smoothgrh
smoothgrh
Joined: Oct 26, 2011
  • Threads: 63
  • Posts: 598
November 25th, 2011 at 9:31:08 PM permalink
As the title states, there was a Jacks or Better quarter game that paid 8-5 but had a $1,700 progressive jackpot -- at Grand Sierra Resort in Reno.

With my limited mathematical ability, I decided this was a very appealing machine to play. So I played it!

Good move? (Did not get a royal, but did quit up $2.50. Woohoo!)
duckmankilla
duckmankilla
Joined: Nov 25, 2011
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 236
November 25th, 2011 at 10:48:37 PM permalink
Not 100% sure if my math is entirely accurate, but using the return table posted on the wizardofodds site, this still isn't the best video poker play to be found, but its also much better than playing something like a slot machine. A non-progressive 8/5 JoB machine pays back approx. 97.3% and 1.9% of this return is attributable to the royal flush paying at 800. With a $1,700 jackpot on a quarter machine, this equates to a payback of 1,360 rather than the non-progressive 800 ($1,700 x 4 quarters per dollar / 5 credits per bet = 1,360 coins per 1 coin bet. If you use the return table for a royal flush and take the new payout of 1,360 and multiply it by the probability that a royal flush will occur (0.00002489) you will get the expected rate of return of .0338504. Replacing the original return for a $1,000 jackpot which is standard, you can then subtract the old return from the new one which will yield a result of .01393492 as the difference, which is an increase by 1.39% in payout.

This means that instead of the original 97.3% payback this machine increased to an expected payback of roughly 98.7 percent at a progressive of $1,700, so not great, but not terrible either. It should be noted though that the increase to only the top amount also increases the variance of the machine, which essentially means that you will experience wilder swings of wins and losses. In the long run, you can expect it to pay back at the 98.7% rate, but once the progressive hits and resets to $1,000, it will return to the 97.3% rate of return. I don't think this is completely accurate because as the progressive jackpot increases, the player's disposition to go for the royal should change at a certain point to maximize expected value, but for the sake of simplicity i just used the probability using standard optimal strategy at the $1,000 jackpot level.

Hope this helps and I hope my math was accurate.

Next time, just make sure to hit the royal :-)
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 11933
November 25th, 2011 at 11:16:09 PM permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
duckmankilla
duckmankilla
Joined: Nov 25, 2011
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 236
November 25th, 2011 at 11:23:08 PM permalink
Ibeatyouraces, do you have any input into the 5 jokers wild thread i recently started? I cannot find any info on the either of the wizard's sites.
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 11933
November 25th, 2011 at 11:48:16 PM permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
November 26th, 2011 at 12:03:16 AM permalink
You can find the Wizard's Video Poker analyzer here.

Plug in the game and the pay table and it will show you the return based on optimum strategy. The program doesn't tell you what that strategy is, but the strategy changes as the value of the Royal goes up.

The JOB 5-8 that you describes (Royal pays $1700) gets you a return of .988625. I don't like playing these machines as once you're at $1,200 you're going to have to pay taxes on those winnings. The "break even point" is at $2,166.25.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
smoothgrh
smoothgrh
Joined: Oct 26, 2011
  • Threads: 63
  • Posts: 598
November 26th, 2011 at 8:16:59 AM permalink
Thanks all for the great information. I didn't even consider the tax implication.

I should have trusted my initial suspicion that because it was a bar top machine,it couldn't have been that good!
FatGeezus
FatGeezus
Joined: Jun 12, 2010
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 493
November 26th, 2011 at 8:56:25 AM permalink
Quote: boymimbo


I don't like playing these machines as once you're at $1,200 you're going to have to pay taxes on those winnings.



That's not entirely true. You may have to claim the jackpot, but your winnings are offset by your gambling losses.
dm
dm
Joined: Apr 29, 2010
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 699
November 26th, 2011 at 9:23:39 AM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

You can find the Wizard's Video Poker analyzer here.

Plug in the game and the pay table and it will show you the return based on optimum strategy. The program doesn't tell you what that strategy is, but the strategy changes as the value of the Royal goes up.

The JOB 5-8 that you describes (Royal pays $1700) gets you a return of .988625. I don't like playing these machines as once you're at $1,200 you're going to have to pay taxes on those winnings. The "break even point" is at $2,166.25.




He's very smart, but I don't think he's in a 45.5% tax bracket. So he might explain what he meant. I personally just take the royal % payback, and, say double it if the progressive is double normal. FPDW for example, say 1.7% for the royal of 1000, then at 1500 you add .85% even playing same strategy, but completely ignoring uncle sam.
MrRalph
MrRalph
Joined: Jun 8, 2011
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 148
November 26th, 2011 at 11:55:42 AM permalink
Frank Kneeland has an excellent book on progressive video poker. He gives the optimum play number for almost every game available and their variants. But he also teaches you how to do it. That way you can determine which machines are worth playing and or which jackpot in a certain game is worth going after. Your strategy will change depending on the jackpot you are going after, which will will increase the volatility of the game. This will be money well spent if you are spending your time chasing progressive jackpots. His math is spot on.

  • Jump to: