|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 11/21/2008 10:45:50 PM PACIFIC |
 Hold'em with a kill - advanced strategy, stdioh, 21. Jul 2003 14:03 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| There have been a number of posts here where people have had questions about strategy in a kill game so I thought I would write a post about it. First off, what is a kill pot? For the purpose of this entry I'm going to discuss hold'em with a full kill. It bases down like this. There is a kill puck which is in the middle of the table. When a player wins a pot alone (if it is chopped the kill puck stays in the middle) of a minimum size (if it is too small it stays in the middle) the player receives the kill button as a half kill. If the player then wins the next hand, alone, of sufficient size, the puck is turned over and becomes a full kill. Otherwise it goes into the middle again. On a kill pot the small and big blinds post as usual, but the player with the kill button posts a kill blind which is twice the size of the BB. Now all betting is doubled and players can limp for the size of the kill blind, raise twice the kill blind, etc. Many players believe that the strategy in kill poker is no different from in regular poker except during an actual kill pot, but this is not true. Where the strategy really comes in is dealing with the negative value that a kill button has. What does this mean? Level 1: You don't want the kill button. If you win a pot then you get a kill button, but having the kill button is bad because it makes winning the next hand a bad thing. Thus winning pots gets a small negative associated with it. What does this mean? It means that winning a big pot is better than winning more small pots. That means the value of any marginal play goes down. If there is a play which gives you about even odds, winning now carries the burden of the kill button and that means that you should always fold in a 50/50 fold/call situation. Level 2: You don't want to play when you have the kill button. When you have a half kill in front of you, winning the pot means that you will have to post a kill blind, equivalent to 1 BB. Not only that, but you'll want to avoid playing in that hand too because winning it will mean posting yet another kill blind. If you are making 1 BB per hour at the game you don't want to be posting 1 kill blind every hour as well. Thus you should be playing *extremely* tight when you hold the half kill. Basically, it is not worth playing limping cards. You should only play raising hands and hope to steal (too small a pot so no kill) when you do. AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, AQ, AJ. If I have a kill button I will raise all of these in any position, but I'm really hoping to steal. Hands like 33 become useless and you should fold them in any position because if you hit a set you will either win a pot and have a kill or lose a lot of money. You want to avoid trying to flop a set because the chances of it are low. If you subtract 1 BB from your winnings every time you hit a set and win, it becomes unworth playing. Likewise, you should be very weak preflop. If there is a raise to me, I'll fold QQ, JJ, AJ and AQ no matter what. Still play AK, AA, and KK as they have too much value to fear winning with them, but don't play AK strongly if it doesn't hit. If you flop junk you're better off check folding with it that trying to draw to an overcard because of the additional penalty if you win. When you have the half kill you want sure things or you want out. Since you're punished 1 BB for winning you only want hands that you'll be able to play profitably even if you drop the 1 BB off your winning total. Level 3: Attack players with a kill button. When you are playing against a player who holds a kill button you want to press them. Don't let them draw free cards. If you win, you get the money and if they win, they donate a kill blind and you get a kill pot. If they are good players they will be afraid of winning and will not want to get involved in pots unless they are sure they will win. Good players with a kill will be either raising or folding, so bet at them and get away if they come out swinging. Even if they play hard at you and you fold you'll get a kill pot, but a lot of the time they'll fold a winning hand because of uncertainty and give you an easy pot. They'll be reluctant to draw against you. Some bad players *want* the kill button. I've played with players who don't understand the concept that the kill is a bad thing and will "defend the kill button". I don't need to tell you how to abuse these hapless players. Level 4: Dumping to the kill when in position can be an important tactic too. If you've got position over a half kill player and he bets at you, one strategy is to isolate and dump. This only works in rare cases, but here is the theory. Lets say you have a hand that might be the best, but probably needs to improve. Lets say you're holding AcTc on a flop of AhKh2c. The kill bets out at you. Normally you would be inclined to fold here and not chase a bad ace,. however you have the added insurance of knowing that you'll be in position on a kill pot if you lose, but only if you lose to the kill player. Thus the move becomes raising to knock out your opponents, gain the innitiative, and isolate the kill button. Now if the kill is on a single pair, he is liable to lose his agression and not want to play the hand so you are unlikely to be 3bet unless he is already on 2 pair or better and unless he improves you are likely to get a free card if the turn doesn't hit you. Now you might get a backdoor flush coming, hit your kicker, or catch nothing. If the kill bets the turn and it hasn't hit you, you can fold in good concience and still have the benefit of the kill pot while you are in good position. Naturally, this increases the value of playing a hand in the SB when a player has posession of the kill button, but only marginally. By isolating the kill you increase the chance of a kill pot that you will have the best of and you also increase the chance that you win the current hand, playing against the kill's desire to only play the best hands. Level 5: Playing in the kill pot isn't that different from regular play, except that the blinds are skewed. This means a number of things. Since the poster of the kill blind doesn't want to play (since if he wins he'll have to post it again), there is almost a guarantee to a raise for a steal. That means that if you have to be very tight in early position. Fold AJo and ATs. Fold KJs. Fold 99. It is far too easy for there to be a raise and reraise before the betting comes back to you and there are likely to be few players actually taking the