Baking the JOB Profit Pie

One of the best days of my life was about two years ago when I first discovered this site. I had performed my own simulations for Jacks Or Better (JOB) prior to stumbling on the Wizard's work and was pleased to see a much more comprehensive treatment of the topic than I had obtained on my own.

Forgive me for relating some of the numbers from memory, but my experiences at Atlantic City inspired me to investigate some of the more counter-intuitive aspects both of "optimal play" as well as the other end of the spectrum, as demonstrated by the Lady in Red seated to my right.

Early in my playing career I got a lot of advice (solicited and otherwise) from well-meaning folk whose actual skill levels turned out to be highly variable. I recall asking one gal on a progressive bank of JOB machines if anybody ever won the jackpot. She just laughed and told me that was the only target I should chase. That whetted my interest, and I returned to my calculations to create a Profit Pie (PP). [The PP is simply a depiction of total profit (e.g. $.996) broken down by winning hand type.]
I was surprised to see that the coveted Royal Flush contributed only 2%. So jackpot fever aside, the real meat and potatoes comes from the far less glamorous hands (e.g. 22% from a high pair, a similar return from two pair, and only about 5-6% from higher value hands).

Sooo ... just for fun (and I swear I've seen people play this strategy) I changed my program to pursue an RF at all costs. I would now discard any and all cards which did not support the single-minded goal of obtaining a RF (including splitting a high pair by keeping only one). The result was eye-opening. My total profit pie shrunk from 99.6% to about 45% (gasp!) and my RF percentage did increase, but only 150% (from 2% to 3%). I had expected more. I guess the lesson is that the RF is vastly "over-rated" as a money maker for JOB--it's really the small hands which keep you alive.

Comments welcome. Stay tuned for Part II (The Lady in Red)

Quote: dblanch256

Early in my playing career I got a lot of advice (solicited and otherwise) from well-meaning folk whose actual skill levels turned out to be highly variable. I recall asking one gal on a progressive bank of JOB machines if anybody ever won the jackpot. She just laughed and told me that was the only target I should chase.

So did you peek over and see if that's what she actually did? I would hope not for her sake.

But depending on the progressive, it's not too uncommon to toss high pairs for 3 to a Royal, or hold AT suited. Some of the errors made on VP amaze me at times. I recently was cycling through games and saw the last person before me hold K2 on deuces wild...haha

Quote: tringlomane

So did you peek over and see if that's what she actually did? I would hope not for her sake.

But depending on the progressive, it's not too uncommon to toss high pairs for 3 to a Royal, or hold AT suited. Some of the errors made on VP amaze me at times. I recently was cycling through games and saw the last person before me hold K2 on deuces wild...haha

Yeah definately some weird mistakes. I've also seen people hold a pair and a high card together.

Quote: tringlomane

So did you peek over and see if that's what she actually did? I would hope not for her sake.

But depending on the progressive, it's not too uncommon to toss high pairs for 3 to a Royal, or hold AT suited. Some of the errors made on VP amaze me at times. I recently was cycling through games and saw the last person before me hold K2 on deuces wild...haha

I agree that it's not uncommon, but it is, in fact unwise. The unimproved value of high pairs, I think, is $1.50 versus about $1.28 for three to a RF. Even so, I had weak moments when I wanted to take the 1:1200 shot at the RF more than I wanted another boring high pair hand that day so I bucked the odds.

No, wait a minute ... I think you're right. If the progressive base is $1000 for quarter machines, I suppose there would be a crossover point (perhaps at $1000(1.50/1.28) = 1172) above which that does make sense. Since you can expect the progressive to average about $1500, I guess that issue comes up pretty frequently.

Thanks for pointing out that angle!

deleted

There's a 7/5 job with a rf progressive I play that gets very positive. Strategy adjustments include throwing away three of a kind for three to royal. Of course, I still have not hit the royal on that bank.

