Tourney Big Blind Ante can't post his blind and the entire ante (8 Viewers)

[BGinGA]

Well, I think it's fairer that everyone pays what they owe. After exactly 20 rounds, how is it fairer that Billy only needed to pay 19 antes, then that everyone paid 20?

Never said it was fair, in fact, that's my exact point. The only fair way is to post individual antes.

It's also not fair -- and totally against the basic principles of poker and risk/reward -- to be forced to wager your entire stack with zero chance to win any money except your own wager, regardless of the number of active opponents in the hand.

 

[BGinGA]

the fucked-up rule change is quite popular over here. Literally every tournament I play at Choctaw (uses individual antes for now) I overhear someone ask “when are y’all going to switch to Big Blind ante like WSOP or winstar”

Yeah, because when one lazy player asks, that makes it quite popular. Nevermind the other nine who said nothing.

 

[justsomedude]

The shorty owes the table an ante, so pay up! If you then have anything left you may invest.

Technically speaking, the shorty only really owes HIS portion of the ante.

But let's be honest... the BB ante is a result of 1) a desire to speed up the game, and 2) historical laziness/incompetence from dealers when collecting antes. A BB ante really has nothing to do with poker strategy or fairness, and is primarily due to a desire to increase efficiency in tournament play. And shorty is being penalized for TD's not wanting to rely on dealers for ante collection. Dumb and not fair, but still the way the rules work.

That being said, a more fair way to do it would be to pay in, in this order: 1) player's fractional ante owed, 2) BB pay (as much as they can), and then 3) remaining table ante portion pay.

But no TD would ever implement that approach.

 

[ekricket]

Just forget about the “ante” designation and make it SB/4xSB for the blinds.
That’s what the BBA amounts to, and then it’s agreed upon stakes at the beginning of the tourney, and short stacks are handled just like no ante was ever introduced.
The SB/2xSB current format is just a preagreed wager, nothing sacred about it. It just provides stakes to play for in every hand. So just have everyone agree to raise the stakes.

 

[Marius L]

For those that have not had this discussion with @BGinGA before, let me save you some time. Just don't have the discussion of BBA with him. It's best for everyone.

You are right, I don't know what I was thinking.

Guess I'll just disagree with you on this one @BGinGA

 

[justsomedude]

Just forget about the “ante” designation and make it SB/4xSB for the blinds.
That’s what the BBA amounts to, and then it’s agreed upon stakes at the beginning of the tourney, and short stacks are handled just like no ante was ever introduced.
The SB/2xSB current format is just a preagreed wager, nothing sacred about it. It just provides stakes to play for in every hand. So just have everyone agree to raise the stakes.

Definitely prefer this approach. Because then the blind-short player can theoretically win the pot paid into by other callers.

And you're right, the "ante" term really doesn't make sense the way it's applied in BBA.

 

[BGinGA]

Just forget about the “ante” designation and make it SB/4xSB for the blinds.
That’s what the BBA amounts to, and then it’s agreed upon stakes at the beginning of the tourney, and short stacks are handled just like no ante was ever introduced.
The SB/2xSB current format is just a preagreed wager, nothing sacred about it. It just provides stakes to play for in every hand. So just have everyone agree to raise the stakes.

Queue @Legend5555 on why this doesn't work with his dead money price betting policy.

 

[sicilian_joe]

Thanks everyone for your input!
Now I'm curious how/if you do antes...I created a poll up top to see how you all prefer to do it in your home game tournaments.

 

[DoubleEagle]

Our home tourneys are no antes, BUT I prefer a BB ante. However, I have given in to the complainers that don't like or don't understand why they may be beneficial.

 

[Legend5555]

Queue @Legend5555 on why this doesn't work with his dead money price betting policy.

It's true, it's not the same. You can't raise the same amounts as you could with part of that being an ante.

 

[Frogzilla]

Yeah, because when one lazy player asks, that makes it quite popular. Nevermind the other nine who said nothing.

Thats not at all what I said. I dont record the conversations that followed, but my recollection is a bit of agreement that BBA is nice and questions about what the BBA is/specifics. What the rule if can’t cover both, etc. I don’t recall any complaints about them aside from this forum. And poker players are a group that complain.

I’m still curious where you played and it went poorly

 

[BGinGA]

I've been experimenting with table antes for a long time (going back 10 years or so), long before it became 'popular'.

