I play 4/8 and 8/16 LHE with a 1/2 Kill in LA. Whoever wins two pots in a row has to post a blind equal to 1.5 SB on the next hand (as long as the second won pot is not too small) and the bets are also increased by 1.5. That is 4/8 becomes 6/12 and 8/16 becomes 12/24. in effect, there is a penalty for winning two pots in a row since the Kill is essentially an extra blind and we all know how profitable being the blind is.

My question is: What hands should one play when one has the Action Button that is, when one will be the Kill if the next hand is won? I have formulated a rule to, in general, only play those hands that I would normally raise with, thereby ensuring that I only play hands that will, on the average, win more that the expected Kill Penalty (one SB on average?) This narrows my starting hands when I have the Action Button down to ATs+, KQs, TT+, AQ+, & KQ.

What do you think?

It entirely depends on position, players etc. Think of the proposed kill as some additional rake - so pretend that whatever you have to post as kill is rake in the current pot and adjust accordingly.

I don't think a half bet is a big enough penalty for me to adjust too much. I play in full kill games were it starts to become significant. I don't have set rules. If it's a marginal spot I may chuck it. I don't want to have a rigid system were I am passing up profitable situations.

Post some example hands and we can discuss it better.

I generally agree with this, especially if it's a good kill game where players lose their minds in kill pots.

I have been playing more 8/16 half kill lately and I have found it to be highly profitable to fight for the kill pots. I like to find excuses to play kill pots and will loosen my raising and calling range a bit. That being said, the pool I play against is weak to begin with so it's probably just confirmation bias.

I tighten up considerably in EP if I've won the previous pot. Late position w/ more info I play my regular style.

It depends on how your opponents adjust. At lower stakes, I’ve found that players tighten up consideratably

This reads as if you think he's talking about play when the kill is on whereas he's asking how tight he should be when entering a pot that will make him post a kill when he wins.

Or I might not get your point.

You are correct.

My question was: how to play the Action Button knowing that a win comes with a 1.5 SB post. If I'm not the Killer, I play my usual game when the Kill is on, although one could make a case for loosening up a bit since more dead money (an additional blind) is in the pot.

Another factor to consider: the 4/8 game I play in has an average drop of ~$5: $1 minimum, $6 on the flop, and $7 on the turn. In addition, the dealer expects at least a $1 tip. So one can only play hands that win $6 on average. If you have the Action Button then you can only play hands that win $6 plus the average cost of a $6 post, say $4. Therefore, you can only play hands that win $10 on average. I think that limits you to the top 10%-15% of starting hands.

Comments?

You should tighten up as you suspected. Your listed range looks pretty good. Which position you'd be in as the killer makes some difference.

Yes - I understand. My playing range was a simplification or, if you prefer, what I would play in middle position after one or two callers. In reality, If I had the Action Button and six players had already called before me, I would also play any pair and any suited ace.

Position doesn't make "some" difference; it makes lots of difference. Posting a kill on the button is awesome, so it may well be correct to actually loosen up some if you are in the small blind with the action button. Posting in the cutoff is rather less awesome, and it gets less and less so as your position gets worse and worse.

Probably the worst position to hold the action button is UTG+1.

UTG is rather better off, because they are going to be the big blind next hand anyway, so the winner's tax is just half a bet, and the hand is going to play, proportionally, like a normal hand except with a tiny small blind. I think I'd rather post a kill on the big blind than I would in the cutoff, but I think it's close.

I'd rather post a kill on the BB that anywhere else; don't really get why it is so wonderful on the button. On most buttons I still generally play a very small percentage of my hands.

How small is a very small percentage?

I agree that the big blind is probably the best position to pay the kill on since you're already going to be putting most of that money in.

But the button cannot be worse than the third worst position to get the kill on, and it's probably significantly better than UTG because of the value of position.

Hmm, I don't know, maybe "very small" is an understatement, but I play tighter than I guess a lot of people do on the button, and I am never thrilled to post a kill like some people seem to be. I'd definitely rather post a kill on the button than in a non-blind position.

In general I play somewhat tighter when I have the leg up (or the"action button" as referred to here), especially in a full kill game, but it is definitely tough to qualify how much tighter. It is funny how in some 20/40 kill games I have played, many people actually play looser with the leg up, as if it were a privilege to post an extra blind so they want to go out of their way to do it!

This is probably -EV. Unless you think you're -EV when you have the kill, in which case it might be +EV.

