He posted the kill on the third hand, right? That's the one that he owes, and he paid it. I don't think it makes sense to "back-owe" kills from previous hands. When the floor ruled that the previous hand was a non-kill hand, it means that he didn't owe the kill for that hand.

Let's say he threw in the kill money on the previous hand. He ultimately won that hand, and it would have just gone back into his stack. I don't see how you "fix" that after the floor throws out the kill on hand #2.

That doesn't mean the ruling for hand #2 is right. But given that decision, I can't see any way of justifying that he needs to put more money into the pot.

If the majority of the players are trying to avoid the kill either by playing tighter or cheating, then the game is probably better without it. This has not been the case for most kill games I've played.

Agreed. The main thing I like about it is it makes the game bigger. But I end up having to be the table cop and make sure everyone posts their kill etc.

This seems like the right answer. If it is the player’s responsibility to know when it’s a call then essentially they’ve all acted but need to put in the right amount of chips.

As ruled, he only “owes” one kill because the hand was allowed to play out as not a kill pot. That’s how it would be ruled in the games I’ve played anyway.

The only justification I can think of for making him post the kill is if the kill is a dead kill. In that case, it can be paid in whatever pot and it makes no difference. But I've never seen that.

I can't really wrap my mind around making him post a kill in the hand after a pot he did not win.

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.

My opinion is slightly jaded because I think he angled his way into trying to avoid the kill altogether. Dealer looked at him and told him to post kill. Nice guy but pulls tiny angles all the time. But if he had posted the kill correctly in hand 3 he would have had to post a total of two kills ($60 total) and I don’t want to see a ruling that lets him get away with posting only $30.

Granted he would have won a much much much bigger pot in hand 3, but that’s his own fault.

You’re going on and on about the kill and yet you have no idea that a player has to post a kill even if they leave the casino. lol

I imagine this is casino dependent

I've never seen this rule in writing or enforced. This doesn't mean it's not out there. I've just never encountered it.

Apparently, it's in Robert's Rules of Poker, but I'm not sure how much guidance this provides to modern poker.

http://www.pokercoach.us/robspkrrules4.htm

The reason for my skepticism has to do with the fact that there are many other things in here that I've also never seen in kill games.

The killer often acts after the blinds preflop.

I'm pretty certain I've never seen this.

I'm very certain I've never seen this. I don't think I've ever sat in a game where someone can agree to kill the next pot.

Well today was a fun one. About 2 hours into the session, I pick up AA in the SB. Bad LAG raises, solid pro 3! in the CO to isolate. As I’m four betting, they announce that the daily high hand promo is starting. Flop comes AAx, I bet it down and don’t get called on the river but my quads hold up for the high hand (first one is double).

So I go to lunch, come back and at the end of my first orbit back I get the same two aces UTG. I only get called by the bad SB and flop quads again on an AA3 board. The turn is a 5 and I get to b/3!/5! and of course get the river call from 42. It holds up again and I get my second high hand of the day.

Add on a +30BB day and a +100BB week so far and let’s just say that i like pretzel day.

I’ve seen it a bunch, although I’ve definitely seen it not enforced.

Wait -- doesn't your card room have a leg up/kill button? Having to keep track of the kill mentally sounds awful. Your room should invest $20 in some kill buttons, problem solved.

You think the existence of a button means the kill gets posted 100% of the time when it's supposed to?

Of course not but if it’s the case that a room doesn’t have kill buttons (which I doubt is the case here) then that would be really dumb.

Agree but I don't see any reason to think they don't have them

What I find annoying about Kill games is the difference in how the Kill is treated. There isn't a standard. The two cardrooms in my area treat Kills completely differently and that's frustrating when I try and go out of the area and find, yet again, another variation of the Kill.

Kills me.

Well, I explained this scenario to the lead floor and had it confirmed that they would actually make the person pay two kills. I’m surprised.

That’s what the ruling ended up being as well. And yes there is a kill button.

Wow. What a gross spot.

+1


All this kill talk is thoughtful and makes a ton of sense logically. Emotionally, it has zero connection. The kill games I've spent the most hours in featured the fun players actively defending their legs up and their kills. Can't tell you the number of times a guy with an atypical hand would show on the river to win the pot and explain, "I had to defend that button. Now we get to play for more money!" Then, every kill hand gets capped preflop. That's what a kill game feels like. Even decent players seem to get sucked in at times, though maybe this is just a sign over being over-generous assigning people to the decent camp.

This part might bias me about all the rest -- the guy should definitely not be rewarded for angling. He should get a "fair outcome" at best, and punished in some way would be better.

Right - this is why I love kill games. Much like tournament structures rec players actively dislike things that save them money and are excited about things that are magnifying their loss rate.

Kill games are just great. The fish play extra bad and most otherwise reasonable regs also play extra bad. Very few adjust even close to correctly.