Correct

When I played the 20 I always skipped my SB when this happened. Then one day a decent player asked why I did it and my answer was 'I haven't done the math but it has to be right.' Now I have confirmation!

Meh I might actually be wrong. I stink at that sort of stuff.

Meh, also, then. Avoiding putting money in blind, and in the worst position at that, just feels right. True, you get to play your button, but you get dealt a hand just shy of it for free. Feels right to me.

1) iirc when I used to play 9/10 handed games on the intertubes my button winrate was quite a bit bigger than my sb loss rate. doubt i have those DBs anymore though.

2) the free must move hands really punish the players who play long sessions when they're the ones who should be rewarded, but i'm also tilted when new players wait to post in the cutoff. i'd be so happy if new players had to wait for the BB or post both blinds.

and no, it doesn't make any ****ing sense not to give the must move player free hands at the new table if he chooses not to play his small blind and button. i've never seen that done anywhere. i can see an argument for it if he sits out those hands and takes 2 hands to stack his chips anyway, but if he's out of his seat when the SB hand is dealt he doesn't have a missed blind imo.

and yes, giving the floor the power to move players either right before or right after they take their blinds means they can easily cost/save regular players literally thousands over the course of a year. the smart floors know this. the must move is a dirty game.

Yeah there is a particular floor who favors certain players who tip him in my room who is all over giving certain players this option.

I see it all the time at commerce. If the next up on the must move list is a tipper, the chip runner is all over who is staying and who is going in the main game. Either that, or they will deliberately wait until the person is under the gun and then suddenly tell them to move after the seat has been open for a while. That’s why I stopped tipping some of them, they are so slimy when it comes to moving people.

I love DD's assessment/statements followed up with "eh I don't really know" and then a person mentioning their button WR.

Math is dead, folks!

Yeah I 100% deserve this, very sloppy and I am walking back my confident assertion. I do stick with free hands are bad and cause problems. Everyone should be treated like a new player at each table.

Stop being humble and better at poker than me.

It's insulting to the normies.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2.../#post55297311

Kill hand ethics question

Why do you consider this an "ethics" question?

As far as I can tell, the ruling on hand #2 is "You screwed up, but we'll just let it slide that this is a kill hand because the action has already passed through multiple players and we can't really undo it." The other option at that point is to re-deal the hand.

I don't see how making him throw in an extra amount of money in hand #3 accomplishes something meaningful. Even if he was forced to put in extra kill money in hand #2, it would have all come back to him. I just don't see the logic of the extra money. There would be a stronger argument that if he did NOT win hand #2 that he should owe some money.

But we'll see what the people in the thread have to say about it.

I think the floor made a bad ruling, and the original hand needs to be played as a kill pot. Dealer announced kill, so everyone who limped in front of the killer needs to put in a full call. You can't not kill it just because people aren't paying attention.

As ruled, no, killer just posts his single kill, the first hand was played as if it does not exist IMO.

Two folds (non) Killer raised I early position three people called before it was caught. Dealer didn’t stop action

You agree that he owes at least one kill, right?

LA regs, how's the limited hold 'em looking these days?

8/16 & 20/40 at LA's friendliest
8/16 & 20/40 at the Bike
8/16 & 20/40 at HG
8/16 & 15/30 at HP

I'll be back to donate some cash next month from the 8th-22nd.

If someone puts in any chips in LHE, that is a call of the full bet.

Kill was supposed to be 30. Killer out in 40 to raise everyone called 49.

In any event, that’s not the question. Floor rules what he ruled.

If he said "raise" that was a raise to 60, regardless of how many chips he put out. If he just put out the 40, that's a trickier situation, and is why I always announce my raises.

I think it’s clear he owes two kills. When you play in a kill game it is *your* obligation to post the kill. Him failing to post the kill, dealer prompted or not, and then raising is an angle shot and he should get no reward from it. Imagine how advantageous it is to “forget” your kill utg and then post it in the big blind for example.

I used to really like kill games but more recently I’m starting to think they are too much trouble. These things happen a lot and an ethical player who posts his kill voluntarily gets free rolled by lazy or slimy players who don’t do it unless the dealer reminds them. The dealer often forgets and it’s just a pain.

I completely agree with this.

The original hand should have been bumped up to a kill. Might be different if the killer acts last in your game, in which case the killer's open raise may have materially changed the action of the hand.

As ruled, I think it is close between making him post the kill once or twice. Getting it right in the original hand would have avoided this problem.

Just saw someone bet 95 in a huge pot on an AA772 board and get called by 44.

LHE is dead afaik.