Bad Beat Jackpots:A losing proposition

[UIIIU]

Ive heard that breaking even at these tables required a high win ratio but wanted to try and calc it myself and not have any personal bias.

well been playing on cereus a bit on what is there most popular stake for the bbjp nl50 6max anyways decided to actually calculate the min bb/100 hands a player must sustain to break even. The figure I came up with was somewhere in the range of 12.5-17bb/100 which isa tough fea ton a 6max table. Anyways if people want to check up on my math heres how i made the estimate. first off i took the avg pot size of all 6max nl50 tables and found the avg which was around $6 and this is when the jackpot is low I can only imagine as the jackpot climbs so will the avg pot since the lag ass donks seem to like to sit down then. Long term talking 100 of thousands of hands to have a win rate over 5bb/100 at 6max nl50 would be pretty impressive with just regular house rake

so what I did was round the Avg pot down to $5 where 25 cents is collected in rake and 50 cents is collected for the bbjp. Now not all pots will make the $5 mark where the 50cent jackpot rake is collected but to make up for this I used the min rake req to activate the jackpot fee and will say on avg only half hands get rake collected. With avg pot usually over $5 regular house rake will be as high as $1 per pot, its 5 cents in rake for every $1 in the pot.

now using 75 cents to the house every hand as my baseline. everyone wont pay the same amount every hand but over time it should even out between players so to make mathematics easy I will say over time everyone at the table commits the same amount of rake so I just took that 75 cents and divided by 6 and got 12.5 cents a hand, now to calc the bb/100 just took .125x 100 than divided that by 50 cents which gave me the 25bbs/100 than divided by two to account for hands that do not qualify for the jp (it might actually be lower than half the hands in alot of cases but I feel where i have the max houserake at 25 cents it makes up for the slightly ambitious estimate)which brought me back to 12.5bb/100.

wish there was an actual aligorithm for calculating this but really think this figure is underestimated if anything

figured I would just post this for anyone chasing the big jackpots. The same rule applies for the .50pl omaha royal flush tables, in fact the avg pots are usually higher and i wouldnt be surprised if ur win rate would actually need to be higher

rakeback can cut down around 2bb/100

ohh and whoever corrected my english in the title that was good work

[islandtime2]

Yep. If I didnt win once in awhile in the tournaments I could'nt fund my cash games.

[alby_00]

Th big winner in the micro NL cash games is the house. You have to have a crazy big edge to beat just beat thje rakes on these tables. Add a deduction from the pot from a jackpot and your edge has to be that much more.

[N2K]

Originally Posted by UIIIU

The same rule applies for the .50pl omaha royal flush tables

You can actually win the Royal Flush Jackpots unlike the Bad Beat Jackpots. So being unable to beat the rake shouldn't be an issue if you do it right.

[UIIIU]

i would say it depends the odds i have been hearing if every possible hand is played to the river is around 1 in 10,000 again still a number with a good amount of variation. now based on the holdem 6 max odds i calculated to break even im gonna say it takes 17bb/100 (conservatively) in omaha to break even so with rake and jackpot rake your losing atleast 8.5$ every hundred hands on avg. and this is saying your a break even player now 8.5 is every hundred so every 10k hands its costing you on avg. $850, more if your a losing player. so if the jackpot is big enough i guess its worth it the figure i came up with for myself was around $3500 and this would make up for my estimated -5bbs/100 just simply playing every possible winning hand all the way through

[lunarphase]

If you have rakeback and want to play nl cash I'd advise playing rush on full tilt its alot more fun than standard cash games.

[UIIIU]

Originally Posted by lunarphase

If you have rakeback and want to play nl cash I'd advise playing rush on full tilt its alot more fun than standard cash games.

no way rush you lose all the value from loose donks you find at regular poker. tournies arnt that bad but cash games are just atrocious atleast holdem that is.