So the game that i play in is a 1-2NL 9 handed game, where they take 5 dollars for the day which is a max of 8 hours cuz thats how long the game runs per day. They also take 2 dollars every half hour and its etiquitte to tip 1 dollar per pot you win.

My question is something that cannot be answered accurately but i still thought it might be a fun question to ponder. We have a progressive jackpot that 1 dollar from each pot is put towards. The qualifying hands for the bad beat to be hit are that a player needs to lose the hand with AAA10 BOTH CARDS MUST PLAY IN BOTH PLAYERS HANDS. The person with the losing hand gets 50% of the jackpot, winning hand gets 25%, and the other 25% is divided among the other 7 players. My question is, what is the threshold of the bad beat jackpot that would make a player +EV for the game that was folding every hand except when going for the bad beat, hands such as AA, limping pairs for AAAxx boards. This question involves knowing exactly how each player is playing, and the winrate of the fish mentioned. But given the information stated, what is an educated guess as to the threshold of this bad beat where any player would be +EV to play?

You mean how much money must be in the jackpot for it to be +EV to enter the game just for that? Without even calculating, I'm guessing you probably won't ever get there in this home game.

And what is AAA10? I assumed you meant AAATT.

Basically i was wondering how bad your winrate could be and still be +EV to play. Its not a home game, its played at a local card room. And yes i meant to type AAATT. sry bout that

Well, that still depends on the size of the jackpot, you just offset your cost to play by any positive winrate you have. The jackpot will have to be huge for that part to be +EV alone.

Wizard of Odds puts the chance for someone to lose with AAATT at a 10-player table as 0.00002383 or about 42K to 1, if nobody ever folds. To be more realistic with folding, let's just quadruple that to 168K to 1, and then for it to be you we multiple by 10. So your BBJP cost to play 1680K hands in this game, assuming you play 8 hours a day at 30 hands/hr, is 7000 days times $21 per day, or $140,000.

So you need about $140,000 in the jackpot for the cost to be +EV.

Oops, double that again since the loser only gets 50%. So $280,000.

That was the reply i was looking for. Thx I am very surprised that its that unlikely to hit. I just dont feel that that can be right. The bbjp gets hit typically when it reaches about 10k on average

That fits with what I said, because 9 players are paying into the pot, and instead of the folding average being 75%, it must be slightly lower. This shows you that it will NEVER be +EV to play for the BBJP at the cost they are charging you.

Other threads on this subject have shown that folding to a typical "LOL live poker" preflop standard actually reduces the probability closer to a factor of ~7.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25...11/index2.html

Also yes, you'd be expected to be the Bad Beat loser every 1.68M hands by your numbers, but we would also win 8 table shares and one BBJ winning hand share in that time frame as well. So we would need to gain $140,000 from all these "wins". So ignoring taxes (bad assumption), then the number for the BBJ should be $140k like you initially thought.

If we use a factor of 7 like the other thread suggests, then a cycle of bad beat wins will happen with 2.94M hands. This shifts your estimation by a factor of 1.75, so the target BBJ would become $245,000.

These numbers seem quite high though, because I thought a decent amount of BBJs often returned ~all money to players either through the bad beat, or other promotions the room offers. For example, my local room takes out $500/day for "Aces Cracked" promotions.

I'm looking at the +/-EV question as being, "if I sit down and play today for the first time and pay my $21 into the BBJP, how big does the jackpot have to be today for this to be a +EV wager?"

And I think I did make a mistake, because that $21 buys us ~240 hands, not 1 hand. Maybe I'm off by a factor of 240? It's a few beers late, have to think...