Quote: dblanch256

I agree that it's not uncommon, but it is, in fact unwise. The unimproved value of high pairs, I think, is $1.50 versus about $1.28 for three to a RF.
Even so, I had weak moments when I want the 1:1200 shot at the RF more than I wanted my 1400th high pair hand that day so I bucked the odds.
Please don't tell the wizard. It'll be our little secret.

For standard machines, sure, it's a medium mistake. But I thought you were at a progressive bank in your story. If that's the case, then throwing away high pairs for 3 to a royal can be correct if the royal payouts are high enough. Last trip to Tunica, I played a quarter machine with a $2500 royal. 3 to a Royal and AT suited went far in that case. Of course i didn't hit the damn thing.

Quote: RogerKint

There's a 7/5 job with a rf progressive I play that gets very positive. Strategy adjustments include throwing away three of a kind for three to royal. Of course, I still have not hit the royal on that bank.

Brutal.

Quote: tringlomane

So did you peek over and see if that's what she actually did? I would hope not for her sake.

But depending on the progressive, it's not too uncommon to toss high pairs for 3 to a Royal, or hold AT suited. Some of the errors made on VP amaze me at times. I recently was cycling through games and saw the last person before me hold K2 on deuces wild...haha

You should see how people play at bars here. A2 in DW, A55 in JoB, and other shenanigans. I don't know what casinos have to fear of putting out 100%+ games, most people have no idea how to play them anyway, and it's a great advertising tool.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

I was playing next to an older gentleman a couple of years ago when he dumped a high pair for three to a royal on spin poker. He got lucky and pulled the two cards he needed for the royal and they fell in a way to give him two royals! This wasn't a progressive either.

That's cute. The problem is that all of us, at one time or another have either witnessed or done ourselves something strange and been pleasantly surprised by the outcome. But, as the Wizard's tag line says, and I'm paraphrasing here, "a good bet that fails is still a good bet". The converse is likewise true that "a bad bet that wins is still a bad bet". You could split Kings (keep only a single card) and draw four queens (I've seen it happen) but it still doesn't make it a good bet.

In the James Bond movie "For Your Eyes Only", he is playing Baccarat and at one point his friend Kristatos leans over him and says "The odds favor standing *pat*..." Bond replies smugly "*If* you play the odds!" implying that there are times when you should and times when you shouldn't. Naturally, being Bond, he always knows one from the other, and therefore always wins. [I die a little inside each time I watch that scene ...]

Quote: djatc

You should see how people play at bars here. A2 in DW, A55 in JoB, and other shenanigans. I don't know what casinos have to fear of putting out 100%+ games, most people have no idea how to play them anyway, and it's a great advertising tool.

The bottom line is that even if a casino does put out a slightly +EV game, there simply aren't enough +EV players who can fill the seats for long enough for them to lose money. One player holding A55 in JoB wipes out the theoretical losses from several +EV players, and there are a lot more theoretical -EV players to go around. Even if you can pull off 600 hands/hour at +1% EV, on a $0.25 machine that's a $7.50/hour gain. That same machine has more than enough players playing at -$10/hour or -$20/hour to make it safe. And really, I have a hard time seeing why anyone who's capable of winning $7.50/hour on a VP game would actually spend the time doing it, other than for giggles. It's certainly not enough money to compensate for the effort required. You can make more pulling espresso shots.

100% + means nothing to 99+% of the players. So why offer it ?

Quote: MathExtremist

The bottom line is that even if a casino does put out a slightly +EV game, there simply aren't enough +EV players who can fill the seats for long enough for them to lose money. One player holding A55 in JoB wipes out the theoretical losses from several +EV players, and there are a lot more theoretical -EV players to go around. Even if you can pull off 600 hands/hour at +1% EV, on a $0.25 machine that's a $7.50/hour gain. That same machine has more than enough players playing at -$10/hour or -$20/hour to make it safe. And really, I have a hard time seeing why anyone who's capable of winning $7.50/hour on a VP game would actually spend the time doing it, other than for giggles. It's certainly not enough money to compensate for the effort required. You can make more pulling espresso shots.

