kill games

[EJXD2]

What benefit does the kill have to players? Are there certain types of players (LAG, SuperAg, etc.) that figure to do better in games with a 1/2 or full kill?

I never minded playing in a kill game, but I've always thought a kill pot had some added value if played a certain way against bad players.

Any thoughts?

[bobbyi]

Loose players win more pots since they are involved in more pots. Therefore, they have to post the kill more often. This is bad for them and good for tight players.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
Loose players win more pots since they are involved in more pots. Therefore, they have to post the kill more often. This is bad for them and good for tight players.

[/ QUOTE ]

sort of, but if it was a regular game, they're throwing those chips in anyways, right? In other words, there are going to more instances where a tight player will be putting in a blind where they normally would have folded. know what I mean?

I might be going thinking too deep on this, though

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
sort of, but if it was a regular game, they're throwing those chips in anyways, right? In other words, there are going to more instances where a tight player will be putting in a blind where they normally would have folded. know what I mean?


[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, no. What do you mean?

You realize the limit doubles in a kill game, right? This puts more of the donators money in the pot quicker. Which is why a kill game has the greater potential to bust out bad players than a regular game.

The tight player will post the kill the least.

b

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sort of, but if it was a regular game, they're throwing those chips in anyways, right? In other words, there are going to more instances where a tight player will be putting in a blind where they normally would have folded. know what I mean?


[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, no. What do you mean?

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand what he means and it does have some merit.

My argument is that a kill structure penalizes loose players by forcing them to post money blind preflop more often than tight players.

His counterargument is that since loose players play so many bad hands pf anyway, being forced to post doesn't hurt them because they would put the money in regardless. Imagine a hypothetical player who sees 100% of flops. He doesn't lose much by being forced to post the kill because he would be sticking his money in there whether he were the kill or not. The tight player is hurt more on each individual occassion that he is forced to post a kill because it is more likely he now has to pay for a hand he would normally fold. Therefore, even though tight players have to post the kill less often, they are hurt more by it each time so they potentially do worse overall.

There is some logic to this, but in a real game, I still think that it works out such that the kill hurts loose players. Not only are they forced to post money with really bad hands they wouldn't usually play (since few people actually play 100% of their hands), but this also results in them seeing more flops with bad hands which will result in them losing tons of extra money postflop by playing badly with a bad hand. OTOH, the good player will play well postflop when forced to post a blind and win some of his blind money back (in equity), so this largely offsets the fact that being forced to post the kill hurts him more preflop than a bad player who might be playing bad hands regardless.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
Uh, no. What do you mean?

...

The tight player will post the kill the least.


[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that; my point is that the kill is forcing the loose players to make a mistake that they're going to make anyways.

as an extreme example if a player has a 100% VPIP, the kill does not affect him in the least. so the kill has no effect on him.

while a tight player posts the kill the least, there are more instances where he will be posting a kill in a lot more situations where he wouldn't have called anyways.

edit: I should have read bobbyi's post before responding, good points

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sort of, but if it was a regular game, they're throwing those chips in anyways, right? In other words, there are going to more instances where a tight player will be putting in a blind where they normally would have folded. know what I mean?


[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, no. What do you mean?

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand what he means and it does have some merit.

My argument is that a kill structure penalizes loose players by forcing them to post money blind preflop more often than tight players.

His counterargument is that since loose players play so many bad hands pf anyway, being forced to post doesn't hurt them because they would put the money in regardless. Imagine a hypothetical player who sees 100% of flops. He doesn't lose much by being forced to post the kill because he would be sticking his money in there whether he were the kill or not. The tight player is hurt more on each individual occassion that he is forced to post a kill because it is more likely he now has to pay for a hand he would normally fold. Therefore, even though tight players have to post the kill less often, they are hurt more by it each time so they potentially do worse overall.

There is some logic to this, but in a real game, I still think that it works out such that the kill hurts loose players. Not only are they forced to post money with really bad hands they wouldn't usually play (since few people actually play 100% of their hands), but this also results in them seeing more flops with bad hands which will result in them losing tons of extra money postflop by playing badly with a bad hand. OTOH, the good player will play well postflop when forced to post a blind and win some of his blind money back (in equity), so this largely offsets the fact that being forced to post the kill hurts him more preflop than a bad player who might be playing bad hands regardless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

I don't see a tight player doing worse or being hurt worse than looser players overall happening. They simply don't post enough kills in comparison to the others to make that true. The trade-off is way to the side of the tight players.

The thing is about his counter-argument(this might be repetetive with your post here), with the limit jumping up, they will lose their money faster. So it does make a difference than if they just lost it during the regular limit. They are putting more money up at one time. the variance may actually be a little smaller for the tighter player than in a regular game. Longterm, that is.

Btw...they already took the kill off the 3-6 game at mucks which is mostly littered with beginners and bad players. Psychologically, the limit going up can also affect players quite a bit when they aren't used to playing a higher limit normally. Especially when they're losing money at a faster rate.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
as an extreme example if a player has a 100% VPIP, the kill does not affect him in the least. so the kill has no effect on him.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong.

Sure it affects him. He loses money at a faster rate than if the limit stayed the same. As an extreme example, this is why people bust out faster in a No limit/pot limit game than a limit game.

b

[bobbyi]

Having a kill alters both the structure and the effective stakes of the game. We were discussing just the structural effects of the kill. Increasing the stakes is clearly better for the good player. It's similar to the argument that being shortstacked in no limit gives you a structural advantage over several deepstacked players. Even though this is true, if you are better than them you would rather also have a deep stack and trade away your structural advantage for what is essentially a bigger game. But it doesn't change that fact that there is an inherent advantage to being shortstacked just like for a tight player there is an inherent advantage to a kill, even holding the stakes constant.

[Niediam]

Don't forget that some players find it fun to kill the pot and will play hands that they wouldn't usually play if they have the kill button.