Tourney BTN Ante Tournament Structure Help (1 Viewer)

[CraigT78]

I am hosting a 3 table event next week in which I want to try an ante tournament. I've decided on the Button Ante as our games are self dealt, and when you deal, you ante just makes sense to me. Below are my tournament details, and I would like a 5 hour tournament that includes the breaks.

Players - 30
Starting Stack - 16,500 with on-time bonus
Rebuy - 15,000 (8 expected)
Addon - 8,000 (26 expected)
Levels - 15/20 minutes - decreasing after each break

Current Structure (used for 20 players - always ends between levels 18-20)

Level	Duration	Small Blind	Big Blind	BTN Ante	Start Time	Color Up	Notes
Round 1	15m	50​	100​	0​	0:00​	no
Round 2	15m	75​	150​	0​	0:15​	no
Round 3	15m	100​	200​	0​	0:30​	no
Round 4	15m	150​	300​	0​	0:45​	no
Round 5	15m	200​	400​	0​	1:00​	no
Round 6	15m	300​	600​	0​	1:15​	no
Break 1	10m				1:30​	yes	Color up 25 - Rebuy Over - Add-On
Round 7	14m	400​	800​	0​	1:40​	no
Round 8	14m	600​	1,200​	0​	1:54​	no
Round 9	14m	800​	1,600​	0​	2:08​	no
Round 10	14m	1,200​	2,400​	0​	2:22​	no
Round 11	14m	1,500​	3,000​	0​	2:36​	no
Break 2	10m				2:50​	yes	Color up 100 & 500
Round 12	12m	2,000​	4,000​	0​	3:00​	no
Round 13	12m	3,000​	6,000​	0​	3:12​	no
Round 14	12m	4,000​	8,000​	0​	3:24​	no
Round 15	12m	6,000​	12,000​	0​	3:36​	no
Round 16	12m	8,000​	16,000​	0​	3:48​	no
Round 17	12m	12,000​	24,000​	0​	4:00​	no
Break 3	5m				4:12​	yes	Color up 1,000
Round 18	10m	15,000​	30,000​	0​	4:17​	no
Round 19	10m	20,000​	40,000​	0​	4:27​	no
Round 20	10m	25,000​	50,000​	0​	4:37​	no
Round 21	10m	30,000​	60,000​	0​	4:47​	no

Questions:

1. Do I start the ante at level 1 or after the first break? My initial thought is after the first break.
2. I plan on reducing the ante amount from the BB to the SB once the final table is reduced to 6, and eliminating it once down to 3 (or heads up?).
3. What adjustments to my structure are needed to allow the game to play 5 hours (+/- 30 min)
4. Any tips or rules to know running a tournament with a BTN ante?

Thanks in advance - and paging @BGinGA for his infinite wisdom!

 

[CraigT78]

Also - one question that I don't know I clearly understand is what happens when the ante causes a player to be all in? How do the pots get split?

 

[bsdunbar1]

Following.
We are starting to utilize the BB Ante in our new season that starts tonight. We are just having the BB post what would be the ante for the entire table, which means a table of 10 with an ante of 100 = 1000 posted by the BB. If a player gets knocked out the next BB posts 900 for the ante.
I don't think this is technically correct, but it gets us going.
I will be very interested in the comments here.

 

[BGinGA]

My advice is don't do it.

 

[kirchhausen]

The Button Ante would just win the Ante back if he/she won the pot. The ante would go in a side pot and button would not be eligible to win any other chips on that hand.

 

[kirchhausen]

Following.
We are starting to utilize the BB Ante in our new season that starts tonight. We are just having the BB post what would be the ante for the entire table, which means a table of 10 with an ante of 100 = 1000 posted by the BB. If a player gets knocked out the next BB posts 900 for the ante.
I don't think this is technically correct, but it gets us going.
I will be very interested in the comments here.

There is an interesting debate regarding reducing the antes vs not reducing as players get knocked out. Say blinds are (at a normally 10 handed table) 5k/10k/1k in a "traditional" ante tournament.

At a full table, on a BB or Button Ante tourney the Ante would be 10k. The "reducers" would change the ante to 9k when someone gets knocked out (as this would match the traditional ante structure) while the "non-reducers" would leave the ante at 10k.

 

[BGinGA]

The Button Ante would just win the Ante back if he/she won the pot. The ante would go in a side pot and button would not be eligible to win any other chips on that hand.

And one of the reasons to not use a button ante.