"Because it's fun!" --The Wizard

Personally, I found I could all the comps I could use just playing quarters on a 9:6 machine at Trump Plaza in AC. Free rooms, free meals, free shows, you name it. For me making money is fine, but I always play expecting to lose because I take full advantage of all the comps. I always take time outs when I get bored and do something else. A three day visit, for me, is like taking a short cruise trip--I'm not there to really do anything except relax and run as much of a "savage burn" on whatever they are offering.

The only difference, to me, between a cruise and a gambling holiday is that gambling has a "highly unique payment system". On a cruise I know I'll be "down" $1000 at the outset. On a gambling holiday I'll either get it all for free or end up paying $2000 dollars for it. Over the long run, what's the difference?

BTW, this turns out to be a good segue into Part II (The Lady in Red). Thanks for that!

Quote: Buzzard

100% + means nothing to 99+% of the players. So why offer it ?

I agree. My goal is to maximize my play to rack up comp credits while losing as little as I can. I'm perfectly happy on a 9:6 JOB machine where I can "milk" a few hundred dollars for several days, with luck.

Now, as promised, The Lady in Red:

Most of us have had the experience of feeling the urge to help the helpless, only to discover that our "help" is unwelcome. So, like most of you, I just insert my ear plugs and focus on my own machine. Most of the time. But there was this one day when I noticed The Lady in Red sitting to my right playing the same $1 machine (at x5) who kept feeding 100s into the machine like tic tacs. Seriously, every five minutes or so she'd give it another $100. I wondered what she could be doing to lose so much so fast. I didn't have to wait long.

Glancing over, between playing my own hands, I gradually deduced her play style. If she was dealt a high pair or better, she played properly. However, in all other cases, which were most of the time, she seemed to be chasing two card flushes. For example, she'd keep a 5d and 7d only because they were both diamonds. Suddenly I realized that doing that was possible with every hand due to five cards and only four possible suits. I couldn't wait to run home and compute her expected return.

Bear with me, because I'm doing this from memory, but I think the average initial JOB hand is worth $.34. If it's lower than that you should fold (keep no cards), draw and pray. When I computed the average of her "keep two low suited cards" strategy I came up with a pre-draw value of $.15. So she had managed to secure an enormous house edge. Now I understood how she had run though about $1000 in twenty minutes. The sad part is that if she's like the typical amateur, she probably just chalked it all up to "bad luck" and will continue to keep playing the same way in the future.

That is part of the majesty of gambling. Regardless of how dangerously unqualified you are, you can always blame your losses on bad luck and never comprehend the actual consequences of your playing style.

Quote: Buzzard

100% + means nothing to 99+% of the players. So why offer it ?

I'm not sure that that's true. They can put up signs that say that the machine returns over 100%. That is good advertising.

What the signs don't say (or only say in very small print) is that you actually have to play well to get that 100+% return -- which excludes most players.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

I'm not sure that that's true. They can put up signs that say that the machine returns over 100%. That is good advertising.

What the signs don't say (or only say in very small print) is that you actually have to play well to get that 100+% return -- which excludes most players.

Right so it ends up being clever marketing, like the "We pay 11.58% more then the strip!" ads that the Downtown casinos offer. To math wizards it makes no sense but to the average person who gleams a paytable in a casino they will be content.

Most of the people who read paytables still don't know how to play correctly. I've had many people say to their friends/wives/husbands, "this game is no good it's only blank/blank" but they forget to realize the paytables for every game change with a reduction in lower hands, for higher 4OAK payouts.

Even the grinders don't only play 100%+ games neither. Most of them usually dump it back in slots (I'm guilty of this too) or in some other negative expectation game (guilty!).

What's good about it? You will only attract knowledgeable players and the chumps who can't find a seat will go across the street to lose their money.

Isle of Capri has back to back bank of VP, 8/5 on one side, 7/5 on the other. I see about the same number of players on either side, every time I walk by. There is no incentive to change the payout, except to maybe make both side 7/5 and see what happens. LOL

Same at Harrah's AC. One bank of 5 JoB 9/6, on the exact opposite side 7/5 and equal amount of people are playing both!!