Preflop, half-kill: three semi-hypothetical questions

[Nate tha' Great]

The live game that I play in features a half-kill. The pot is killed when a player wins two consecutive hands. When the pot is killed, the stakes are raised from 20/40 to 30/60. The winner of the previous two hands posts a $30 blind, and has the option of raising or checking his option before the flop. The size of the blinds remains the same when the pot is killed, at 10 and 20 respectively.

Question #1: Compare the EV of two cirumstances:

a) You have the Button, and a new player comes in and posts in the CO. It's folded to him and he checks his option. You know him from previous encounters; he is a loose and fairly aggressive player, and would raise with a pretty wide range of hands in this spot.

b) You have the Button, and the player described above has won the previous two pots and posts a kill blind in the CO. It's folded to him and he checks his option.

Should your range of raising hands be broader in the first case or the second?

Question #2. Suppose that you have won the previous pot, and so if you win the next pot, you will have to post a kill blind on the next hand. Obviously, you should play a bit tighter in this circumstance.

However, suppose that you are on the Button, there are several limpers in front of you, and you have a hand that is too profitable to throw away, even considering the extra drag on the pot if you win it. However, the hand presents you with a close decision between raising and limping preflop. For example, say that you have A8s or T9s after four limpers.

Should you be more inclined or less inclined than usual to raise as opposed to limp?

Question #3. You have won two consecutive pots and post a $30 kill blind UTG+1. You will need to kill the pot if you win the hand again. The game that you play in does not feature any qualifier for the kill, so you will have to kill the pot, even if you just steal the blinds (the only exception is if nobody else puts any money in before the flop; for example the kill coincides with your big blind and it's folded to you, or you and the SB agree to chop). You have also noticed that the other players in your game tend to play a bit looser in kill pots when the pot is not raised to them, particularly with speculative hands, but play about as they normally would when facing a raise, or perhaps a bit tighter.

Your hand is AQo, and the player UTG folds. Raise or check your option?

[bugstud]

time to stab.

#1 I think the EV of playing the kill is higher because you have position against 1-3 random hands with potential dead money. Especially given better postflop play, I like playing it at 30/60.

#2 I am raising to win a larger pot, and therefore post a smaller % of my win as a kill. Generally my rocky image in these games (at the 10/20 at the trump anyway) lets me steal the pot suprisingly often anyway.

#3 is interesting. It would depend on whether or not dominated aces would play or not. I'm inclined to raise AQo here anyway.

[Louie Landale]

Posting a blind costs about half its face value. Therefore after winning one pot, the next pot has $15 less in it than it appears. Once there is action that's negligible, but DOES affect how you play on your first decision.

#1 The only difference is that he's got a $30 post. Raise more often against the $30 post since your chances of stealing this one is better, but call more often against the $20 post.

#2 This is tough. The key feature is whether your raise will increase or decrease your chances of winning. I'd say, with hesitation and uncertainty, that raising with A8s reduces your chances of winning since the opponents will be more likely to draw against your vulnerable pair, wherease raising with T9s increases your chances since YOU will be more willing to draw against THEIR vulnerable pair. The other key feature is that you are probably going to semi-bluff less later with either of these hands, so building a pot isn't in your best interest.

#3 Raise. The money YOU have in the pot is worth winning now.

Hard to believe the other players at the table would tolerate the kill-big-blind chopping against the SB, and not having to kill again. That's worse than winning UTG then going to the bathroom to deliberatly miss your BB and any chance to have to kill it.

- Louie

[Blake Lovely]

1. play a wider range of hands in b. More money, and when people are on a winning streak they tend to raise more often with a wider range of hands, he diddnt.
2. just call, dont tie yourself to anything.
3. raise. I dont wanna go multiway with AQ, and people tend to like to call kill pots.

[stanky]

[ QUOTE ]
Hard to believe the other players at the table would tolerate the kill-big-blind chopping against the SB, and not having to kill again.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't chop a kill pot, not at Harrahs east chicago anyway. If the killer is in one of the blinds the other blind can fold, the killer will win and have to post another kill the very next hand.

-Pete

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't chop a kill pot, not at Harrahs east chicago anyway. If the killer is in one of the blinds the other blind can fold, the killer will win and have to post another kill the very next hand.

-Pete

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm fairly certain that I've seen the kill avoid having to post another blind at Harrah's EC in this very situation a handful of times, including once or twice last night, but suffice it to say that the dealers at this cardroom are not top-notch.

[ChicagoTroy]

You're both right. It's not allowed and it does happen.

If you ever want to see a Harrah's EC dealer's head explode, wait for a kill hand in which the UTG posts a kill, and then post a straddle UTG+1. If you're four handed it's even funnier.

[casinogosain]

You shouldn't be allowed to post a straddle in this circumstance because UTG has the option on his "kill-blind" before the action gets to you. It would be the equivalent of trying to post a straddle from UTG+1 when there is no kill involved - it just can't be done.

-Ash

[sthief09]

for question 1, I'd think they'd be around the same, unless the blinds were especially loose. I would think they would become proportionately tighter to adjust for the smaller blinds compared to the bet they have to call. even an inexperienced BB would realize "damn now I have to call $40 instead of $20. that sucks." there are also other factors, such as whether the blinds are uncomfortable playing in a 30 game. they might avoid marginal hands and become too tight. however, in general, I think it's natural for a person to adjust tightness proportionately to the blinds.

question 2: well, if you're on the button, you're going to be in the CO the next hand. posting in the CO is still a positive expectation situation, assuming you're better than them. the increase in limits will add to your winrate, so posting a kill blind in the CO at 30/60 might not be that much worse than a "free" hand in the CO at 20/40. but since you're saying it's a marginal raise, that means our expectation for this hand is the same either way. then you should limp. if (EV of raising - EV of limping) > (EV of free CO hand at 20/40 - posting a kill blind at 30/60)*some sort of proportion of increased chance of winning the pot, then you should raise. I have a feeling this also would even out. raising most marginal hands on the button will decrease your chances of winning only slightly (you'll have to play in a bigger pot, but you will sometimes get 4 cards for the price of 3), but should increase your overall expectation slightly.

question 3: this is similar to the last question, where you're figuring out which has a higher expectation. raising compared to limping or posting UTG when you win vs. getting a free play when you lose. In this case, if you feel you can get the pot 3 handed (the blinds will also probably be tighter), then I'd raise. since they will play looser in a kill game, checking your option will put you in a multiway pot out of position. I think raising as compared to checking will yield a much higher expectation in this spot. with a comparable hand that's a pocket pair, like TT, you can check, since seeing the flop 7 handed is not a problem. for AQo, seeing the flop 7 handed will make it hard to play. I think I'd raise JJ as well. Ironically, I'd limp with AQs, because again, the EV difference between a relatively shorthanded pot for 2 bets compared to a big pot for one bet, isn't much different.

[stanky]

Good post Nate,

I'm just going to concentrate on question #1, here's my thoughts...

On the one hand, where a player is posting $20 in the CO, you are betting $40 to win $50( I'm assuming the main objective is to take it down pre-flop.)Where as in a kill situation you are betting $60 to win $60. So it seems the odds you are getting are slighly better in the non kill situation.

On the other hand the blinds have to put in a larger amount of chips to defend their blinds in a kill pot if it's raised: $50 opposed to $30 for the SB, $40 to $20 for BB, and $30 to $20 for the poster.

This being said, I think I would be willing to raise with more hands in the kill pot situation because the added amount of money that the blinds would need to call will make them fold more often.

-Pete