I was involved in a heated poker debate at the game I host last night. I'll try to remain as impartial as possible:

Six handed cash game, $50 buy-in $1/$2 blinds. Loose game, lots of re-buys We were playing a pool tournament in the same room as the cash game and a player whom we'll call Alan sits up to play his match. Alan returns about 30-45 minutes later to find the game two handed. Within two hands, Alan stacks one of the players whom we'll call Guillermo twice, flush over flush then top pair over flush draw. Guillermo becomes upset and makes the claim that Alan had an advantage over the others by not playing for 45 minutes.

Guillermo claimed that Alan left a six handed game where his chances of winning were 1/6, only to return to a game with more money on the table and a 1/3 chance of winning each hand. He claimed that Alan should have been blinded out during the time he was away.

Alan claimed that because the blinds never changed there was no advantage gained or lost by his leaving the table. He faced the same odds that all six players faced six handed, and faced the same odds as the players who remained at the three handed table. When he was away, he had a 0% of winning each hand, and a 0% chance of losing.

The debate went on many tangents but this is essentially the main thread. We tried to figure out the math and probability behind the argument but we were too drunk and failed.

TLDR: Is it an unfair advantage to leave a cash game and return when stacks are higher and it is short-handed?

The argument ended when both players realized that the only way to settle this is to ask the internet. What do ya'll think?

I didn't think that there were any stupid questions, but I was wrong.

The answer is that it is an advantage to play with bad players. Fewer players increases the likelihood of playing against the bad players. I am willing to label Guillermo a bad player due to his 'I lost, so I will cry' approach to the game.

Sounds like Guillermo is eating some sour grapes. If the hands went the other way with G winning I doubt he would broach the topic of unfair advantage

guillermo got his jimmies rustled because he lost money, so he started making terrible arguments. i'm more concerned that you guys all started discussing it and weren't sure who was right. what exactly was the pro-guillermo side saying?

I kinda chuckled a bit at the irony of your post, especially given your lack of volume.

Nothing against you, because you're right. Just thought it was funny.

Convince Guillermo that everything is OK, he'll get him next time, buy him an extra beer or two... and then get him to come back to your game because he's terrible at poker and you want to win all of his monies and his house and his watch.

giggle- what, because Geeidiot wouldn't have gotten stacked because he would have know how A was playing?

BWAAHAHAHAHA! Geediot playing too many tourneys?

Alan wins 2x.
Oh, and CrazyDuck and MediaPA are big meanies ... and ALSO 100% correct, unless Gbabie isn't worth putting up with.

If you ever do this again, much LESS for a 4-5 paragraph post, I'm driving to your house and beating your kitten to death.

edit- I can begrudingly accept "Cliffs" as a substitute, if you absolutely feel you must. "tl:dr" just encourages laziness and needless brevity.

Can anyone explain the actual math behind it? Or give some sort of non-Guillermo flaming response that will definitively prove to him that Alan was correct?

Is violence against kittens ever the answer to the the problem?

Well using Guillermo's math, every hand has basic odds. You either win or you lose. So by his math, you will win 1/3 and lose 2/3 of the time. This is compared to winning 1/6 and losing 5/6. Man, I never want to play poker if I lose so much more often than I win.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJTbk9fAdWI - Seems acceptable to me.

if it is fair for 3 players to begin playing poker 3 handed, then it is fair for alan to join this game. past hands have no relevance to anything.

if alan can't join this game, then no poker player can ever join any game without being responsible for paying blinds for each hand the table played before he arrived. this isn't a tournament - alan leaving his chips sitting on the table for 30 minutes then returning is no different from him not playing at all then walking up and wanting to join the game.

think about the opposite situation - say alan was playing 3 handed, then left and returned to a 6 handed game. does the table owe him money because his odds are worse now?

in a 3 handed game, your odds of winning are 1/3, and you need to win 1/3 of your hands to break even. in a 6 handed game, your odds of winning are 1/6, and you need to win 1/6 of your hands to break even.

Here is some math. Imagine a game is 2 handed, and you force a person who isn't there to pay his blinds. Every 3 hands he pays $3. In 45 minutes let's say you can deal about 45 hands, 2 handed. That means that in 45 minutes you would take $45 from the person sitting out. In my book, you would be stealing $45 from him.

Honestly, I don't think I've ever heard of a more ridiculous argument. If he really had a complaint about a person coming back to the game, he should have made it before the hands were played. To make any argument after you lose is just absurd.

wow.
In a cash game you can leave and come back. You don t get blinded out. The only thing he would have tro do is make sure he buys in for aleast what he cashed out for.

Guillermo is way out of line here. Take him outside and shoot him because he to too ****ing stupid to understand common sense.

Wait, did he post when he came back? if he didn't then he should give Guillermo back all his money! Oh no, he didn't just say that did he?

LOLOLOL