Players often initially embraced it, but soon came to hate it when the inevitable flaws and inequities surfaced.

 

[Legend5555]

I've been experimenting with table antes for a long time (going back 10 years or so), long before it became 'popular'.

Players often initially embraced it, but soon came to hate it when the inevitable flaws and inequities surfaced.

Obviously the poker community at large is more willing to accept the downsides to speed up the game than you and the people you play with.

 

[Marius L]

Obviously the poker community at large is more willing to accept the downsides to speed up the game than you and the people you play with.

This basically speaks for itself

 

[Frogzilla]

I've been experimenting with table antes for a long time (going back 10 years or so), long before it became 'popular'.

Players often initially embraced it, but soon came to hate it when the inevitable flaws and inequities surfaced.

how big are the fields

 

[Poker Zombie]

WSOP does big blind first.

Since the TDA changed the rule following the 2019 WSOP, the WSOP may or may not use BB first anymore. Might want to wait until 2020 WSOP rules come out before declaring what the WSOP does.

Jack Eiffel, the WSOP TD was a proponent of BB first. Matt Savage (who championed the table Ante) adamantly supported ante first. Eiffel could go either way with his tournament, but once the TDA reached a consensus, I suspect that the WSOP will use Ante first. Otherwise it starts to breakdown the foundation of the purpose of the TDA, which Eiffel also chairs.

In other news, @BGinGA is right. Speeding up the game by creating a rule problem is like speeding up the game by not counting chips. "I have about 20,000" should never be followed with "give me a count", even when the short stack wins... because counting takes up too much time.

 

[APatHand]

I prefer everyone ante, when there is an ante.
That being said, only in instances where the players are aware enough to post their antes in a routine manner is this practical.
So, in cases where having every player post an ante is impractical (because of them being impaired or otherwise brain-dead) I would advocate big blind ante in board and draw games and dealer ante (or some other ante marker) in stud games.
Ante first!

 

[bigdonkey]

Just forget about the “ante” designation and make it SB/4xSB for the blinds.
That’s what the BBA amounts to, and then it’s agreed upon stakes at the beginning of the tourney, and short stacks are handled just like no ante was ever introduced.
The SB/2xSB current format is just a preagreed wager, nothing sacred about it. It just provides stakes to play for in every hand. So just have everyone agree to raise the stakes.

Isn't the point of antes to promote action by increasing pot odds? Doesn't this defeat that purpose? In this scenario, players would be calling 4 to win 5 vs. calling 2 to win 5 using antes.

 

[bigdonkey]

Actually, I don't necessarily disagree with the table ante concept itself (it works great for cash games, especially Stud variants), but I have yet to see a real-world application for tournament play that doesn't also introduce some type of inequity or is otherwise flawed.

Of all those tried so far (including my own version, see below*), none are superior to individual antes (or no antes whatsoever).


* I've found this to be the least offensive table ante approach for tournament play:

• Table ante equal to Big Blind for 7-10 players
• Table ante equal to Small Blind for 3-6 players
• Individual antes (equal to Small blind) for heads-up play
• Table ante posted by Small Blind position
• Small blind posted first before table ante amount

After the frustration of dealing with individual antes (which we only use in Stud tourneys), I've been experimenting with similar solutions, through our last two tournaments. First time, it was table ante all the way through. It wasn't a great idea heads-up, as one player could be forced to wager the ante and the bring-in and win nothing. So for the second tournament I switched to individual antes for the final 4. Coincidentally, 4th and 5th were eliminated on the same hand, so we only had individual antes for the final 3. While I would prefer individual antes throughout, I think switching to individual antes at some point (2 to 4 players), stikes a reasonable balance.

 

[Prenders17]

I’ve hosted a few home tourneys. I use Everyone Ante, because I think having antes at all is a better structure. I prefer how Everyone Ante plays to BBA, but it’s true that you get more hands in so I get the benefit. I’ve avoided implementing BBA because most of my players are rec players, and I don’t want to be the one to introduce it to them. The guys that really play keep asking for it though.

 

[Prenders17]

Also, if you think @BGinGA is bad, just ask Dan Negraneau. I’m pretty sure he and Matt Savage (President of TDA) had it out about the “Ante or BB First” issue on the Twitter.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Since I might anger a lot of members now, I apologize to everyone but here it goes

It's also not fair -- and totally against the basic principles of poker and risk/reward -- to be forced to wager your entire stack with zero chance to win any money except your own wager, regardless of the number of active opponents in the hand.

