all paying hands from my EV calculation and assign every VP game with a 0% ROI if I intend to only play one hand. This is absurd.

The real question is does the gambler have the bankroll and stomach to undertake the variance offered by the opportunity. I have a cell in my spreadsheet that tracks my estimated variance for VP play. I have an accumulated lifetime variance of 140B dollars2 just from video poker and more from other forms of gambling. If I estimate that the total is really 160B dollars2, the square root of this is $400K. My lifetime standard deviation is roughly +/- $400K. If I added one SRF chase, it would be a drop in the ocean compared to my lifetime variance -- whether or not I hit the SRF.

Even if you don't have great records, you can easily estimate how much variance you incur in a year doing what you already do. You can see how this play stacks up in comparison to your other gambling. Variance is simply additive. Over the long term, a million dollars2 variance from chasing a SRF progressive is the same as a a million dollars2 of variance from blackjack. The variance of the game in the OP is about 18K.




Would you say Powerball is a positive EV if you factor in the one in a billion chance of hitting the top prize?

The game in question will return 94% to the thousands of people who play it and 105% to the one person who basically gets hit by lightning. To say that the game has an Ev of $ten dollars or more an hour seems very wrong as every person who plays it, with one exception is playing a very poor game.
If a casino had a blackjack game where the dealer won all ties, but it offered a million-dollar prize if every player at the table got a suited BJ, and the dealer got a BJ in spades, would you call that game a +EV?
When you start including once in a lifetime events into a games ev, the formula seems flawed.
The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction is supposed to make sense.
DogHand
DogHand
Joined: Sep 24, 2011
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 459
Thanks for this post from:
Chuckleberry
October 21st, 2020 at 9:21:31 AM permalink
Quote: billryan

<snip>If a casino had a blackjack game where the dealer won all ties, but it offered a million-dollar prize if every player at the table got a suited BJ, and the dealer got a BJ in spades, would you call that game a +EV?<snip>



YES!..... If I could play heads-up ;-)

Dog Hand
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1398
  • Posts: 23612
Thanks for this post from:
Chuckleberry
October 21st, 2020 at 9:22:51 AM permalink
Quote: 100xOdds

you might want to clarify how come the buffet game is so much more per hr profit.
ie: that the starbucks game is .25 and the buffet one is nickels.

and what are pay tables offered at the buffet ones?



It's mainly because you can bet twice as much at the buffet games. The pay tables are stated in my article.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7237
October 21st, 2020 at 11:45:08 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

It's mainly because you can bet twice as much at the buffet games. The pay tables are stated in my article.



Isn't the buffet 60% less than the Starbucks game? 10 nickels versus 5 quarters?
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
gordonm888
Administrator
gordonm888
Joined: Feb 18, 2015
  • Threads: 50
  • Posts: 3375
Thanks for this post from:
odiousgambitChuckleberry
October 21st, 2020 at 11:58:14 AM permalink
No one is arguing that >1.00 EV isn't refreshing and exciting. We are pointing that with 13% of equity coming from Royal Flushes and 11% of equity coming from a "once in 700 billion" chance, that this game has unusually high variance and high risk of ruin, given a finite bankroll.

And again, there will be no escaping the Tax Man on a $40K or $80K jackpot. It is non-trivial to claim gambling losses to offset a big win, and with the standard deduction at about $20k it may be hard to avoid the tax man altogether. It may still be positive EV after taxes but these are factors worth mentioning.
So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.

  • Jump to: