festeringZit said:
Yes, this must be right. Any time you bust out early you get to avoid making losing bets.
The problem with my contrived example was that it would never let you bust out early. I used the standard trick of considering the extremes, which is normally very revealing. But in this case I didn't thoroughly think it through.
So the interesting thing is that betting the minimum is clearly not right, but neither is betting all of it at once. The optimal amount is in between, so there must be a two-tailed results curve. Unless someone already has, I'll see if I can come up with that.
festeringZit said:
exactly. This may sound complicated but it really isn't
example: 3 sites are giving away 100 bonus for 100 deposit. You will begin with 200 total. Total wagers before cashout is $2500
1. wager at site A using $100 hands. bust out after 1500 in wagers. (loss 100)
2. wager at site B using $100 hands. After 2500 in wagers balance 500 (profit 400)
3. wager at site C using $100 hands. bust out after 500 in wagers.(loss 100)
In this example you have wagered a total of $4500 for a total profit of 200
You can wager $5 hands for all 3 sites and you will have wagered a total of $7500 for the same $300 in bonuses.
compare $4500 in wagers versus $7500 in wagers.
The variance is much higher betting bigger hands but you will wager less therefore losing less to the house. You will have big wins and many losses, but much less wagers going for the big score or the bustout.
TRUST ME ON THIS. THE EV is MUCH HIGHER by wagering larger hands. Santos, while I understand you are good with "maths", you are not seeing the whole picture.
When I do deals like that above, I will bust out about 50% of the time. The other 50% I will profit about 2x the bonus on average. My total wagering on the same amount of bonus dollars will be less. The less you have to wager, the less you give back to the house.
I usually agree with Santo, but in this case, he/she is wrong.
Let's take sports as an example.
If you put $1000 in 4 books with 3X rollovers and 20% bonus:
You now have $1200 at each book and must wager $3600 at each book.
Option 1, bet $3600 at each book betting $10 bets. Assume you win 50% $11 to win $10. You lose 180 bets. You win 180 bets. You now have $1020 at each book or $4080 total.
On the other hand, if you first bet $1200 against each other at each of 2 books, you'll have $2290 at two books. Now when you bet the $2290 against each other you'll have $4373 at one book. Youll owe about $200 more in rollover, but that is only $1 down so we'll call it $4370 for convenience.
Very clear to me why you are better betting big if you can handle variance (A hell of a lot easier to do on both sides of a game than a blackjack hand where you can lose 10 in a row.)
-Sean
Let's take sports as an example.
If you put $1000 in 4 books with 3X rollovers and 20% bonus:
You now have $1200 at each book and must wager $3600 at each book.
Option 1, bet $3600 at each book betting $10 bets. Assume you win 50% $11 to win $10. You lose 180 bets. You win 180 bets. You now have $1020 at each book or $4080 total.
On the other hand, if you first bet $1200 against each other at each of 2 books, you'll have $2290 at two books. Now when you bet the $2290 against each other you'll have $4373 at one book. Youll owe about $200 more in rollover, but that is only $1 down so we'll call it $4370 for convenience.
Very clear to me why you are better betting big if you can handle variance (A hell of a lot easier to do on both sides of a game than a blackjack hand where you can lose 10 in a row.)
-Sean
The difference between understanding this concept of increased EV and not is the difference in being able to make money with today's deals or not.
You guys are just not understanding. I am sorry if some of you guys feel like your intelligence has been assaulted, but take it from me and others who have done this for a living for the past 9 years. Don't look at the deals individually, but rather as a whole
You guys are just not understanding. I am sorry if some of you guys feel like your intelligence has been assaulted, but take it from me and others who have done this for a living for the past 9 years. Don't look at the deals individually, but rather as a whole
betMax
Well, a few minutes work makes it obvious that any time the max bet is much less than the rollover requirement that you should simply bet the max. Not as interesting as I made it out to be.
But it's also clearly right that you should manipulate your bets to try to go broke early, as long as they all have the same negative expectation.
Well, a few minutes work makes it obvious that any time the max bet is much less than the rollover requirement that you should simply bet the max. Not as interesting as I made it out to be.
But it's also clearly right that you should manipulate your bets to try to go broke early, as long as they all have the same negative expectation.
patswin said:
yes this is a form of Do or Die. There are different forms depending on the game played. A do or die on Video poker would be betting $25 per spin with a $200 bankroll and going for a decent hit or busting out. When you get the big hit then you can wager out the rest in smaller denominations.
I have hit $20,000 royals, not because I am a big gambler but because I was do or dying a small bonus deal.
Maths wasn't a typo, just "English" English... I dunno why you guys shortened it to Math. And Sean it is "he" 
The sports example is obviously logical and correct..
I admit that I'm out of practice on casino theory, it's been some time. I've read yours and Sean's post, and whilst I can understand what you're saying, I still don't see how it applies practically.. As MrJ said, you can't earn any individual bonus without wagering the full requirements...
In WVU's example, how does losing $100 at Casino A, and $100 on Casino C, have any effect at how you did at Casino B, which is the only one you withdrew from. At Casino B, you still had to meet the exact same wagering requirements, submitting to the exact same house advantage, as if you'd won at Casino A and C, meeting the WR. They're independant events..
Now I agree that by playing higher you are likely either bust out, or win more. So you saved time in playing the other two offers, I don't think you saved money however...
I may well be wrong, but can't get my head around how... Levistep: what is the link to the 2+2 discussion?
Edit: Found it.. http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=6825722&page=
The sports example is obviously logical and correct..
I admit that I'm out of practice on casino theory, it's been some time. I've read yours and Sean's post, and whilst I can understand what you're saying, I still don't see how it applies practically.. As MrJ said, you can't earn any individual bonus without wagering the full requirements...
In WVU's example, how does losing $100 at Casino A, and $100 on Casino C, have any effect at how you did at Casino B, which is the only one you withdrew from. At Casino B, you still had to meet the exact same wagering requirements, submitting to the exact same house advantage, as if you'd won at Casino A and C, meeting the WR. They're independant events..
Now I agree that by playing higher you are likely either bust out, or win more. So you saved time in playing the other two offers, I don't think you saved money however...
I may well be wrong, but can't get my head around how... Levistep: what is the link to the 2+2 discussion?
Edit: Found it.. http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=6825722&page=
Santo said:Maths wasn't a typo, just "English" English... I dunno why you guys shortened it to Math. And Sean it is "he"
The sports example is obviously logical and correct..
I admit that I'm out of practice on casino theory, it's been some time. I've read yours and Sean's post, and whilst I can understand what you're saying, I still don't see how it applies practically.. As MrJ said, you can't earn any individual bonus without wagering the full requirements...
In WVU's example, how does losing $100 at Casino A, and $100 on Casino C, have any effect at how you did at Casino B, which is the only one you withdrew from. At Casino B, you still had to meet the exact same wagering requirements, submitting to the exact same house advantage, as if you'd won at Casino A and C, meeting the WR. They're independant events..
Now I agree that by playing higher you are likely either bust out, or win more. So you saved time in playing the other two offers, I don't think you saved money however...
I may well be wrong, but can't get my head around how... Levistep: what is the link to the 2+2 discussion?
Edit: Found it.. http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=6825722&page=
Santo, even when you bust out you still got to use the $100 bonus although you didnt have to wager the $2500 to get it (use it). Think of the bonus as potential profit. In order to use the 100 bonus in all 3 casinos wagering $1 per hand you have to wager $7500 worth. By wagering large hands you bust out quickly at 2 and win at the third then you have still used the same 300 in bonus although you wagered much less overall. Dont think of each deal as 3 deals, think of the set of three as one deal.
I know I am not that good as explaining this as some might be. Think outside the box and you will realize what I am saying.
ucking:Santo, the reason it is beneficial is this:
Let's say you have 100 casinos with a 100% bonus and the rollover is 3X. For simplicity sake, we'll say you win 49% of your hands.
If you deposit $1000 and make $10 bets, you'll make 600 bets at each casino, winning 306 and losing 294 so you'll leave with $1880 from each casino times 100 (Obviously there are no 100% bonuses with 3 times rollover, but anyways) so you have $188000 from $100000 in deposits.
Now say you deposit $1000 and bet $2000, then $4000 if you win.
After 1 round, you will have $196,000 total in 49 books.
After round two, you will have $8000 in 24.01 books or $192,000.
Basically each time you lose a book, you lose the remainin rollover. By betting small, you guarantee you rollover the full $200,000 3X at the -EV. By betting big, after round one, you have lost a huge portion of your rollover requirement as you don't need to meet the 3X on the 50% of the books that are gone.
-Sean
Let's say you have 100 casinos with a 100% bonus and the rollover is 3X. For simplicity sake, we'll say you win 49% of your hands.
If you deposit $1000 and make $10 bets, you'll make 600 bets at each casino, winning 306 and losing 294 so you'll leave with $1880 from each casino times 100 (Obviously there are no 100% bonuses with 3 times rollover, but anyways) so you have $188000 from $100000 in deposits.
Now say you deposit $1000 and bet $2000, then $4000 if you win.
After 1 round, you will have $196,000 total in 49 books.
After round two, you will have $8000 in 24.01 books or $192,000.
Basically each time you lose a book, you lose the remainin rollover. By betting small, you guarantee you rollover the full $200,000 3X at the -EV. By betting big, after round one, you have lost a huge portion of your rollover requirement as you don't need to meet the 3X on the 50% of the books that are gone.
-Sean
http://www.anaivanovic.com = The Avatar (Tennis Player I met at a few tournaments). I was using it elsewhere during a good period of my life (relationship-wise), so I keep it as kind of a "lucky mascot".
Sean/WVU: Ok, I see what you're getting at now. I'll have to give it some thought... You seem to get a different result when you look at it in two (what I would argue are equally correct) ways.. logically you should get the same expected result if you analyse them independantly or together..
Sean/WVU: Ok, I see what you're getting at now. I'll have to give it some thought... You seem to get a different result when you look at it in two (what I would argue are equally correct) ways.. logically you should get the same expected result if you analyse them independantly or together..
