Killed Games

[ripdog]

Maybe this is the wrong forum for this post, but here goes anyhow:

I've been thinking about heading south for games in the bigger cardrooms in this (Seattle) area. My favorite room is struggling to keep their tables full and I don't want to drive there only to find a couple of regulars waiting for a game to start. One worry that I have is playing in non-killed games. I feel like the kill is a huge advantage for me. Mainly I like it because of the possibility of getting on the kill and holding it for several hands in a row (because the opposition won't raise when the game goes to $6-$12). My buddy has told me of times where he got on the kill and kept it for 7 or 8 straight hands. It's a good way to make a nice run. The usual players tighten up severely when the kill is on, so the killer gets a free look at the flop with trash that he would never consider playing otherwise. So that's the gist of the post--I think that the kill is so advantageous and I wonder how a non-kill game will compare. Am I right? Is the kill that advantageous? Or am I blowing it out of proportion? Any help towards this end is greatly appreciated.

[polarbear]

When you post a normal big blind, you're at a disadvantage, even if you knew it wasn't going to get raised. You are forced to play a random hand, which is usually garbage, against players who can choose whether to play their hand or not. You can check, but you still have to pay the big blind.

So, when you have to pay double the big blind for the same random hand to see the flop, you'd be at more of a disadvantage.

[Ed Miller]

Of course having to pay a blind to see a hand is a disadvantage, not an advantage, polarbear. But the point is that ripdog's opponents seem to make more mistakes than usual (playing too passively) when the pot is killed. Thus, the kill game benefits ripdog because the presence of the kill induces mistakes from his opponents. Furthermore, a kill game benefits a good player because a good player wins fewer pots than a bad player... and therefore has to pay the kill blind less often.

Having said that, I don't agree with the logic that he is at an advantage when he is killing the pot. You'd much rather have someone else be killing the pot, but your opponents making the same mistakes.

ripdog... I can't imagine that it's a huge difference. Quit your whining and complaining and get your ass down to Muckleshoot.. hehe. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[CrackerZack]

I feel the opposite. Last saturday I made a $500 run in a 5-10 kill game due to keeping the kill button for 4 straight hands but this is the first time it has ever benefitted me. I find it tends to hurt me more because I try to be tight and aggressive and end up putting $10 of my winnings up as a blind only to fold 80% of the time when a raise comes. On the times I do get a look at a free flop (about 30%) it usually misses or gets you in trouble (hit top pair, no kicker) which you could be dominated. Unfortunately, at Mohegan Sun, everyone loves the kill. Last weekend there were four 5-10 games all with a kill of $65 and the 10-20 game didn't hold. Oh well. I personally think its a disadvantage but if no one raises your kill blind at your games, i would think it could be an edge you could push.

[bernie]

youre blowing it out of proportion...

there is an advantage, but its not THAT big. it's not like the advantage of a pot limit game or a no limit game. not even close. and theres a reason why you dont see them spread those types of games around...

i tend to play kill games the same as a normal game. except i watch how the opponents play during the kill and adjust..

how about the sessions when the kill is rare? ever played those sessions? howd you do? no offense, but if you have to rely on the kill for your sole advantage, you should study your game a little more. ive seen your posts, and i dont see that...i think your giving the kill to much credit for your winning...(thats a compliment there at the end)

as an aside...maybe the reason that fewer players are there is because there is a kill game there. a kill game will bust the fish faster than a normal game. and it may be too expensive for the 'casual' regulars. they love it at first...bigger pots and such. but then the swing comes around and they get torched because they like the bigger pots so theyll have wanted to play in the bigger pots...with less than stellar holdings....which wipes that glee off their face. in fact, if they offered a non-kill game next to it, i wonder which would fill more often? hmmm maybe..

just some stuff to think about...

b

btw...if youre going to play 'regularly' id go to mucks or lils....you should do fine in a 4-8 at either...

[bernie]

that the better players dont win 2 in a row as often as the worse players. thus the worse players will be posting more of thier money instead of the better players...

and the better player will be able to adjust to how the table reacts to kill pots. the advantage is obviously to the better player....and better players would love a kill game with a bunch of idiots on the table with them....i know i would.

b

[Jimbo]

This sentence in your original post says it all My favorite room is struggling to keep their tables full and I don't want to drive there only to find a couple of regulars waiting for a game to start. If you find a kill game that continues to thrive you will not see the same perceived advantage since your kill will be raised by more players and more often. It is likely these passive players in your kill game either lost more than they cared to lose or found a non-kill game.