flop. If, however it is unraised and the kill blind checks you can be looser because the kill blind will almost certainly release on the flop if not preflop to a bet and because you are now in a position to steal. What this means is that a lot of hands can be raised if the pot is unentered. If the pot has been entered, you should play much like normal hold'em. Once the flop comes, the hand plays just like a half kill hand. You want to play against the player with the kill, however the advanced stakes make the post next hand less significant, so you should likewise diminish the attacks on the kill player. When you are the kill, play weak. If somebody raises your kill blind, fold anything that isn't premium. I would only defend with AA, KK, QQ, and AK, unless there are a large number of players in the pot. If there are, you can defend with drawing hands, but the vast majority of the time there will not be. If you are in the big blind you are now going to have to play like you would play in the small blind in a regular game. If you are in the small blind, you should be especially willing to fold since the bet to you is very large and you are in the worst position. Play the small blind very selectively. On the puck, you should play very agressively. If the pot is unraised and you have decent cards you should often raise to knock out the blinds and try to fold the kill blind. However if your cards are not good enough to raise, you can still limp with a lot of hands as you're in position and will be in control of the situation. Playing the puck here really depends on table texture. If players are going wild on every kill pot you want to get out of the way more often. If they are playing scared of the kill then you want to really agress. Level 6: Playing players who know how to play a kill is difficult indeed. If you know that a player is playing his kill button properly then you can use the tactics here against them, but they may use these tactics against you too. If you are betting out with a half kill on the flop, holding top pair, top kicker, and you get raised then you may want to bet out again on the turn to prevent an opponent from drawing free cards against you - if you think he is indeed shaky and trying to intimidate you. If you're on a kill blind and it is unraised to you, but your holdings are marginal, you might pre-emtptively raise (note: very dangerous move) to try to steal the blinds and win the pot there with it being too small to make you post kill on the next hand. Playing at level 6 requires true poker insight, but when you walk up to most kill games in a casino or online you normally find players who don't give any thought to the kill button at all. They see it as a random element that makes an interesting pot come up once in a while. If you play correctly with respect to the kill and they do not, it becomes yet another way to gain an extra edge over the game and increase your profitability. And since if you play it right, you'll play in many more kill pots than the fair share for those you contribute to and that means, essentially, free money. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - advanced strategy, DRich, 21. Jul 2003 15:01 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| stdio, I am confused. Does your post assume that posting the Kill bet is required after winning two consecutive pots? I always thought the player had the option of making it a Kill hand. I would assume if you had the option it would be a mistake to make the bet, but advantagous to play hands when other people made the Kill bet because they are blindly throwing extra money into the pot. DRich | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - advanced strategy, Risky Business, 21. Jul 2003 15:10 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Most, if not all, kill pots are put into effect when one person wins 2 consecutive $40 pots, or 1 $100 pot. ($ are examples, not rigid) They have no choice in the matter. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - advanced strategy, 4 POKER, 21. Jul 2003 15:19 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I know in Vegas and Cali, if you play in a game with a kill (but it's Omaha).....if you scoop the whole pot and it exceeds X amount of dollars, then you must post up the kill money for what ever amount is required for that limit, but you don't have to win 2 hands in a row to place the kill. I also played in a kill game in Foxwoods that was hold-em and the same rule applied....one winner on an X $ amount pot puts up the kill. And yes, you don't have the option...you must post the kill. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - advanced strategy, stdioh, 21. Jul 2003 15:25 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Yes. This is another sort of kill game. The stakes increase whenever the pot reaches a certain critical mass. I think that this game is a bit silly as players with wherewithall will stop betting on the pot when it gets to just under the critical size. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - advanced strategy, 4 POKER, 21. Jul 2003 15:52 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I've also played in an Omaha game where the pot didn't even have to reach a certain amount. If you took it down on the FLOP, you had to post up a 1/2 kill. Now that's nuts! And I only played it one time....it was too rich for my blood. Had it been just the limit that was set for the game it would have been ok, but to post up a 1/2 kill after only winning small bets made no sense to me at all. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - advanced strategy, Andrew Wells, 21. Jul 2003 16:47 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| When it's just under the kill size, an aware player will go for the checkraise. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - advanced strategy, Easy E, 21. Jul 2003 17:07 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Check-raising, on the assumption that the opponent sees you as ripe for a steal? Does it make a difference whether their bet and your non-existant call would put it OVER the kill trigger threshold? I would assume that, if your opponent IS aware of kill strategy, you would judge his/her bet based partially on that fact... | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - advanced strategy, Andrew Wells, 21. Jul 2003 17:17 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Checkraising in a situation where if you bet and are called, the pot would now exceed the kill threshold. This is a typical river situation. If it is checked down then there is no kill the next hand. You play for the checkraise to help offset the amount of the kill post which will be deferred out of the pot. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - advanced strategy, Easy E, 21. Jul 2003 20:35 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Good thought-thanks. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - advanced strategy, stdioh, 22. Jul 2003 10:11 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Absolutely. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - advanced strategy, stdioh, 21. Jul 2003 15:24 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| No. You have no choice - you must post the kill blind. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - advanced strategy, DJpoker, 21. Jul 2003 15:38 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hey Drich, At the B&M I play at most often (southern cali) it is automatic kill pot after two wins regardless of amount. The only exception is if it comes down to just the blinds, then you would maintain half kill. DJpoker | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - advanced strategy, MozMan, 21. Jul 2003 19:27 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| DRich- The kill is almost always mandatory. In fact, I have seen (in the B&M) where the dealer forgot to enforce the kill, and made the player post on the next hand. Generally (not always), the kill is enforced when when each pot is over ten times the size of the small bet. So, in a 3-6 game, both pots must be $30 or more. -Moz "May your chips never fall from a cow." | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - advanced strategy, Andrew Wells, 21. Jul 2003 15:19 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| The reality is that most players will defend their kill to a single raise. Therefore one shouldn't expect someone who has posted the kill to fold your raise in front. Make sure any raise ahead of the kill is with premium cards. There are also many players who will take the option to raise when they have posted a kill with hands that would at the regular limit be only worth a call. I am always looking for that sort of player, since a reraise from behind the kill will have a much better chance of isolating such a player than would otherwise. Hands like pocket sevens which would ordinarily go in the muck become reasonable three betting prospects now. Your position relative to the player with the kill is critical. There is no real value to limping in front of what is for practical purposes a third blind hand. Limping behind is still a matter of how many players are in the pot, just avoid this weakness when in front. It is much more difficult to steal three blinds from the button instead of two. Even if both the natural blinds fold, the prevailing irrational mindset is that folding the kill is wimpish. I will personally defend those Kodak moments when I have to post a kill with anything I would ordinarily defend my big blind to a raise. If the raise comes from a player in front of me, there's nothing I will flat call with. It's simply three bets or in the muck, most often in the muck. If the raise comes from behind, I am more liberal and generally flat call if I'm going to see the flop. Many players miss the opportunity to take pots away on ragged flops when they have the kill. If you only defend with the best hands, such moves are not going to be credible. You are a blind hand with better position, and can pick on all but the loose/aggressive players this way. Don't look at having to post subsequent kills as losing a BB from the pot, it is deferred money into the next hand that has a useful function there. Having the kill in your natural big blind position may look like a bargain, but it isn't. Treat this situation like an ordinary big blind. From the small blind, you can loosen up quite a bit with a raise against the big blind heads-up, since that player is getting 2:1 instead of 3:1 to call. You also will also have the kill on the button (least undesireable position to post it) the next hand if you win. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - advanced strategy, stdioh, 21. Jul 2003 15:29 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| All good points Andrew. Indeed, many players playing kill pot poker are irrational and will defend their kill blind with a blind fervour. What I intended to address here was more about playing a kill game with smart players. That said, your idea of three-betting from the kill blind is an interesting one. Certainly you would have to know the players in the hand well to do this. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - advanced strategy, Andrew Wells, 21. Jul 2003 17:11 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| If you knew with certainty that making an extra raise would buy you position for the rest of the hand, I think that is worth one small bet. In a kill hand that's going to be the case 95% of the time. Primarily because there are very few players who know how handle a situation behind three bets well without AA or KK. Also because many players still think of the money involved at the normal limit. They won't call $30 with AQ in a kill pot where they would call $15 in a non-kill pot. So the kill isolates out hands like AQ that don't belong anyway. Just about daily I see someone who throws in a call (on a kill hand) for the normal amount, only to be told by the dealer that this is a kill pot. Then they hem and haw about how they don't have that good a hand, take back their bet and muck. I'm glad most dealers allow these players to get away with taking their half call back, even though it should stay in the pot. Isolation poker is still the best way to make money, kill games help make that possible even at otherwise loose tables. Not that I mind a loose game, I just have more skills I can use when the pot is contested shorthanded. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - advanced strategy, stdioh, 22. Jul 2003 10:16 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Where I play, when a player accidentally calls one and is told that the bet was two, they have no chance to take their bet back, they can fold or call the other bet. This happens very often so is quite profitable. I see it at least 2 or 3 times in a given session. The odd player will do this as an angle shot, but they are easy to get to know and that only makes things better too. Nothing better than somebody shooting an angle who tells you exactly what he is holding. My favourite angle is the, "No, I was asking if he checked. I was going to bet." I just love refusing to put in a call after that angle, demanding the guy is returned his money, knowing he's planning on a checkraise, and waiting to catch the nuts on the river. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - advanced strategy, Andrew Wells, 22. Jul 2003 16:48 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| That's a good one. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - advanced strategy, greg, 21. Jul 2003 15:25 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| i've never played in a kill game but you had some interesting stuff to say. thanks for the write up. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - advanced strategy, MozMan, 21. Jul 2003 19:32 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| stdioh- Excellent post. Very eloquent and informative. I like your explanations of when and why it's important to be aggressive on the kill. These tactics can be even more effective in low limits. When I play the B&M, I find it very lucrative to attack the killer from the get-go. Most 3-6 players are afraid of the kill, and an aggressive raise of the kill blind will fold almost everyone off. The killer will almost always call, then fold to a bet on the flop. -Moz "May your chips never fall from a cow." | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - a rebuttal? to stdioh and Andy part I, Easy E, 21. Jul 2003 20:38 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| stdioh, a very interesting post (along with Andy's reply, especially about the kill amount not really being a penalty) I have a few counterpoints/thought here, for discussion purposes: "On a kill pot the small and big blinds post as usual, but the player with the kill button posts a kill blind which is twice the size of the BB. Now all betting is doubled and players can limp for the size of the kill blind, raise twice the kill blind, etc. Many players believe that the strategy in kill poker is no different from in regular poker except during an actual kill pot, but this is not true." *** EZE- I agree, but I'm not sure that the strategy is THAT different from regular poker at a higher bet level. I think instead that you create a next hand situation with a few new wrinkles. We'll see where my thinking leads me; maybe I'll contradict this statement later. **** " Where the strategy really comes in is dealing with the negative value that a kill button has. What does this mean? Level 1: You don't want the kill button. If you win a pot then you get a kill button, but having the kill button is bad because it makes winning the next hand a bad thing. Thus winning pots gets a small negative associated with it. What does this mean? It means that winning a big pot is better than winning more small pots. " *** EZE- While the last sentence is true in everything except the tightest games WITHOUT a kill (where stealing blinds carries a lot less risk than going up against good hands in big pots), I don't think it has as much relevance in kill pot games. To get the kill triggered takes (usually) two medium-to-large sized pots, and you'd ALWAYS like to win those, with or without a "penalty". As to not wanting the kill button because of its "negative value"- I disagree (see pot size statement preceding this). While you may make some strategy adjustments based on the risk of a kill hand trigger (KHTL- pronounced "kettle"? As in "that's a fine KHTL of fish you just stepped in?" ;) approaching, you ALSO make adjustments with the understanding that OTHERS will be adjusting THEIR strategy, incorrectly or not, based on the KHT.... as WELL as the fact that the kill hand that follows can ALSO cause opponents to mistakenly adjust their strategy for THAT hand (a FTOP opportunity?) I'll go into more of this later, but an example for now: For our example, we'll use $5/10, full kill (kills to $10/20) with $2 and $5 blinds (1.4 small bets). In a normal game, you have 1 1/3 to 1 1/2 SB (small bet) in the pot when you have to make a decision to call/raise/fold. A call of a SB gets you 1.4:1, a raise to a BB (big bet) of $10 is 0.7:1 for your steal chances, with calls of your raise from the blinds making it an overall positive gain on your raise (costs you a BB $10 total, gets you 0.7 + 1.3 = 2 BB to make a $30 pot) OR changing that 0.7 BB of blind money into dead money when they fold. Raising the blinds gets you 2.6:1 on your $5 raise. The blinds get the following complete(check) or call(of raise) ratios of: Small blind- 2.2:0.3 or 7:33:1 to complete, at least 1.7:0.8 or 2.125:1 on calling your raise. Big blind- infinite odds on a check, at least 1.7:0.5 or 3.4:1 on calling the raise In the kill pot, you "only" have approx 3/4 of a SB in from the blinds, since the limits are now $10/20... but you are "freerolling" with your kill post of a $10 SMALL bet, knowing that they will either be 0.7 SB dead OR require another 1.3 SB to just COMPLETE, in a sense... without giving ANY indication on the strength of your hand AND having position on the blinds (we'll ignore the situation when you post the kill when you have a normal blind anyway). You can get an additional $13 into a pot where you DIDN'T have to make any investment beyond your kill post. The small blind and big blind now ONLY get 2.125 or 3.4 to 1 to complete, WITHOUT knowing what your hand strength really is.... AND they can still face a raise from your kill post, making their odds even worse on calling your kill post! This should generally make it less profitable for the blinds, requiring them to tighten their calling requirements, if they know that you are aggressive out of your kills. NOW, if you raise after the blinds call, you're getting 3:1 in late position on your $10 raise.... not a bad situation at all. Even if you'd subtract out the $10 kill it cost you to get in this situation, it's still 2:1 on your raise from the kill against random blind hands. If you treat your kill as dead money (which it is), then if I can steal a pot of a few BB, or get an extra BB or two out of a hand that I am playing NOW, then the kill pot that follows is "paid for"- in a sense, it's a free hand on the next pot that you can make a decision about with a larger gross payoff possible, and often a better return on your raise. This is ESPECIALLY true if the killer gets to act last pre-flop, rather than in turn. Now, as to the play of others: IN FRONT- Tightening up, or telegraphing their hand strength more obviously, is often the result. They don't know if the blinds will come in (often they don't, in my experience, UNLESS they have strong hands themselves... not a good situation to guess in) AND they don't know if you'll raise or not. Their gain seems much less when compared to the potential cost here, especially out of position. My experience is that most tighten up a LOT here (maybe too much?) allowing you to drive out competitors without really having to "raise." BEHIND- If they call the kill that acts in turn, in