There can be strategic merits to this. If you believe it's possible to be +EV while straddling (for example, because straddling causes the other players to play more poorly and you have enough of a skill edge), then it can be possible for it to be +EV to get kill pots.

I play the same either way. I assume that if I have an edge at the table, then on average I should have an edge even if it's a kill pot. I just don't go out of my way for them. I just play each hand for what it is without concern of the button. I expect that the overall impact is close to negligible.

I certainly do think this. Everyone loses money in the big blind, and I think it can be easily carried over tha everyone loses money when they post a kill blind.

I don't think such a conclusion is warranted. For example, it would ignore anything value related to position. Specifically, being in position against a raiser allows you to defend your blind far more liberally and far more effectively. Being out of position is one of the main drivers of why blind play is more difficult.

If the big blind always posted on the button, I think it would make the big blind a profitable situation (and I don't think it would be that close).

Edit: Consider the following -- Take whatever your BB/100 is from the button. Then look at your VPIP. Let's say that you're playing 30% from the button. This means 70% of the time, you're folding. Let's say that you lose 1 SB on those 70% of hands because you're posting a blind. This means that you lose an extra 70 SB in 100 hands = 35 BB/100 hands. In softer games, I think your BB/100 from that position is going to be very close to that. And this is the most pessimistic view of your play. It assumes that you just fold even if it's limped to you or you always fold to a raise.

Even if the profit you make in your good button hands would outweigh the amount you lose on your bad ones, I don't see how that implies that putting in money with the bad ones is a good idea. You will still make that money even without the kill when you voluntarily play the good hands. With the kill the amount you make on the good hands will be increased, but that doesn't prove it will be enough to more than cancel out the amount you lose on the bad hands.

Some places allow a button straddle. I know there are reasonable players who believe that it is profitable, but I can't imagine that it is always profitable, for all players. Do you think it would be? If your regular game allowed button straddles, would you always post one? I certainly wouldn't, but I am open to the idea that it would be profitable to do so.

I don't claim to have "proven" anything. I'm suggesting it's not unreasonable to remain profitable. And there are other things that being the kill can do. For example, some players tighten up when there's a kill. This means that your blind is more protected than usual. Other players just play badly when there's a kill. That's more profit.

My bottom line is this: I don't think that it's reasonable to make significant adjustments for the kill button. I don't think there's enough reasonable information to believe strongly that it's much better or much worse to have it. I'll just play my normal game and if the kill happens then it happens. It's maybe once an hour at best that I'm going to win two pots in a row? So it's just not a significant issue.

Notice the clause. This tells me everything I need to know about your position. I'm making no blanket generalizations to all players. Since most players are losers, it would be best for them to not play at all.

I might. It depends on how the game is playing.

The bolded is the only concession I'm looking for.

As the game gets more short-handed, I think the advantage to a button straddle goes up. In fact, I seem to recall that there was significant discussion about 3-handed games with a straddle being strongly favorable to the button. (This is a memory of a discussion from years ago, so it could be something that's not a thing in reality.)

I wasn't trying to imply that anything you said was incorrect, just that I found it insufficient to counteract my intuition the posting a kill, even on the button, would be unprofitable. It would take some thing closer to a mathematical proof to do that for me.

I remember the discussion of the 3 handed straddle as well, and though it wasn't actually proven that it was profitable, I found it convincing enough that I tried it myself one session.

I don't know that it could ever be "proven" but I think consensus was that it was very likely true for two primary reasons.

(1) The other two players have a significant up front investment to even attack the button's blind.
(2) The other two players have to play out of position for the rest of the hand.

I agree. Unfortunately the one time I tried it, I ran so terribly that only 2 of about 20 of the buttons I straddled were hands I would have played otherwise. 18 were hands like 72o, 93o, etc. Argh, after 7 years the memory still lingers...

In some clubs, one can straddle under the gun. In a three handed game, straddling under the gun is straddling on the button. I love straddling on the button, especially if the player in the big blind is the live one. It makes me look like a gambolero, but I am convinced that it is actually positive-EV.

Killing on the button is a lot like straddling on the button.

I think killing on the button is awesome because of the advantage of absolute position. It means (in some clubs, at least) we get to act last before the flop as well as after. If there is a raise in front of us, it is correct to call one bet with pretty much any two cards, which means that no one else can steal.

The easiest way to approach it is to reduce your implied odds by the amount of the kill and play appropriately.