Re: [ba-poker] Analysis of half-kill games?

[Nick Christenson <npc(deleted the rest)>]

> Hi, all ?
> 
> I've started playing again (a little) after a pretty lengthy time off. 

Welcome back.

> The word around the cardroom is that the current action game is the 
> 8-16 with a half-kill. 

Sounds like a game structure conducive to action.

> I'm reluctant to jump in, though, before I have 
> some idea of what to expect. Given that I'm a relatively tight player, 
> isn't playing in a half-kill game going to be pretty much like giving 
> the dealer a huge tip every time I win a pot? 

Since the money is live, no, it's more like posting an extra blind.  
Some of these hands you'd want to play anyway, and with some of them
you'll get a cheap look at some cards with which you can get really
lucky.

You also don't mention the qualifier for a pot to be a kill pot.  This
is important.  Typically, the trigger for a kill is one or more of
the following criteria:
1) The pot is a sufficient size.
2) The winner scoops the pot.
3) The winner also won the previous pot.

If you're playing Hold'em and the trigger is criterion #3, then the
strategy is simple, play much tighter the hand after winning a pot.
This shouldn't cost you very much.

If the trigger is trivial, such as winning any pot larger than the blinds,
then basically you're playing a half-blind "rock" game where you can 
tape the chips for the kill together and just leave them in the pot.  
I think this is a reasonable way for a tight player to approach just 
about any kill game.

I think high/low split games where scooping one decent sized pot 
requires a kill are in some ways the toughest to adapt to.  Since 
scooping these hands are such a big part of winning strategy, the best 
strategy gets penalized a bit.  Still, there is such an advantage to
scooping that I don't think it changes strategies much, it's just
a tax on scoopers.

In blind games, be more likely than average to play pots that would 
qualify you for a kill in late position (where you'd be more likely
to play hands) and be less likely to play hands in early position
where you'd kill the pot out of position if you won the hand.  This
is less true when you'd be in the blinds where you get a discount
on your kill, in some sense.

When calculting pot odds on a hand where you'd have to kill if you 
won, just subtract the kill from the pot size before doing the math.
Then play the hand accordingly.

> And are there any 
> analyses on how best to deal with the kill, both playing your "blind" 
> hand and attacking someone else's kill?

I've found that most poor players playing kill games can be divided into
two types, those who fear kill pots and those who relish them.  Identifying
which is which is important.

With three blinds, there's usually more money in the pot to start with
in proportion to the structure than in a two-blind game, meaning that
under most circumstances one should be more inclined to play kill hands
(and play them more aggressively).

If I'm the first one to voluntarily enter a kill pot, and I enter after
the kill (who checks), I'll always enter for a raise if I'm going to 
enter at all.  You can put a lot of pressure on the two (small) blinds
and you're always in position against the kill.

These are pretty basic considerations, but I think they're enough to 
adapt well to a kill game.

Sounds like fun, good luck.

-- 
Nick Christenson
npc(deleted the rest)