Posted on 7 Comments

Getting It Straight

Every now and then I share results with somebody in a drawing or tournament. Sometimes, other people do it to lower the fluctuations in their bankroll. That is, they would much prefer to get half the amount twice as often. Assuming they are playing with an edge, this smooths out the swings. One can think of it as getting to the long run more quickly.

That’s not the primary reason I share results. I share results for social reasons. Simply put, it’s more fun to do things with your friends.  Sometimes the decreased bankroll variance is important to the friend with whom I would share. Sometimes not.

Once you’ve agreed to share, only half the work is done. You need to carefully lay out what is and is not included in the agreement. For example, is this agreement for one drawing only? Is it always in effect unless otherwise specified? Is it never in effect unless explicitly specified?

If the award is in free play, do you share in cash? (That is: Let’s say one of the players earns $1,000 in free play. When it plays it through, he runs salty and only collects $900. Does he owe his partner $500, $450, or some other number?)

If the prize is in cash, are 1099s to be issued? If the prizes are $1,000 or less, the tax implications are fairly minor. If there is a rare $50,000 prize, the tax implications are not minor at all. Issuing a 1099 for $25,000 is the cleanest way to handle it, but if this isn’t agreed upon up front, hard feelings will abound.

Several years ago, Jamie Gold won the World Series of Poker main event for $12 million. He had a partner putting up some fraction of his entry fee, and possibly the partnership wasn’t thought through clearly enough. There was a major disagreement as to how the tax liability would be handled. The poker community generally appeared to be against Gold. Eventually it got settled and Jamie resumed his career — probably because he was wealthy and willing to play in games with significantly stronger players. But there were hard words and angry feelings until it got resolved. I’m not involved in any sharing opportunities where a jackpot anywhere near that large is possible, but that incident offers a lesson nonetheless.

At a recent Big Draw lottery at the M resort, most people earned zero, but you could earn $50, $200, $1,000, $10,000, or (with a less than 1-in-50 million chance) $250,000. The lower amounts were in free play and the largest one was in cash. The deal I had with another player was all prizes would be settled for the full 50% amount in cash, and if lightning struck and one of us got $250,000, a 1099 would be issued for half that amount.

Was that the best way to do it? I don’t know. But it was agreed upon up front and both of us thought it was fair. So that means it was fair.

Sharing isn’t always symmetrical. In a slot tournament where it’s just “hit the button as fast as you can,” everybody has more-or-less an equal chance and you can share with anybody who’s not completely senile.

In a video poker tournament, it’s a different situation. Some players are simply much faster than others, some can make better decisions than others in a split second, and some can correctly adjust their strategy in the middle of a round when it’s appropriate to go for a “royal-or-bust” strategy. You need to be very careful with whom you partner.

I recently shared in a video poker tournament with someone who I later discovered was a slightly faster player than I was. However, I probably made better decisions than he did because I’ve been doing this a couple of decades longer than he has. Neither of us know this for sure. It was close enough to being fair that neither of us were worrying about it.

Sometimes there are drawings where once you’re selected as one of the winners, you have an equal chance at each of the prizes. In these circumstances, if you’re one of the winners and want to make a deal with another of the winners, it’s fair. However many tickets you had going into the drawing no longer matters. At this point, you’re both in there and have equal chances.

If you have unequal numbers of tickets in the drum, it isn’t easy to come up with a fair system for sharing — simply because you usually cannot win more than one prize. For that reason, if I have 1,000 tickets and you have 500, giving me 2/3 of the prize money would be unfair to you unless there is only one prize. I have twice the chances as you to be called first, but then the rest of my tickets are dead while yours are still alive.

Still, if there’s enough goodwill between the players, usually players would go with a 2/3 and 1/3 split in this example. It’s “close enough,” and you’re friends. If there wasn’t sufficient goodwill, normally no split is done.

Finally, some people can be trusted with money and some can’t. Whenever I’ve felt I’ve been intentionally shortchanged by a player, I let others know — sometimes by an article in this blog. Once somebody shows he will steal from or shortchange me, I never will give him a second chance.  

7 thoughts on “Getting It Straight

  1. Not intuitively clear that the case of 1000/500 tickets, with one prize per person, calls for something other than a 2/3 split for the holder of 1000 tickets. Considered separately, I’m pretty sure the EV(1000 tickets) = 2 * EV(500 tickets). I think that’s all that matters.

    1. If the rule is you can only get drawn once, then I think the fair deal would be 2:1 on the first one of you drawn, but after that the deal is over because whoever got drawn is now drawing dead. Also you’re assuming having double the tickets means double the chances of getting drawn, probably not a valid assumption with computer/virtual drawings. These EV things can be very tricky.

      1. Another point: the rule that you can only get drawn once is a penalty against those who have the most tickets, they are the ones who are likely to get drawn multiple times. So, now you have a non-linear relationship, twice the tickets is not necessarily twice as good. Conclusion: you have to pay attention to the “structure” to determine the true EV of your current situation. Question: what if the rule is you can only get drawn once and the prizes are awarded in order from less value to most value, what now happens to the EV of the person with the most tickets? If you want to gamble in today’s environment these types of questions are important because as a general rule the machines are played at a loss, one only hopes to get value back on things like drawings.

  2. I’ve been in enough tournaments and promotions through the years to conclude that they are (often) rigged:
    – Husband and wife names drawn ‘virtually’ one right after the other;
    – The MC (male) cheering “the sisters” on throughout three rounds (yes, they were hot babes) and they end up winning 1st and 2nd place;
    – Same individuals have top scores all three sessions on three different machines.

    Didn’t used to be this way. Decades ago a fair procedure was used for machine assignment, but IMO “virtual” is a synonym for “fixed.” I can’t prove it, of course, not interested in trying. It is what it is, and not enough of a fair chance to waste my time, let alone spend money on a buy-in. Celebrities local and beyond will always have the advantage. Too bad for us peons. I think this is a bit off topic, so I’m sorry ’bout that. Rant over! LOL.

    1. Hi Candy,
      What does Kevin Lewis Think about this¿
      B-)

      1. Hi GWB,
        My best guess is that Kevin would concur. I think he and I may have similar traits…the “doubting Thomas”….conspiracy theorist…everything is a “racket” (my mom’s favorite word). Ha.

  3. Not actually relevant, but I was looking to purchase the download training system. I used to have the CD but it was lost in a move and the ancient computer it was on has gone to the big windows computer graveyard. I have access to a windows 10 computer that I could use for the CD or download, but it appears the software is not updated for the new windows systems.

    Any idea when/if it will be updated and, if so, if it might also be updated for MacBooks/Apple products?

    Thanks.

Leave a Reply