But you do win from everyone what you wager yourself. It's just that you first pay what you owe in dead money. In all gambling, if you wager 0, you win 0. As you should.

Technically speaking, the shorty only really owes HIS portion of the ante.

No, that would be individual antes. In order to enjoy a full round with dead money each hand, he must pay up the full ante.

Just forget about the “ante” designation and make it SB/4xSB for the blinds.

That would be the same as just having half the SB and halving everyone's stacks. Not the same as having full stacks but dead money in every pot.

And you're right, the "ante" term really doesn't make sense the way it's applied in BBA.

Sure it does, there's dead money in the pot preflop.

Speeding up the game by creating a rule problem is like speeding up the game by not counting chips.

That far worse, so not the same thing. The ante or BB first is an extremely small problem.

Isn't the point of antes to promote action by increasing pot odds?

Yes, that and being able to enjoy lower blinds without prolonging the tournament. You get a bit deeper play with antes since you don't need as high blinds to end the tournament at X hours.

 

[justsomedude]

I think at one point I said BBA is a solution looking for a problem.

This post is pretty much the proof of that theory...

Since I might anger a lot of members now, I apologizeto everyone but here it goes


But you do win from everyone what you wager yourself. It's just that first pay what you owe in dead money. In all gambling, if you wager 0, you win 0. As you should.


No, that would be individual antes. In order to enjoy a full round with dead money each hand, he must pay up the full ante.


That would be the same as just having half the SB and halving everyone's stacks. Not the same as having full stacks but dead money in every pot.


Sure it does, there's dead money in the pot preflop.


That far worse, so not the same thing. The ante or BB first is an extremely small problem.

Yes, that and being able to enjoy lower blinds without prolonging the tournament. You get a bit deeper play with antes since you don't need as high blinds to end the tournament at X hours.

 

[Mr Winberg]

I think at one point I said BBA is a solution looking for a problem.

This post is pretty much the proof of that theory...

Well, it does speed up the game!

 

[Poker Zombie]

Well, it does speed up the game!

Does it make it faster than no ante? If speed is the concern, no ante is the solution to the time consuming ante.

But you do win from everyone what you wager yourself. It's just that you first pay what you owe in dead money. In all gambling, if you wager 0, you win 0. As you should.

I do agree with this point. Once my new chips are ready, I will be introducing the BBA (for use only when that set is in play), simply because it is the future of poker, for better or worse. May as well get some experience with it at $20 before encountering it in a $300 tournament.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Does it make it faster than no ante? If speed is the concern, no ante is the solution to the time consuming ante.

This is true! But I meant "...without losing the benefits of antes".

 

[BGinGA]

This is true! But I meant "...without losing the benefits of antes".

And what you should have said is, "without losing the benefits of antes, but while adding new and unnecessary problems."

 

[BGinGA]

And just for the record, I'd be a lot less vocal about having this shoved down our collective throats if the 'powers-that-be' were a little more concerned about the real-world implications of their decisions.

But they poo-poo any valid concerns about the residual effects of the BBA, or ways to help minimize them -- such as the effective increase in ante cost per level (it can be significant when compared to individual antes for tables with fewer than 10 players), and the major impact it has on three-handed and (especially) heads-up play.

It's not just a simple time-saver. It significantly changes the game play, and not for the better imo.

 

[Mr Winberg]

And what you should have said is, "without losing the benefits of antes, but while adding new and unnecessary problems."

...with the clarification that:

The ante or BB first is an extremely small problem.

I think the bottom line is: Are these problems (some of which the majority of players habe never even encountered, like BB or ante first) small enough that it's worth it to enjoy a few more hands per hour and less cumbersome antes? This is a subjective question, so it's hard to convince people one way or another. Everyone needs to decide for themselves.

 

[BGinGA]

...with the clarification that:


I think the bottom line is: Are these problems (some of which the majority of players habe never even encountered, like BB or ante first) small enough that it's worth it to enjoy a few more hands per hour and less cumbersome antes? This is a subjective question, so it's hard to convince people one way or another. Everyone needs to decide for themselves.

Read the post you missed. There are a lot more issues involved than just when a player unable to post both a blind and an ante (which isn't as trivial as you claim).