If using a SB or BB ante, a player's chips can first go towards the blinds if all-in to eliminate the possibility of a zero-profit win.

 

[kirchhausen]

Like most things in life there benefits and detriments to a single ante structure. It certainly speeds up the game and causes less confusion. On the flip side as you have pointed out it can create situations where there could be a zero-profit win.

I would think those scnarios probably happen pretty infrequently. My personal opinion is that the benefits of speeding up the game are greater than these rare scenarios.

If one is going to have antes as part of a tourney, I would prefer the single-ante option.

 

[kirchhausen]

And one of the reasons to not use a button ante.

If using a SB or BB ante, a player's chips can first go towards the blinds if all-in to eliminate the possibility of a zero-profit win.

To your point, this is why I prefer a BB ante over a button Ante.

 

[Forty4]

There are a few structures out there. Problem with Button ante is that what happens when you have a dead button? I actually think a UTG ante is better as there will never be a dead UTG. However if in the previous hand the UTG gets knocked out what happens with the next BB does he/she pay the BB and Ante plus *new* UTG posting ante? Which is why they play BB Ante and nothing else really.

 

[CraigT78]

My advice is don't do it.

Care to expand on this? Is it really a bad idea? Scrap antes all together or go with BB ante?

 

[BGinGA]

There is an interesting debate regarding reducing the antes vs not reducing as players get knocked out. Say blinds are (at a normally 10 handed table) 5k/10k/1k in a "traditional" ante tournament.

At a full table, on a BB or Button Ante tourney the Ante would be 10k. The "reducers" would change the ante to 9k when someone gets knocked out (as this would match the traditional ante structure) while the "non-reducers" would leave the ante at 10k.

I'm in the 'reducer' camp, but only by reducing the table ante size at certain table levels (<7 players) to the small blind amount along with total elimination once three-handed. In the above example, the table ante would be 10k until the table size reached six players, at which time the table ante would drop to 5k.

The alternative of reducing a big blind amount per each player reduction means that smaller denomination chips need to remain in play much longer, which negates one of the main advantages of using a table bounty.

 

[BGinGA]

Care to expand on this? Is it really a bad idea? Scrap antes all together or go with BB ante?

My preferences, as both a director and a player:

1. no antes
2. individually-posted antes
3. table ante posted by SB *
4. table ante posted by BB *
5. table ante posted by Button (and last by a large margin)

* both of which should be accompanied with rules that a) scale down the table ante amount to reflect the table size (and not just at the final table), and b) provide that blinds are posted before the table ante is posted in the event a player's stack is insufficient to cover both.

 

[fieldsy]

Some people really don't like antes. And some people really don't like table antes, such as BB ante or button ante. And if you or your players don't like antes in general, for a reason other than the fact that traditional antes slow down the game, any ante will be unpopular. I am firmly on record on this forum as being a proponent of both antes in general (I think they create more flexibility for bet sizing relative to the pot and therefore encourage interesting poker) and the big blind ante.

Reasonable minds differ on this. Plenty of people on this forum who seem very bright to me don't like antes or a table ante. My two cents, I would go with big blind ante over button ante just because it is quickly becoming "standard" at every major tournament series. As for whether to reduce the ante when you get short-handed, I don't really like to reduce, but I've kind of struck a middle ground by using a BBA amount that is generally less than a full BB but more than the SB. Example, at 400/800, the BBA is 600, while with most traditional antes it would be 100 per player at that level. So my BBA is basically equivalent to what traditional antes would be if 6-handed. At that size, no one can really complain that it's inflated, even when we get down to 4- or 5-handed. And while I could potentially reduce at 3-handed, the average stack size jumps pretty substantially when you get to that point (e.g., if 200,000 chips in play, average stack is 50k when 4-handed, jumps 33% to 66.7k when 3-handed, and 50% from there to 100k heads up). So it hasn't ever been an issue continuing to play with the BBA that short. Granted, play is somewhat accelerated compared to traditional antes in that spot, but it hasn't been a problem for me.

Also, I agree with the BBA rule that says the blind takes priority over ante if a player is super short. Which is the WSOP rule (or at least it was last year) but differs from the WPT rule I believe.

 

[CraigT78]

My preferences, as both a director and a player:

• individually-posted antes

So if I went this route - how would that structure look? When do antes start and how do they progress?