a sense a "raise of the blinds," it makes it seem as if their hand is stronger than normal, thus making the blinds tighten up. If players behind have to face a potential raise from a "right to last action" kill, they have to downgrade the blinds calling AND figure in a higher cost of playing... at the SAME time! LATER PLAY- Here are two possible scenarios for opponents when facing a bet from you which would trigger the kill: - More likely to call because of pot size, suspicion of your using the kill risk as a bluff? - More likely to fold, because of kill pot and "knowing" you wouldn't risk that w/o a hand. Adjusting your strategy to take advantage of each type of player, or the implied odds available because of their reactions, can make this work, I believe. Please lay into my thinking here, but it seems that the "negative cost" of the kill isn't as negative as it would seem. *** "That means the value of any marginal play goes down. If there is a play which gives you about even odds, winning now carries the burden of the kill button and that means that you should always fold in a 50/50 fold/call situation. " *** EZE- I disagree with the "always fold" part of this. Often fold might be reasonable. I think you're overweighing the "burden" of having to post the kill (as Andy touched upon) *** "Level 2: You don't want to play when you have the kill button. When you have a half kill in front of you, winning the pot means that you will have to post a kill blind, equivalent to 1 BB." *** EZE- A big bet on THIS hand, but a SB of the kill hand. See my "free hand" comments above *** " Not only that, but you'll want to avoid playing in that hand too because winning it will mean posting yet another kill blind. If you are making 1 BB per hour at the game you don't want to be posting 1 kill blind every hour as well." *** EZE- I think this is misleading. If you win 1 BB an hour at the LARGER, kill, limit, you're only posting 1 SB every hour. Otherwise, you have to look at it as posting 1 BB of the "normal" limit in order to average winning 2 BB (or 1 1/2 BB after subtracting the kill?) on kill hands.... I think, anyway (i'm starting to get fuzzy) *** " Thus you should be playing *extremely* tight when you hold the half kill." *** EZE- for the reasons above, I think I disagree with this statement. I think the costs of the next hand are an important consideration, but "extremely tight" is not correct IMO- maximize your expectation for THIS hand and the resulting kill hand will take care of itself. *** " Basically, it is not worth playing limping cards. You should only play raising hands and hope to steal (too small a pot so no kill) when you do. AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, AQ, AJ. If I have a kill button I will raise all of these in any position, but I'm really hoping to steal. Hands like 33 become useless and you should fold them in any position because if you hit a set you will either win a pot and have a kill or lose a lot of money. You want to avoid trying to flop a set because the chances of it are low. If you subtract 1 BB from your winnings every time you hit a set and win, it becomes unworth playing. Likewise, you should be very weak preflop. If there is a raise to me, I'll fold QQ, JJ, AJ and AQ no matter what. Still play AK, AA, and KK as they have too much value to fear winning with them, but don't play AK strongly if it doesn't hit. If you flop junk you're better off check folding with it that trying to draw to an overcard because of the additional penalty if you win. When you have the half kill you want sure things or you want out. Since you're punished 1 BB for winning you only want hands that you'll be able to play profitably even if you drop the 1 BB off your winning total. " **** EZE- I think this is a mix of good and bad thought process here. If you're going to assign a cost to this hand, of the NEXT hand, then you should assign 50% or less of the kill's penalty to this hand. It's NOT as if you aren't getting two cards in your next hand for posting a kill- this is NOT a net loss of 1 BB. However, because others may tighten up and extremes will be exaggerated on the next hand (in kill hands, tight becomes tighter and aggressive becomes more so), tightening up somewhat does make sense. Don't know if folding QQ-JJ to a raise, or big suited Aces, makes sense, however *** "Level 3: Attack players with a kill button. When you are playing against a player who holds a kill button you want to press them. Don't let them draw free cards. If you win, you get the money and if they win, they donate a kill blind and you get a kill pot." *** EZE- Similar to playing against the blinds, but with a greater payoff (if a greater risk of being called, as well) *** " If they are good players they will be afraid of winning and will not want to get involved in pots unless they are sure they will win." **** EZE- Suffice it to say that I don't equate good players with the reasoning that you espouse here... unless all of you enlighten me as to the error of my ways. *** " Good players with a kill will be either raising or folding, so bet at them and get away if they come out swinging. Even if they play hard at you and you fold you'll get a kill pot, but a lot of the time they'll fold a winning hand because of uncertainty and give you an easy pot. They'll be reluctant to draw against you. Some bad players *want* the kill button. I've played with players who don't understand the concept that the kill is a bad thing and will "defend the kill button". I don't need to tell you how to abuse these hapless players." *** EZE- If you call the kill from late position, you're getting 1.7:1 at a minimum if the blinds fold. If you raise, you get 0.85:1 for the steal and 1.35:1 ($2+$5+$10 in blinds,$10 more from kill call) if only the kill calls. The kill, however, gets 2.7:1 on "defending the kill button", while admittedly giving up position to you.. and the question is, if they are reasonable at ALL, does the hand the kill holds rate a 2.7 dog to your range of hands? If the kill will reraise you, you're putting in $30 to net $37 if the kill will call.. while the kill has to put in $20 with a reraise to net $47 (the kill is a dead blind, remember, along with your $30 and the two original blinds totalling $7) Someone correct my thinking here, because it feels as if I'm mixing apples and oranges with these calculations, but it doesn't seem to be THAT bad a deal for the kill at first blush. *** "Level 4: Dumping to the kill when in position can be an important tactic too. If you've got position over a half kill player and he bets at you, one strategy is to isolate and dump. This only works in rare cases, but here is the theory. Lets say you