|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 10/11/2008 6:14:57 AM PACIFIC |
 Kill hands vs the cost, Easy E, 13. Nov 2002 14:27 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| A couple of diverse posts that I've read recently (don't ask me where I saw them, can't remember), along with a game thought, triggered me to try to put something together a) I read somewhere that the cost of posting behind the button (by skipping over the blinds) is less than taking the blinds and the hands, and getting the button. b) I also read that the cost of triggering a kill hand (for the winner) should mitigate in some manner how willing you are to CAUSE the kill trigger to be reached (i.e do less raising), since you will be giving back profit by posting the kill. c) And finally, i've read where, in a kill game, if you have a hand that you are going to play, it is often better to raise that hand (because of increased pot equity in place). This requires the assumption that the kill is not replacing one of the expected blinds. I don't remember if this strategy applied to ALL positions, or just the kill poster. Without reopening the argument on whether a-c are correct on their own (maybe a seperate thread can be opened for those?).... If a kill would buy you the button, preflop action only of course, is the kill pot in fact a DESIRED outcome for the winner? Here's my thinking: 1) People often tighten up too much in a kill pot, looking at the raised betting level rather than the fact that the ratios are exactly the same, just higher... allowing you to take advantage 2) Other people will be more likely to take shots at your kill (with weaker hands) because of c).. or because they (correctly) treat it as a BB, as to what type of hands you're likely to have... allowing you to take advantage 3) You will get to see pre-flop bets for free and raises for half-cost (you normally would have no equity in the hand pre-flop, since you wouldn't have a kill to put out there) and you can disguise your hand more thoroughly... allowing you to take advantage 4) If your next hand was going to be a good one/a pot winner, you now get a greater net return (in # of bets won as compared to the normal betting range) than you would have if there wasn't a kill raising the stakes... while a crappy hand doesn't cost that much to fold (certainly more than it WOULD have, but not huge) Comments? BONUS QUESTION #1 If the kill did NOT buy the button (you had to act in normal turn), at what position would it NOT be cost-effective to force a kill pot and post the kill? (would you care at all if you were just substituting for your SB? BB?) BONUS QUESTION #2 For all of the above (buy button, not button)... what if it is only a half-kill? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network |
|