Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
I don't know how to do the math on Dancer losing $500,000 on the play. I just know it is somewhere between slim and none. $25 denom 9/6 Jacks with 1% cashback is a 100.54% play. In a million hand challenge his expectation would be a $675,000 earn (1,000,000 X 125 X .54%). In the $500,000 challenge his expectation would be to play about 740,000 hands to get to a $500,000 win.For years Singer has been saying that a player has zero chance of winning on plays like this. It would be nice if a casino exec would accept a challenge such as this, maybe for publicity reasons. Because it would absolutely prove Singer wrong.
Why does a play like this work? 9/6 Jacks is a 99.54% game. The royal frequency with optimal strategy is 40,391.
The royal represents 1.99% of the payback (800/40,391).
99.54% minus 1.99% equals a loss rate between royals of 2.45%.
40,391 X 125 X 2.45% means the average cost to produce the royal is $123,697

But the royal only pays $100,000. So it's a losing play like this. But what if we are getting 1% cashback? Now the loss rate between royals is only 1.45%

40,391 X 125 X 1.45% means the average cost of producing the royal is just $74,209.

On a play like this if Dancer ran below expectation and only averaged a royal every 55,000 games he would break about even. That's what makes this play strong.