 

[kirchhausen]

My preferences, as both a director and a player:

1. no antes
2. individually-posted antes
3. table ante posted by SB *
4. table ante posted by BB *
5. table ante posted by Button (and last by a large margin)

* both of which should be accompanied with rules that a) scale down the table ante amount to reflect the table size (and not just at the final table), and b) provide that blinds are posted before the table ante is posted in the event a player's stack is insufficient to cover both.

I also prefer ante-free tournaments (especially in self dealt tourneys). When there is a dealer, I dont mind so much, but indiviudally posted antes in a self dealt game is almost always a clusterf@&k

 

[fieldsy]

So if I went this route - how would that structure look? When do antes start and how do they progress?

When I have used traditional antes with a structure similar to yours, they started with a 25 ante at the 150/300 level, then 50-200/400, 75-300/600, and you're up to a 100 ante when you color up the 25s for 400/800. Gradually progress up to having a 500 ante at either 1500/3000 or 2000/4000. You'll want to be at 1000 for 1000-4000/8000.

 

[BGinGA]

I am firmly on record on this forum as being a proponent of both antes in general (I think they create more flexibility for bet sizing relative to the pot and therefore encourage interesting poker) and the big blind ante.

This is a common argument, and one that I think is actually hindered by the use of a table ante. The mere fact that lower denominations are no longer in play resticts bet sizing options vs what would otherwise be available in a standard ante environment.

 

[fieldsy]

This is a common argument, and one that I think is actually hindered by the use of a table ante. The mere fact that lower denominations are no longer in play resticts bet sizing options vs what would otherwise be available in a standard ante environment.

A fair point, I suppose the options become more limited with color-ups. Honestly, though, I don't color up much more quickly with the BBA than with standard antes. It depends on the structure. I guess I can see your point with a level like 300/600, with traditional antes the 25s would be in play for a 75 ante, but for comparison's sake the WSOP structure wouldn't have 25s in play at 300/600. In my home structure I have the BBA at 450 at that level so the greens are still in.

The limitations from having smaller chips removed are a pretty marginal difference, but poker is all about marginal spots so I'm not saying it's inconsequential. Thinking it through, if you're 8-handed here, the pot before any preflop action would be 1500 (with either traditional antes or a full big-blind ante). So a player can min-raise to 1200, which is 80% of the pot, regardless of whether 25s are in play. With 25s removed you can't bet something like 1250 or 1275. So that's a fair consideration.

My point about flexibility due to antes is that to have a comparable zero-ante level in terms of per-orbit cost, you would be at 500/1000 (1500 chips before any preflop action), which means a min-raise would be to 2000 (133% of pot). With an ante structure, you can still elect to raise to 133% of pot, but you can also size down. That's the advantage from my perspective.

 

[fieldsy]

Another thought just occurred to me, when looking back to the OP and seeing you say you're thinking of trying an ante tournament, implying that you haven't played with antes in the past. From a hosting perspective, I think it's important to know your player pool. If your players don't typically play with antes, I'm much more inclined to stick with no-ante structures. The guys I play with include many players who go down to Vegas a few times per year and play tournaments during the WSOP, some who play online, and many who have been playing our tournaments for years. So they're all accustomed to having antes in play, and even with traditional antes they're usually pretty good about remembering to ante.

If the field skews more to purely social players, or folks who only play cash games and aren't used to antes, that's something I would keep in mind and might structure it differently. Those players might not be diligent about getting antes in. And while a BBA makes things easier, it's also an even more foreign concept to folks who haven't been playing or following tournament poker the past couple of years.

 

[CraigT78]

Another thought just occurred to me, when looking back to the OP and seeing you say you're thinking of trying an ante tournament, implying that you haven't played with antes in the past. From a hosting perspective, I think it's important to know your player pool. If your players don't typically play with antes, I'm much more inclined to stick with no-ante structures. The guys I play with include many players who go down to Vegas a few times per year and play tournaments during the WSOP, some who play online, and many who have been playing our tournaments for years. So they're all accustomed to having antes in play, and even with traditional antes they're usually pretty good about remembering to ante.

If the field skews more to purely social players, or folks who only play cash games and aren't used to antes, that's something I would keep in mind and might structure it differently. Those players might not be diligent about getting antes in. And while a BBA makes things easier, it's also an even more foreign concept to folks who haven't been playing or following tournament poker the past couple of years.

Thank you for posting a very valid concern. Some of my guys are all for mixing it up, and some of the guys will probably hate it. As the host, I'm all for trying new formats to keep things interesting, but my biggest concern is the shit show it might become - with 'Who didn't ante" 27 times in one night. A few of my players come to drink with a side of poker, and others take the game (and league points) as serious as the WSOP main event. I'm going to have to think on this one a bit.

