Quote:
Originally Posted by ninefingershuffle
He posted the kill on the fourth hand - he was supposed to post it on the third (which he also won) but “forgot.” Had it been done correctly, he would have posted on the third and then again on the fourth since he also won that hand.
The reason he should post a kill at least once is because it is largely dead money since you only win your own kill a percentage of the time.
Sorry. My hand count is off by 1. I've been thinking of the kill hand as the second hand when it's the third hand. So let me clear the slate and try again:
Hand 1: Player A wins a pot
Hand 2: Player A wins a second pot in a row.
Hand 3: Should be kill, but is not as ruled by the floor. Player A wins.
Hand 4: Player A posts a kill, but does not win the pot.
The claim that the player owes another kill is the claim that the kill of Hand 2 is being paid on Hand 4 instead of Hand 3, and so the kill of Hand 3 should be paid on Hand 5.
I don't think it's reasonable for the floor's ruling to cascade forward like that. Player A fulfilled his obligation to post the kill on Hand 4, and that's the end of the obligation. The fact that he won the hand and would have had to post the kill anyway was just luck.
Here's another way to think about it: Suppose that Player A tried to get up after Hand 3 without posting a kill. He really can't do that because the floor has already told him he's committed to post the kill in the next hand. This has every appearance of trying to pull a fast one. He has to put money in Hand 4 because the floor has obligated him to do so.
But now let's say he plays Hand 4 and wins. Now he tries to get up and leave. I know it's socially frowned upon to leave when you get the kill, but (as far as I know) there's no rule against it and the player doesn't owe anything to the pot if he were to leave. (And here, I don't mean leave to take a walk, but leave the casino.) He posted the blind in the pot that the floor obligated him to post in.
And so I don't see a compelling reason to force the player to put money into the pot on Hand 5. He fulfilled his obligation with the floor. Everything is now back to normal.
In general, I don't like the idea of cascading rulings. The scope of rulings should be as narrow as possible so that there's no ongoing obligation to track. Let's say Player A goes on a heater and wins the next 100 hands. Do you think it's reasonable to tell him that he still needs to post a kill on the next hand because of something that happened 100 hands ago? I don't think that's reasonable.