I've seen weak players who were returning from a break start to post the BB, then realize that it was a kill pot, and sit out again. Intuitively, this seems wrong to me, but I've discussed it with several good players and we can't seem to come to a consensus.

If had a choice each time, would you have your big blind be a kill pot or not?

If I had a choice, I would kill it every time. It's like posting a sb instead of a bb since the stakes are doubled, not to mention additional dead money in the kill blind. My friends contend that it's tougher to realize your equity in a kill pot since you never get to see a free flop when people play passively, and the dead money incentivizes aggressive play.

To me, that's a good thing: you have posted a smaller amount relative to the stakes, so you're less compelled to see flops with crappy hands. This is why winrates are higher in the SB than the BB, despite the positional disadvantage.

What do you guys think?

Free look is better.

I don't believe this is true.

I've just gone over old Poker Tracker numbers for online 6max: My loss rate in the BB is twice as much as my loss rate in the SB; but my win rate ex money posted in the BB is more than twice as much as my win rate ex money posted in the SB.

Loss rate in the BB is larger than loss rate in the SB because, well, the BB is larger than the SB.

No one knows how to play kill pots.

The answer is obvious. Would you rather post when there is a 2nd poster?

I would actually stop discussing strategy with people so backwards and put them in the 'don't tap their glass' box.

I'm discussing strategy with other 2p2ers outside of the casino, I'm not berating people who decide not to post their bb in a kill pot.

Having a chance of seeing the flop for free must be better than having to put money to see the flop. This has to be obvious, right?

This was my point. SB has a higher absolute winrate because less money posted in relation to the stakes, despite being in the worst overall position postflop. So if you could choose to be a second SB instead of a BB, wouldn't you take this option every orbit?

I think excluding money posted will just reveal the BB's positional advantage. This is especially true for 6max games, since BB will have position postflop in any BvB situation. This alone should account for the ex-posted WR being more than twice as good.

How is putting a full small bet in before you receive your cards "free?"

Your assumption I believe is correct. If in a 4-8 structure you had the option to only put out 3 chips instead of 4 in the BB would you not do it because you'd have to call one more chip in a limped pot to see a flop? No, your saving a chip when there are raises and 3 bets pre flop and you cant call profitably. All thats happening is your getting discounted the relative size of the kill increase.

Having the option to take a chip off from your BB whenever you were going to fold would be better than not having that option?

In both cases you post the same BB amount. After that, in one case you could see the flop for free, in the kill case you have to put more money to see the flop.

Would you want to put out twice the size of the BB because you get to see raised pots preflop for free?

That option would be good, but we don't have that option. After posting we have to put more money in a kill to see the flop in a limped pot.

The kill removes the 2nd best possible scenario (the limped pot). Then against a raise (assuming same range) we have to fold more (as if we are SB).

To top it off, the option to chop is eliminated (best case scenario for BB) with a kill.

How can any of this be better?

People limp in kill pots all the time. It's advantageous to have less than a full bet out there, so we can be selective with which hands we play.

You are arguing that it's better to have a half SB (kill) out instead of a full SB during a kill. These are not your options!, if they were of course the half SB is better than a full SB.

The comparison is between posting the same amount of money on the BB: one with the kill on, one with the kill off.

The stakes double during a kill pot. So what was a full small bet at normal stakes is now a half small bet at the current killpot stakes.

I never implied differently. You are just not reading what I'm writing.

This isn't an option, but if it was it'd be better for us (as you say) to put one BB instead of two. The OP is arguing a similar point even though those aren't our options.

The question isn't "Are you better off posting your big blind in a kill pot than in a regular pot?" anywhere near so much as "Are you better off posting your big blind in a kill pot than sitting out and waiting for your next blind," because that in fact the choice that a player really faces. (I'm presuming that posting both binds in the cutoff is so obviously bad that it isn't worth considering as an option.)

The question the OP is actually asking has an obvious answer: obviously, since we will be defending our big blind less often in kill pots, we will obviously realize our equity in the blind we have posted less often, and that therefore we are obviously worse off posting our blind in a kill pot than a normal one.

I'm not asking what the best hourly-rate decision is for myself, I was just curious if theoretically, the nits are onto something when they run and hide from posting the blind in a kill pot, or if they're actually passing up an opportunity to play higher stakes for a cheaper price.

I don't think realization of equity is the only factor to consider. Defending the big blind 100% is the best way to ensure that our equity is realized, but obviously that strategy has a lower expected value than being selective.

I agree with you're analysis.

If big nits don't want to post their blind when it's a kill pot, then they should probably find a different game.

After 22 messages arguing this position, the only obvious thing now is how NOT obvious this answer is for some.

Regarding the waiting an orbit, some casinos allow the posting of only the BB on the cutoff for 8/16 games and lower when you miss both blinds (I've never understood the rule or how it doesn't get abused)

I'm not understanding this part of your post... I'm sure it's just me, but could you please explain this part of it again? I mean, if "people are playing passively," doesn't that mean you WILL get to see a free flop much of the time?

Thanks...

Alan, I don't think it's an obvious answer. Assuming our options are posting or waiting a full round, if we elect to wait you have to consider how much we lose by not playing a full round. In good games, this can often be quite a bit.