Cash Game Kills & Half Kills in Fixed-Limit Games (1 Viewer)

[Rhodeman77]

Here is my kill button

 

[Mental Nomad]

Also, best Kill button

My crew doesn't even play limit - but it was too good not to get, and I need all the things...

 

[Mental Nomad]

I personally don't like kill games at all. Having both dealt and played in kill and half-kill games, I never saw that it generated more action -- it just generated bigger pots (which is not the same thing). If bigger pots is what the crowd wants, then the limit stakes are too low and should be raised.

I never saw the rationale for randomly doubling the stakes of any game (not restricted to just poker, either), which in limit poker, can really affect (unfairly, although randomly) the advantages of position. I'm sure there will be many here that disagree, but if the players want to play for more money, then just play for more money.

I totally share the concern, if not the opposition.

Since the point of a Kill is ostensibly to penalize someone who's running well and/or give others a chance to win their money back, what would folks think of playing a Kill as just an out-of-position forced big blind, but without increasing the blinds?

This gets the "winner" involved more often with inferior holdings, but doesn't raise the stakes for anyone else.

 

[Rhodeman77]

I too don't like a full kill. A 1/2 kill or smaller, like going to $4/8 from $3/6.

It doesn't change the size of the game much but does get an extra blind into the game.

 

[ohio3302016]

I actually like playing in full kill games. They are just fun to me. I think BG makes a solid point though.

BG what are your thoughts on playing with a "rock" instead of a kill?

 

[churlbut18]

Thanks @BGinGA

Good to hear from both sides. Hadn't considered some of what you stated.

I guess it's that balance between pure game of skill and just adding a periodic increase in excitement. I don't know if my crew is ready to jump to $3/$6 or even $4/$8 yet, but periodically over the course of the night it would be nice to play a few larger pots even if it levels the playing field a little bit.

Certainly some valid points to consider though.

 

[churlbut18]

Finally there are two ways to handle a kill on a game switch. In a fixed rotation game, say HORSE, you can either cancel the kill on a game switch (and you pretty much have to do this on dealer choice games) or you can have the game continue until the kill ends and then change the game.

Why would you have to cancel the kill on a switch with dealer choice and just not call the new game when it's time to do so even on the kill hand? Keep in mind that we'll only be playing limit community games, so no stud, no draw, no NL, no PL. knowing this, does that simplify the situation and more easily allow the switch to continue on a kill hand?

 

[BGinGA]

BG what are your thoughts on playing with a "rock" instead of a kill?

I am not in favor of any device or rule that increases luck, decreases the importance of skill, or penalizes winners.

Playing with a rock (a forced blind raise by the previous pot winner) is such a device/rule. Aside from the obvious argument (people that need to implement forced blind raises upon pot winners and those who desire to play for larger pots are not playing at meaningful stakes), many casinos and card rooms will not allow the use of a rock (even if agreed upon by all players), because they tend to burn the game out and send players to the rail early. To me, it's basically a non-issue, since it requires unanimous agreement of all seated players to implement -- something that will never happen if I am playing.

If your home game already has plenty of action, trying to introduce variables like straddles, a kill, or a rock could ruin it -- so if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And if everybody is playing so tight that there is very little action, consider lowering the stakes. Crazy rules that penalize winners and disrupt normal game flow aren't the right answer in either case. I'd rather see the rock/kill recipient be instead forced to name a wild card for the next hand -- that's guaranteed to increase action, with no accompanying penalty incurred for accomplishing the game's goal (winning).

 

[ohio3302016]

I enjoy playing with a rock actually. It can be a lot of fun.

(Regardless of what pokernews says.)

 

[moose]

Why would you have to cancel the kill on a switch with dealer choice and just not call the new game when it's time to do so even on the kill hand? Keep in mind that we'll only be playing limit community games, so no stud, no draw, no NL, no PL. knowing this, does that simplify the situation and more easily allow the switch to continue on a kill hand?

Mostly because the player who just won the kill is presumably good at that particular game and forcing the player to post a kill and double the limits in a different game that is not necessarily a strength of that player is not fair. Basically if you are going to kill a game then it should be in the same game.

 

[Mental Nomad]

Mostly because the player who just won the kill is presumably good at that particular game and forcing the player to post a kill and double the limits in a different game that is not necessarily a strength of that player is not fair.

Killing someone isn't supposed to be fair to the person getting Killed - it's for the benefit of those who are not winning.

 

[moose]

Yes, other than to drive action the kill is a small penalty on the winner so that the losers have a chance to get some of their money back. So by the same token if they lost money in one type of game, then they should be able to win it back in the same game.

 

[RagsPoker]

I'm not crazy about a kill game either, but at least it's a limit game. I have bigger issues about straddling. If I get seated in a casino at a $1-2 NLHE table, that's what I expect to play. But when players at the table are constantly straddling for $5 it basically turns it into a $2-5 game. Why don't those straddlers just go to a $2-5 table or ask the floor to open a $2-5 game? (Sorry, didn't mean to threadjack, but thought it was a similar situation to a kill game).

 

[Mental Nomad]

I'm not crazy about a kill game either, but at least it's a limit game. I have bigger issues about straddling. If I get seated in a casino at a $1-2 NLHE table, that's what I expect to play. But when players at the table are constantly straddling for $5 it basically turns it into a $2-5 game. Why don't those straddlers just go to a $2-5 table or ask the floor to open a $2-5 game? (Sorry, didn't mean to threadjack, but thought it was a similar situation to a kill game).

I understand the frustration of wanting to play 1/2 and facing the variance of 2/5... But the flip side is that the straddlers are paying for it. Putting up more money, blind, is definitely -EV.

If straddles weren't allowed, they could still raise in, blind. The difference would be that if it's not a live blind, they won't get the Option if there are no re-raisers.

The correct answer, of course, is for someone to always raise when there's a straddle or a blind raise! There's always someone with a better-than-random hand. People should take turns picking off the straddlers. If someone always raises, the straddle never has an option. I'm happy to play in that game, and I don't straddle!

 

[ohio3302016]

I'm not crazy about a kill game either, but at least it's a limit game. I have bigger issues about straddling. If I get seated in a casino at a $1-2 NLHE table, that's what I expect to play. But when players at the table are constantly straddling for $5 it basically turns it into a $2-5 game. Why don't those straddlers just go to a $2-5 table or ask the floor to open a $2-5 game? (Sorry, didn't mean to threadjack, but thought it was a similar situation to a kill game).

I would imagine it's because of the buy-in amount. But I don't play enough NL to know for sure.