Hedonist Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 I have been playing low limit cash games on sporting odds to clear a bonus they offered me. I noticed the player to my left would sit out every time it came to his big blind, then rejoin the table for the next hand, he would not be dealt in as it appears you cannot join the table on the small blind. I thought he was saving money, he paid his big blind on being dealt in again but never paid a small blind. I now realise that he was never first or second to act after the flop and was therefore gaining positional advantage. Is this a form of cheating or just clever play? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePro19 Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Re: Was this player cheating? In my view, it's stupidity. Why sit out? He may be throwing away the best cards. He probably thought he was saving money, but if it's a low limit table, what's the point! I personally don't think it's cheating or clever play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodgey Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Re: Was this player cheating? I have been playing low limit cash games on sporting odds to clear a bonus they offered me. I noticed the player to my left would sit out every time it came to his big blind, then rejoin the table for the next hand, he would not be dealt in as it appears you cannot join the table on the small blind. I thought he was saving money, he paid his big blind on being dealt in again but never paid a small blind. I now realise that he was never first or second to act after the flop and was therefore gaining positional advantage. Is this a form of cheating or just clever play? I too have been playing to clear the bonus and have noticed a coloured disk appears labelled MB when people sit out. I assumed it meant "missed blind" cos when they re-sit in they pay either the small blind or big blind (whichever they have missed) regardless of the position they are in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slick mick Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Re: Was this player cheating? Assuming he has to wait for the button to pass on a 10 handed table he gets to see 7 hands for a big blind as opposed to 10 hands for1.5 big blinds. Lets assume 10c and 5c for the blinds and do some math. Seeing 7 hands for 10c works out at 1.42c per hand. Seeing 10 hands for 15c works out at 1.5c per hand. So this seems to be an optimal strategy. This example assumes a fulltable of 10, if this wasn't the case let me know and I'll do the math again. The argument that he might be throwing away the best hands doesn't really work as over time he will miss a selection of good and bad hands in the same proportion as he is seeing but seeing them cheaper. It is not cheating as in a ring game you can sit in or out at anytime you choose. Of course it's up to you to decide to play at the table or not. Mick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slapdash Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Re: Was this player cheating? I just tested this on SO, and when the small blind went past me, it asked me if I wanted to post the blind and it took the big blind and took a small blind that went straight into the pot. So it doesn't seem to work! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedonist Posted March 7, 2006 Author Share Posted March 7, 2006 Re: Was this player cheating? This was a full table of 10. My point was that he avoided having play the 2 worst positions on the table. I did not notice if he also missed the button. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slapdash Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Re: Was this player cheating? Also, when you post a small blind, that money is not always lost. If you bet, then you effectively save the small blind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedonist Posted March 7, 2006 Author Share Posted March 7, 2006 Re: Was this player cheating? Also, when you post a small blind, that money is not always lost. If you bet, then you effectively save the small blind. If the small blind went straight into the pot then it is not lost if you bet, just means you are paying a big blind and a small blind from the dealer position. It all seems a bit pointless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slick mick Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Re: Was this player cheating? If you have to pay the small blind and big blind together when sitting back in then it makes no sense in fact costs you 2.14c per hand. Mick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePro19 Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Re: Was this player cheating? Assuming he has to wait for the button to pass on a 10 handed table he gets to see 7 hands for a big blind as opposed to 10 hands for1.5 big blinds. Lets assume 10c and 5c for the blinds and do some math. Seeing 7 hands for 10c works out at 1.42c per hand. Seeing 10 hands for 15c works out at 1.5c per hand. So this seems to be an optimal strategy. This example assumes a fulltable of 10, if this wasn't the case let me know and I'll do the math again. The argument that he might be throwing away the best hands doesn't really work as over time he will miss a selection of good and bad hands in the same proportion as he is seeing but seeing them cheaper. It is not cheating as in a ring game you can sit in or out at anytime you choose. Of course it's up to you to decide to play at the table or not. Mick If someone is this desperate that they can't afford to pay 10c for a BB and 5c for a SB, then they really shouldn't be playing poker for money... or anything for money for that matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.