 

[bsdunbar1]

'Who didn't ante" 27 times in one night.

Guaranteed to happen without some form of BB Ante.

 

[CraigT78]

Guaranteed to happen without some form of BB Ante.

It's like you've already played here

 

[Mr Winberg]

This is no biggie, but regarding

Current Structure (used for 20 players - always ends between levels 18-20)

The blinds increase more from level 9 to 10 then from 10 to 11. Same thing regarding 16 to 17 vs 17 to 18.
If it was me, I'd have level 10 be 1000/2000 and level 17 be 10000/20000. Apart from being kind to my OCD, an added bonus with this is lower blinds means more play

Do I start the ante at level 1 or after the first break? My initial thought is after the first break.

I would (and do) have it from the start.

I plan on reducing the ante amount from the BB to the SB once the final table is reduced to 6, and eliminating it once down to 3 (or heads up?).

This depends on which types of antes you want to emulate. From what I have seen, the WSOP main event had antes ranging from 1/10 and 1/6 of the BB (except in the first few levels). If you want to have comparable antes, the BBA should be the size of the BB from 10 to 6 players, the size of the SB from 5 to three players, and heads up half the SB (but I would of course either remove it or keep it as the SB when heads up).

What adjustments to my structure are needed to allow the game to play 5 hours (+/- 30 min)

Tournaments with antes tend to end a little earlier. I would estimate a level earlier than usual.

Any tips or rules to know running a tournament with a BTN ante?

If you choose something else than the BBA, just make sure your rules cover the different scenarios that can occur, e.g. dead buttons in case of button ante, etc.

The mere fact that lower denominations are no longer in play resticts bet sizing options vs what would otherwise be available in a standard ante environment.

I've seen similar arguments, for example "with a table ante you can remove lower denoms earlier".
This depends on the structure. If looking at the WSOP main event structure with standard antes from last year, the T25 are removed after the 250/500 level (as they would with a table ante) the T100 are removed after the 1200/2400 level (as they would with a table ante), the T500 are removed after the 2500/5000 level (as they would with a table ante), etc.
With a more aggressive structure on the other hand, lower denoms can be removed perhaps a level earlier with table antes, but not much more (unless comparing to ridiculously low standard antes).

tl;dr: bla bla bla antes etc etc

 

[Forty4]

Here are a couple of examples I will say they are rather aggressive

 

[Mr Winberg]

Here are a couple of examples I will say they are rather aggressive

View attachment 285982View attachment 285983

It's probably a typo, but why would level 7 in the first structure have a SB of 250? The T25 would sit around unnecessarily for 7 levels just for that one level.

 

[Forty4]

It's probably a typo, but why would level 7 in the first structure have a SB of 250? The T25 would sit around unnecessarily for 7 levels just for that one level.

Probably correct just got it off the Venetian website when trying to find a format to use as examples for an attempt at our monthly game.

 

[fieldsy]

If I recall correctly, Venetian was a bit more hesitant in adopting the BBA than other series. That strange structure may have been an early example of them finding their way. Their more recent structures (e.g., the ones posted for this summer's series) use the more common practice of having the BBA equal to the amount of the BB in all ante levels, with no odd straggler levels requiring T25 chips.

 

[Poker Zombie]

It's probably a typo, but why would level 7 in the first structure have a SB of 250? The T25 would sit around unnecessarily for 7 levels just for that one level.

They are probably using the same tournament structure they have always used, but now with a BBA instead of a traditional ante.

I look forward to your opinion @CraigT78 when you run the event. I plan on introducing the occasional BBA structure into the Zombie league, even though we have never used a regular ante.

Personally, I prefer no antes. I don't think they add anything to a tournament that a decent blind structure can bring. It does change how a tight player may perform though, so I feel as if I am doing my players a disservice by avoiding antes. A casino environment is the wrong place to learn about them.

I'm going with the BBA, because it is what the WSOP, Aria, and the Venetian have adopted - 3 different property owners (Caesars, MGM, and Sands respectively). I would not be surprised to see fewer and fewer traditional antes in the future after the 2019 TDA conference.

 

[CraigT78]

Personally, I prefer no antes. I don't think they add anything to a tournament that a decent blind structure can bring

I also prefer no ante. However an ante tournament was suggested by several of my players as a way to shake up the nits, who fold the entire 4 hours and then bust out with a min cash and higher placed points. And I don't see anything wrong with shaking up the nits