[ripdog]

Hey polarbear, thanks for the input. I think that what I fear I'm giving up by heading to a non-kill game is the shot at an artificially induced run. Also, it's not a normal blind. I may be posting it on the button and can raise a bunch of limpers if I happen to get AA or KK. A bit of info on this particular $3-$6 kill game: It is incredibly weak--if I'm not the best player at the table, then it qualifies as a tough game for Kenmore Lanes standards. That statement should say it all since I'm probably in the bottom 50% on this site. I'll get to my point now. I absolutely will not complete the SB or call a bet with the trash hands I usually find when I peek at my cards. I look at the $6 post as just part of the rules on the rare times that I actually have to post on the kill. Therefore, since my opponents won't raise to $12 unless they hold a big pair, I get a free looksee at the flop. If I get some miracle flop to go with my 9-4o, I could win a huge $6-12 pot and have to post another $6. A friend of mine has gone on the runs I'm dreaming about and racked up wins of $400-$800 in a session. Those are runs I certainly would not see in a no-kill game. I trust myself post flop to be able to get away from losing situations. So I think it's an advantage, but I question how much of an advantage it really is. Judging by the rest of the responses, it ain't all I'm building it up to be.

[CrackerZack]

This explanation assumes that everyone at the table freezes up when the kill is on. What happens if no one pays any attention to it? I have found that at some of the kill games I play at that an open raise will get fewer callers since at 20 to go for a 5-10 game, people won't usually call unless they have a hand, but post-flop play, they play exactly the same. So there is an advantage but it is small. One of the things that can be an advantage when the table is rather passive is when you win a pot that was killed, you're just moving the original killer money in front of you, and you have a shot at seeing a free flop. This is a great advantage but rarely seen (at least when I play).

Either way, I'm not sure if the small advantage pre-flop in my games makes up for having to post a kill blind and costing yourself a BB.

[ripdog]

Yessir! I plan on playing a few hours tonight and coming back Wednesday evening for another few hours. Maybe I'll see you there? What do you look like? I'll be the white guy in the blue mechanics jacket, glasses, blue jeans--5'10" about 165lbs.

On to the percieve advantage--read my response to polarbear. Something along the lines of getting to see free flops with trash and maybe hittting them hard. As Jimbo so aptly points out, this "advantage" turns into a huge disadvantage against more aggressive players. You are also quite right that I post the kill blind far less than my opponents. During my last session I won 3 pots and lost 5. Yet I walked out +$55 in two hours. 2 of the three winners were on someone elses kill, the 3rd was not killed. Without the kill I would have left even or slightly down, I think. Looking back, the majority of my sessions were played out without my posting a single kill blind. I think the main thing I'm worried(?) about is losing the shot at the artificially induced run.

Sorry about abandoning the thread for a few days--calculus and fish biology were more important. Hope to see you there (muckleshoot).

[ripdog]

If you've read my previous replies today, you know my game is loose-passive, to an extreme. It's not uncommon to see people call AA down from start to finish. In other situations I might be inclined to hate the presence of the kill.

[CrackerZack]

I did read and I am truly envious of your game. I was playing a little devil's advocate and also looking for other's thoughts on the idea of the kill.

GL

[bernie]

"This explanation assumes that everyone at the table freezes up when the kill is on. "

actually it assumes they play just as bad in kill pots as regular pots....if a fish has to put more back into a game when the limits raise, he's at a disadvantage to the better player who can more-so choose when to get involved.

again, the worse players will generally be the killer more often

b

[bernie]

when you go to a cardroom, pick up this months western gambling journal. i noticed a couple kill games popping up. i see one is going to start in february sometime. up in burien at a place called wizards. it will be a 4-8 with a 1/2 kill....

who knows how long that game will go

good luck at mucks....be nice to Amy (brush at mucks)

b

[ripdog]

I was just re-reading my copy of Inside the Poker Mind and ran across a piece on kill games. Feeney says that they're bad because the structure is advantageous enough for the better players that it could wind up ending the game where they're spread. His reasoning is exactly what you've been repeating--the weaker players pay the kill blind more often. Jimbo also alluded to this (that the game is in jeopardy due to the kill). He also talks about adjustments made by better players in response to the kill that weaker players fail to make. I think it's the opposite happening, at least in the KL game. I play the same game and the weakies tighten way up. Thanks--I'll let you know what I thought of Muckleshoot.

[Jimbo]

Ripdog,

Thanks for the tidbits from Feeneys' book, you just sold him another copy. If it has insights such as these I am sure there is a lot there that will help me. Heh, Heh, perhaps he will send you a residual! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

Jimbo