Killin' the Main Pot

I have played in hundreds of poker rooms around the country, and have always thought that poker in general could use a set of standardized rules. Although I don't think it is possible to ever have all poker rooms using the same rulebook, I have always thought it possible that there could be some consistency in the way rules are enforced. Consistency is a word that I have often used, as I believe there is room for different rules, but there is a fine line that can be drawn between having different rules that apply to the same basic rule structure.

When I play live poker, I play a very wide variety of limits, from $3-$6 to $75-$150. A while back, during one of the major tournaments, I started the day playing $75-$150 Omaha eight-or-better with a third-kill. During a hand, one of the other players went all in on the flop, creating a side pot between the only other player involved and me. After my river bet, I showed the best hand for the side pot, but the all-in player had the best hand for the main pot, so he scooped the $500 pot. Because he had scooped the main pot (and it qualified monetarily for a kill), he posted the proper amount and the next hand became a kill pot.

Later in the night, after I had moved to a $20-$40 Omaha eight-or-better game with a half-kill, the same situation came up. This time, the all-in player had only $35 of the last $40 bet, creating a main pot of $765 and a side pot of $15. When the hands were turned up, the $765 main pot was scooped by the player who had gone all in. This meant that another player had won the $15 side pot. As the next hand was about to be dealt, I informed the dealer that it was a kill pot. To my surprise, not only did the dealer tell me it wasn't, but a few of the players also informed me that it was not.

Now, I realize that different cardrooms have different rules, but I have to admit that I had never experienced one room having different rules for different limits. I approached the floorman and was told that, yes, there were two different rules for the different limits. Games up to $20-$40 used a rule that stated, "If there is any split pot, there is no kill." The other rule applied to all games higher than $20-$40, and was consistent with the "correct" rule – that is, if a player scooped the main pot (and that pot qualified for the kill monetarily), the next pot would be a kill pot. The contradiction in the rules was a shock to me.

The rule for killing a pot should be: "If the main pot qualifies monetarily for a kill, and is scooped by one player, that player will kill the next pot." To allow a player not to have to kill the next pot because he went all in is allowing that player to avoid his obligation simply because he ran out of money. If a room decides to use a different rule, whereby any split pot voids the kill, that is fine, although it's not the correct rule, in my opinion. Having two different rules for different limits is confusing and unnecessary.

When I advocate consistency, it is usually for the good of poker in all poker rooms. Now, I realize that consistency is important not only between poker rooms, but within a particular poker room. As poker players, you are required to understand the different rules of different rooms. This can become somewhat complicated if you play in many different poker rooms in your area or travel to different rooms around the country. The last thing we need is not only to have to understand different rules for different rooms, but to have to understand different rules within each room.

Editor's note: Michael O'Malley can usually be found playing online at partypoker.com as Rzitup. To learn more about him, go to www.rzitup.com.