Small casino (about 50 slots and 3 blackjack tables) attached to a resort in Puerto Rico with one poker table. Preflop you had verbally state "raise" to raise the blinds. Did not matter how many chips you threw out, no "raise" spoken you were held to a call. Once the pot was raised it changed to normal. Turn and river were normal as well.

I have played with this rule in pot limit omaha. Super annoying especially when people start minraising each other to cap the betting.

No, I'm not, you are, as usual.

Different States have different rules. People shouldn't be required to know all the traffic laws of New Mexico and Arizona if they want to drive from Texas to California.

Likewise, if a poker room requires a kill from someone who is not even dealt in, it is reasonable for that person to object.

but why would u ever post the kill if u weren't forced to? it's a massive incentive to walk esp if u r ep.

Well your objection would have some validity if they refused to deal you in. You seem to gloss over the fact that they would have dealt you in on the hand you owed a kill.

Yeah, I just wouldn't be there to play the hand. WE GENIUS!!!

Not even the worst rule in the room. Not certain of McPhillips, but Regent occasionally tries to enforce a "no talking, even when heads up" rule in cash games.

So in your version of a kill game you can just be dealt out every time you win a pot? Win a big pot, take a 5 minute walk and come back? Really defeats the purpose of the kill.

As far as must moves, you are basically saying must moves shouldn't exist. I prefer them, but I guess this is more subjective.

Wait a second, I think you're on to something. Are you telling me I can disregard all local traffic laws and when pulled over just say "Oops, I'm from somewhere else" and I won't have to pay the fine? Genius!

In rooms that run a MM "right", the MM table is generally short handed, and often wouldn't exist in the first place if MM weren't in place because they would want to keep people on the list to protect the main game.

once the table does fill and stay filled for a short period of time, though, that table is no longer a MM. so your primary objection seems to be mitigated if run this way.

Like hell they shouldn't. Or at least they should be on the hook for violating them even if they don't know them.

I do agree that the states should in some way give a best effort to have laws that are reasonable, and attempt to be consistent between them.

The best example is tinted windows on your car. As usual, you come up with a response that ignores the true complexity of the issue and then claim to have solved it.

Yes, that's exactly what would happen. Poker players are like that. In fact, there's a huge organization formed by poker players called "Walk, don't kill." It's becoming a threat to the industry.

What we need is some sort of a think tank filled with geniuses to defeat the "Walk don't kill" zombie monsters.

If you choose to leave that is you choosing to leave. You are making it sound like you weren't allowed to play the hand when in fact you choose not to play the hand.

Poker players should not be forced to contribute to a pot they are not competing for. It is simply a scam by the house to rake from a player who has left the game. Plain and simple.

This made me laugh.

You can't be forced to do this. You could walk away and just not play again until you post the kill.

I meant about the kill more than the must moves. I've never heard of a place that spread kill games where posting the kill wasn't mandatory. That makes it more than common; it's the standard. Just curious why you objected. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Um, no. At the Venetian Las Vegas you will be barred from the room if you leave the game without killing the next pot. That was my whole point; apparently you missed it.

Yes, you will be barred from the room...until you come back and post the kill (in a pot you are competing for, one would think).

It's what I said. You will not be able to play until you post the kill. If you continue refuse to post the kill you will continue to be barred.

Your response makes a lot of assumptions. What if I am seated at the MM and the main game is the one I want? Then some Johnny Come Lately off the list gets the seat that I want? You're presuming that the must move player really doesn't want to move.

Uhhhh, but they are, or they at least are on the hook for the penalty for violating them. Ever heard "ignorance of the law is no defense"? Do you think if you live somewhere prostitution is legal then get busted picking up a whore in Vegas, you get off the hook because you say "hey it's legal where I'm from!"?

If it was your world, how long would someone have to sit out for if they elected to be dealt out instead of posting the kill?

How is this kill pot argument even happening on a poker forum? Why not complain about having to post blinds?

Mostly because posting blinds doesn't depend on the results of the previous hand. You never decide that you're going to leave at your next BB, and then something happens and you're required to post another one. As opposed to a kill, where you can be on your last hand, win, and now you can't leave after all you have to post a kill.

That's actually not a problem, since table change requests take precedence over new players. But another individual has already detailed the optimal must move set up, which is that it only applies when the feeder table is short.

Casino del Mar in Chile

If a card is exposed during the deal at any point (by dealer error), automatic misdeal.

But sitting at a table with a kill means you've already agreed to post it after winning a hand. I don't get where there is any gray area.