Quote:
Originally Posted by coon74
Assuming that the prize pool selection process is as I've described above, the biggest ones will hit with the following probabilities:
10% of the JP ('mini') - once in ~3467 games;
20% of the JP ('midi') - exactly 12 times less often, once in ~15602 games;
75% of the JP ('maxi') - exactly 54 times less often than the 'mini', once in ~187218 games.
So most (63%) of the money won from the united JP will be won from the 'mini' chunks, 28% - from the 'midi' and only 9% - from the 'maxi'. This is surely good for the 'grindability' of the games (i.e. the risk of ruin of a winning player is small enough). Also, it means that the size of the total JP will be fluctuating smoothly enough, as it will seldom experience big shocks (be reduced by 4 times) and, most of the time, it will only be suffering from small 10-20% 'bites'.
The average JP size will be ~21897 times the total contribution per game. E.g. if, in each $10 game, $5 is put into the JP (so the JP contribution per player is $5/9 ~ $0.56, or ~5.56% of the BI), then the JP will be ~$109.5K on average.
Anyone who's interested in the details of how the math is done may ask me convincingly so that I put the details into a thread in the Probability forum.
Speaking of, I was wrong above - the probability of the minimum prize pool is exactly 50%. Indeed, if we ignore the gold cards altogether, the smallest pool hits if and only if the first non-gold card is red, and there are 26 such cards out of 52 non-gold.
Assuming the paytable of non-JP tiers I've given above, the sum of the rake and the JP contribution will be ~14.5% of the BI, thus the rake itself will be 9% (a quarter of that will be feeding Sit and Crush as usual, while 6.75% of the BI will be earning loyalty points). It's a realistically pessimistic scenario - that's how iPoker's 6-man JP SnGs are raked.
Once again, that's all pure speculation based on the promo video.
Interesting, but I wonder how many players will be driven away just because it's complicated to figure out. When I could play on PokerStars I remember when the 50/50 SNGs replace the double-or-nothing, and threads were dominated by discussion by discussion of what the best strategy might be, what a good ROI would be, etc, etc. Most of the people posting were intelligent, but struggling to their heads around the new format.
I remember being very frustrated by the whole thing. I had been mostly playing DONs and I just wanted to play, study and get better. My time was limited and I didn't want to spend a significant amount of time just to figure out the format and whether I could make money playing it. No one seemed to completely understand it.
A 6- or 9-player SNG is easy to understand. A double-or-nothing SNG is easy to understand. Something that is hard to understand might just drive the fish away.
I could teach my 9-year-old granddaughter how to play chess. I couldn't walk her through those probability calculations.