What purpose do the bonus points after a player wins a game of Gin Serve?

Let's say two players agree to play a game to 100 points. At the end of the game, the typical rules call for bonus points to be awarded: 25 points for each winning hand, 100 points to the winner, double points for a shutout... Why?

If I was the player that reached 100 first, what good are even more points?
I'm assuming that this is a method for placing wagers on the game?
And how (if at all) do bonus points factor into games where the players agree to a "best of five games (e.g.) arrangement?


The most common way of betting money on Gin Rummy (according to this site) is to choose a rate per point (say $1) that the loser pays the winner - e.g. if you lose 70 to 220, you pay $150. When you're playing for money, there's probably an approximate stake you want to play for - smaller stakes will feel trivial (who wants to win one penny?) but larger stakes could be devastating if you lose. Without bonus points, a win could be anywhere from 1 point to ~150, and there may be no per-point rate which is non-trivial when multiplied by 1 yet non-devastating multiplied by 150. Bonus points - say 100 for winning - are a simple way to decrease this variance, since now spreads will be between 101 and ~250, so the worst possible loss is only ~2.5 times as bad (or good, for the other guy) as the closest possible spread.

As far as I can tell, best-of-5 matches tend to be played in settings where bonus points are not relevant, e.g. tournaments where all that matters is who wins the match.

  • Won't 100 for winning make the spread worse? The winner is already ahead (definition of winning); now they get 100 for winning, 25 for each hand won, double for shutout, etc. -- all these things put the winner still further ahead. IOW, you've got the bonus points backward. Shutout -- you get 100 for the win, 25 for each hand played (since you won them all), and double for shutout, that looks like 500-600 points from a 100 point game.
    – Zeiss Ikon
    Jul 25 '18 at 18:28
  • 1
    The key idea is that what matters is the ratio between the biggest possible win and the smallest possible win. So if the win bonus were a thousand points, that would decrease the variance because you could play for a penny a point and find yourself paying almost exactly $10 for every loss. Whereas without any bonuses if you wanted to be playing for approximately $10, you'd have to set it at say 50 cents per point instead, and then sometimes you'd find yourself paying just 50 cents and sometimes shelling out $50, depending on the final spread. Jul 25 '18 at 19:18
  • Now I see what you're doing -- might want to include that level of information in the answer.
    – Zeiss Ikon
    Jul 25 '18 at 19:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.