have a hand that might be the best, but probably needs to improve. Lets say you're holding AcTc on a flop of AhKh2c. The kill bets out at you. Normally you would be inclined to fold here and not chase a bad ace,. however you have the added insurance of knowing that you'll be in position on a kill pot if you lose, but only if you lose to the kill player. Thus the move becomes raising to knock out your opponents, gain the innitiative, and isolate the kill button. Now if the kill is on a single pair, he is liable to lose his agression and not want to play the hand so you are unlikely to be 3bet unless he is already on 2 pair or better and unless he improves you are likely to get a free card if the turn doesn't hit you. Now you might get a backdoor flush coming, hit your kicker, or catch nothing. If the kill bets the turn and it hasn't hit you, you can fold in good concience and still have the benefit of the kill pot while you are in good position. Naturally, this increases the value of playing a hand in the SB when a player has posession of the kill button, but only marginally. By isolating the kill you increase the chance of a kill pot that you will have the best of and you also increase the chance that you win the current hand, playing against the kill's desire to only play the best hands. " **** EZE- Good thinking here in general- I still wonder whether the "kill's desire to only play the best hands" makes sense. *** "Level 5: Playing in the kill pot isn't that different from regular play, except that the blinds are skewed. This means a number of things. Since the poster of the kill blind doesn't want to play (since if he wins he'll have to post it again), there is almost a guarantee to a raise for a steal." *** EZE- not if its MY blind, it isn't! " That means that if you have to be very tight in early position. Fold AJo and ATs. Fold KJs. Fold 99. It is far too easy for there to be a raise and reraise before the betting comes back to you and there are likely to be few players actually taking the flop. If, however it is unraised and the kill blind checks you can be looser because the kill blind will almost certainly release on the flop if not preflop to a bet and because you are now in a position to steal." *** EZE- this might be a misplay by the kill. *** "What this means is that a lot of hands can be raised if the pot is unentered. If the pot has been entered, you should play much like normal hold'em. Once the flop comes, the hand plays just like a half kill hand. You want to play against the player with the kill, however the advanced stakes make the post next hand less significant, so you should likewise diminish the attacks on the kill player." *** EZE- I guess you can do both by raising the kill while throwing in your hand? ;) This one isn't making sense to me right now. *** " When you are the kill, play weak. If somebody raises your kill blind, fold anything that isn't premium. I would only defend with AA, KK, QQ, and AK, unless there are a large number of players in the pot. If there are, you can defend with drawing hands, but the vast majority of the time there will not be. If you are in the big blind you are now going to have to play like you would play in the small blind in a regular game. If you are in the small blind, you should be especially willing to fold since the bet to you is very large and you are in the worst position. Play the small blind very selectively. On the puck, you should play very agressively. If the pot is unraised and you have decent cards you should often raise to knock out the blinds and try to fold the kill blind. However if your cards are not good enough to raise, you can still limp with a lot of hands as you're in position and will be in control of the situation. Playing the puck here really depends on table texture. If players are going wild on every kill pot you want to get out of the way more often. If they are playing scared of the kill then you want to really agress. " *** EZE- "agress"? No WONDER I can't make sense of your posts! ;) While I disagree with the "play weak" part, a lot of this looks good. *** "Level 6: Playing players who know how to play a kill is difficult indeed. If you know that a player is playing his kill button properly then you can use the tactics here against them, but they may use these tactics against you too. If you are betting out with a half kill on the flop, holding top pair, top kicker, and you get raised then you may want to bet out again on the turn to prevent an opponent from drawing free cards against you - if you think he is indeed shaky and trying to intimidate you. If you're on a kill blind and it is unraised to you, but your holdings are marginal, you might pre-emtptively raise (note: very dangerous move) to try to steal the blinds and win the pot there with it being too small to make you post kill on the next hand. Playing at level 6 requires true poker insight, but when you walk up to most kill games in a casino or online you normally find players who don't give any thought to the kill button at all. They see it as a random element that makes an interesting pot come up once in a while. If you play correctly with respect to the kill and they do not, it becomes yet another way to gain an extra edge over the game and increase your profitability. And since if you play it right, you'll play in many more kill pots than the fair share for those you contribute to and that means, essentially, free money." *** EZE- again, good thoughts, though the "playing at level 6" and "players who don't normally give any thought" seems like two separate ideas, not opposites of one idea. *** | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - part II, Easy E, 21. Jul 2003 20:39 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| (size problem, sorry about the split) ( Andrew Wells reply) "The reality is that most players will defend their kill to a single raise. Therefore one shouldn't expect someone who has posted the kill to fold your raise in front. Make sure any raise ahead of the kill is with premium cards." *** EZE a) I believe correctly ; b) Because of a); and c) definately. ** " There are also many players who will take the option to raise when they have posted a kill with hands that would at the regular limit be only worth a call. I am always looking for that sort of player, since a reraise from behind the kill will have a much better chance of isolating such a player than would otherwise. Hands like pocket sevens which would ordinarily go in the muck become reasonable three betting prospects now. Your position relative to the player with the kill is critical." *** EZE- If the kill is smart enough to be aggressive but not much else, this is really good