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?

If it was, wouldn't people only play deep stacked HU cash?
I don't see why it would be an advantage, unless your a short handed specialist or something. And its not 1/6 and 1/3 anyway because that doesn't consider the skill advantage.

This is also posted in home poker...

LOL @ Guillermo

btw, why are you hosting a 25BB cap NL game? I guess you're protecting profits? I'll just bet that there is a lot of rebuys....

Uhh .... no.

Guillermo is an idiot..... That's about all there is too it. He lost two hands and wanted to cry about it. Next time just let him cry.

Guillermo wouldnt be moaning if he was the one on the right end of the coolers.

Ruling is in. Stupid Guillermo is stupid. You never get blinded out in a cash game.

Also, what's this nonsensical 1/6 or 1/3 chance to win? In a cash game the players can leave whenever, it is quite possible for everyone to break even and there be 0 winners.

Why is this a debate?

Why is there math involved?

Trying to blame this whole thing on drunkenness doesn't really work when you still think it's a legit enough argument the next day to post about it in on a poker forum, lul.

Basically what others have said, why are you trying to treat a cash game like a tourney? You said there was plenty of rebuys, unless you have some sort of rule that stops people from being able to rejoin the cash game at a certain point for some unfathomable reason, I have no idea what the argument here would even be. "1/3 Chance to win?" "Blinding out?" Did you all just get so confused by having something with a tournament format running at the same time that you entirely forgot how cash games work?


Kudos to Guillermo though for magicking some DrunkLogic(tm) so ridiculous that it somehow managed to keep you confused for so long after. Amazing.

Because this is how rec fish think about the game. They don't understand +EV play or skill or anything. They view poker just like they view blackjack or craps. And so, they view it as a 1/6 chance of winning when seated at a six handed table...

gotta love the fish.

FWIW, it is impossible to convince a rec fish that they are wrong here. You can't argue +EV concepts with people who don't speak +EV. Fish speak fish and trying to speak +EV to a fish is as futile as yelling English commands at a dog raised in China....

This

Lolllolol at saying he should be blinded out IN a CASH game. Maybe next time Guillermo goes to the toilet then just take chips of his stack and say he has to post his blinds. Out stupiding Guillermo might be the only way to show him he's wrong.

I know - in a friendly poker tour I occasionally partake in for ****s and giggles I have been in an extended argument regarding deep stacks - most of the players were vehemently against allowing anyone to buy in for more than 100bb (it's a .10/.25 game so letting someone buy in for 150bb isn't exactly breaking anyones bank) as "the deep stack will have an unfair advantage because he can bully the table". They watch a tourney on TV and after all, poker is poker so if a big stack can bully a TV tourney table it can bully a home cash game. No amount of logical reasoning or mathematical discussion could convince them that a poor player was actually advantaged by playing short, not deep.