advice. *** " There is no real value to limping in front of what is for practical purposes a third blind hand. Limping behind is still a matter of how many players are in the pot, just avoid this weakness when in front. It is much more difficult to steal three blinds from the button instead of two. Even if both the natural blinds fold, the prevailing irrational mindset is that folding the kill is wimpish." *** EZE- Generally agree. However, if I calculated properly earlier, then defending the kill may be less about wimpishness and more about pot odds? *** "I will personally defend those Kodak moments when I have to post a kill with anything I would ordinarily defend my big blind to a raise. If the raise comes from a player in front of me, there's nothing I will flat call with. It's simply three bets or in the muck, most often in the muck. " *** EZE- In a game with frequent kills, preferably with regular players as well, wouldn't mixing it up here (big suited connectors, primarily Ace-big, along with AA-QQ hands) help provide protection for other hands you might want to play out of the kill, such as higher-middle pairs and middle-high suited connectors such as T9 and JT? Being able to play these hands out of the kill also helps protect the bigger kill hands from thievery....yes? *** "If the raise comes from behind, I am more liberal and generally flat call if I'm going to see the flop. Many players miss the opportunity to take pots away on ragged flops when they have the kill. If you only defend with the best hands, such moves are not going to be credible. You are a blind hand with better position, and can pick on all but the loose/aggressive players this way." *** EZE- I still would suggest a mix here, though passive, "see the flop" strategy can be good here, especially if you're not a pushover post-flop. *** " Don't look at having to post subsequent kills as losing a BB from the pot, it is deferred money into the next hand that has a useful function there. Having the kill in your natural big blind position may look like a bargain, but it isn't." *** EZE- Both points are very good IMO. Don't overweigh the costs of the kill blind. Realize that the big blind puts in more to gain less.... unless it saves some of the small blind's equity for the big blind that aggressive players might normally try to steal. *** " Treat this situation like an ordinary big blind. From the small blind, you can loosen up quite a bit with a raise against the big blind heads-up, since that player is getting 2:1 instead of 3:1 to call. You also will also have the kill on the button (least undesireable position to post it) the next hand if you win. " (and in a later "reraise" of stdioh by AW) "Primarily because there are very few players who know how handle a situation behind three bets well without AA or KK. Also because many players still think of the money involved at the normal limit. They won't call $30 with AQ in a kill pot where they would call $15 in a non-kill pot. So the kill isolates out hands like AQ that don't belong anyway. Just about daily I see someone who throws in a call (on a kill hand) for the normal amount, only to be told by the dealer that this is a kill pot. Then they hem and haw about how they don't have that good a hand, take back their bet and muck." *** GOOD STUFF! **** EZE- In conclusion, I'm not sure if the statements about the cost of the kill are correct. I also have questions about the play of the kill. That being said, without the efforts of stdioh and AW here, I'm not spending the time to think about this and come up with my insightful/idiotic comments (I await everyone's thoughts on that!). Thanks to stdioh, especially, for his work here! ** NOTE to shorn- this took a LITTLE more time to come up with than my reply to you last week... say, 25 seconds..... :0 | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - part II, stdioh, 22. Jul 2003 10:35 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| You raise a lot of really good discussion here Easy. Thanks a lot. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - part II, Easy E, 22. Jul 2003 12:16 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| your post, and my counter-post, helped me think about this topic. Always good to do. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - part II, Andrew Wells, 22. Jul 2003 17:38 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| It's seems you've got a good grasp on the fundamentals of kill pot play. There's quite a bit more subtelty that I'm not going to elaborate on in this forum (yes I do keep a few things back). I am however in complete agreement with stdioh that having to post the kill is a net negative. Something like 75% of a big bet in aggressive games, or 25% in passive games may be a reasonable estimate. In kill games where all of the players are familiar (but not necessarily competent) with the increased stakes, I find it is more necessary to either make the first raise on a pot from the kill, or be prepared to check the option and backraise with a playable hand. The vast majority of experienced opponents read weakness when someone checks their kill post preflop (especially if no one has called between the blinds and the kill). This means you have to be considerably more inclined to raise out of the kill position with hands like KJ or 88. Checking and reraising with hands like AKs or QQ starts to become more strategically sound since you can expect to be attacked more often with weaker hands in a kill pot. It's also important to let the table know that a check doesn't always mean you are weak. Taking this concept to the limit we arrive at the controversial straddle UTG with the kill. If you play well after the flop, and are committed to often raising your kill - then it could be argued that deferring your immediate decision until after the blinds act (plus the pressure of making your opponents commit more preflop with corresponding reduction in implied odds) is sufficient compensation for the inherent negative involved in the conventional straddle. I don't miss the opportunity to straddle if I have to post the kill UTG against less than quality opposition. There are some "name" players out there who are also experimenting with this idea, and over the years it has served me nicely too. I've done this at limits as high as 10-20 with a half kill. There's also the shock value, which I have no way to rate. Lastly, there's the issue of manufacturing or maintaining a rush. Some writers advocate the benefit of changing gears, but don't get too specific as to how or when to accomplish this. Having the kill gives you an added reason to make a game shift, and takes the "when" out of the equation to boot. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - part II, shorn, 23. Jul 2003 05:08 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Strange argument that having to post the kill is a negative yet you are willing to straddle with the kill button. Aren't these in conflict with each other? I realize that you get the shock value and against weak opposition, it may get most to fold. But, is it really worth another 1/2 BB? Someone could wake up with a big hand behind you and then you have lost extra money for no reason. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - part II, Andrew Wells, 23. Jul 2003 07:49 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| It's not a true straddle since you are forced to put up half of such to begin with. You're giving yourself implied odds to continue against someone who raises. You defer your preflop decision until last. I wouldn't voluntarily put up a blind raise, but the situation has changed enough since I am required to post anyway. I'm undecided if this is better than just posting the kill, certainly it's controversial. I happen to be more aggressive anyway those few times I have the kill. I don't get the kill UTG much more than once a month, and the table texture isn't quite right about two out of three of these times. So it's something that I do infrequently, maybe four or five times a year. Just because I've had some success with this play doesn't necessarily make it right, but I'm going to continue to experiment with it. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - part II, shorn, 23. Jul 2003 07:59 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Good point. I had forgotten about the deferring of the pre-flop decision. Effectively, against the right competition you are increasing your chances of figting for the blinds heads up or winning them outright unless someone has a great hand in which case you are probably a serious dog. I can see the merit of this play against extremely weak competition. I don't think it would work in the game in which I play, but I may give it a try. Thanks. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - part II, Andrew Wells, 23. Jul 2003 19:55 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Actually what you are doing is insuring that no one will make a semisteal raise. You're going to call from the pseudo-straddle anyway because of your impiled odds, but now you won't be facing the quirky hands that players will try to steal with from late position. It's alot easier to play a trash hand that makes one pair with rags on the board when you don't need to be concerned that someone has a pair with a big card kicker. If you had just posted the kill and elected to check, then it almost guarantees that someone will take a shot at you. This way you get the information that it is a normal raise, and you still have the option to bump it again with a premium hand. If you just post your kill and have a raising hand, you will only get action from the sort of hands you don't want to be involved with anyway. Not to mention that you make it quite difficult on the natural blinds to play without something of decent value. The big blind is getting more than 3:1 pot odds with an ordinary straddle to overcome the positional disadvantage if it's heads-up. That's enough to see the flop against a random hand even if the straddler is prone to raise. With a kill-straddle the big blind is getting less than 2:1 to call which makes hand selection necessary. What usually happens when you make the kill-straddle is that you don't win the blinds uncontested. One or two players will call cold and the blinds fold. You are now more likely to get called the whole way by an unimproved ace if you flop a pair. A flop checkraise with rags on board is also going to get respected since many players are still thinking in terms of the ordinary betting structure. You can't go passive when you have jacked things up preflop unless you intend to fold, so if you are concerned about your variance - don't play this way. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - part II, stdioh, 23. Jul 2003 08:49 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| That is rather interesting. I've never thought of the value of straddling in a kill pot. Though I don't play in any cardrooms with live straddles anyway. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - part II, Andrew Wells, 23. Jul 2003 20:17 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| The floor let me do this for almost two years at the Mohegan Sun in the 5-10 full kill game. Then one day they passed a ruling that specificly prohibited just this form of straddle. Foxwoods has always allowed this. Everywhere I've played a kill game it has been a floor decision, since the dealers are always unsure how to handle this or the player on the big blind complains. At Ameristar KC the decision arbitrarily depends on who's managing the room, it's been allowed and prevented without discussion. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - a rebuttal? to stdioh and Andy part I, stdioh, 22. Jul 2003 10:24 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| You raise some really good points here. I do stick to the fact that you really don't want to play with a kill. You lose your 1 BB out of the current pot in that you know you are posting it. Yes, there is a chance you can play it, but if you are posting a bet and getting 2 random cards that is a -EV proposition to a fairly strong tune. You don't want to be posting a kill blind if you can avoid it. You really need to look at the pot as if it has had 1 BB raked out of it when determining your pot odds to chase a draw, etc. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - advanced strategy, shorn, 22. Jul 2003 05:09 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think you need to find a softer kill game to play in if you have to think this deeply. Not saying that most of your points aren't valid; however, I would be hard pressed to find 10 players in the game that I sit in who could even begin to understand what you were talking about. Also, in the kill games that I play in, it is an amount of the pot that determines whether or not you get the kill button next hand, not consecutive pots. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hold'em with a kill - advanced strategy, stdioh, 22. Jul 2003 10:36 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Indeed. When you play in most kill games they are soft enough that all you really need to do is adjust down your pot odds when you hold a half kill and take advantage of players doing goofy things because it is a kill hand. | ||
| 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 |
|