Tourney Button ante (2 Viewers)

[PocketQuads]

I keep hearing how antes allow players to play more hands profitably. This is pure fiction. Tournaments are a zero sum game. Antes do not allow players to play more hands profitably, unless there are more players losing more hands.

One player wins a profitable hand. Multiple players, who now open their range, stand to lose more that they would have lost without the "ante incentive". Even more players, who are dealt junk lose as well.

9 out of 10 players are losing more because of antes.

I am not saying that antes will make you play more profitably. What I am saying is that the optimal strategy with antes in play is a more loose strategy than the optimal strategy without antes in play.

So, I am now looking forward to hearing your list of specific benefits to players that using antes in tourmaments provides. And I mean real tangible and measurable benefits, not merely personal preferences. They aren't the same thing.

There isn't any list, the only thing is that antes loosen the optimal strategy, which means that if you're aiming to play good poker, you're getting involved in more hands. If you don't count that as a "real tangible and measurable" benefit, then I guess there aren't any. I personally really like this, and I am under the impression that the majority of other players do as well, and if they are, I would count that as a benefit for the players.

Also, I didn't mean to offend you, my point was just that if there evidently are players that obviously do like the ante, I feel like it's wrong to say that there aren't any benefits for the players.

 

[BGinGA]

There isn't any list

... there evidently are players that obviously do like the ante, I feel like it's wrong to say that there aren't any benefits for the players.

You are certainly entitled to your feelings, but I'd argue that if one is unable to list or identify any benefits to players, then there must not be any.

 

[PocketQuads]

You are certainly entitled to your feelings, but I'd argue that if one is unable to list or identify any benefits to players, then there must not be any.

I don't really understand what kind of benefits you are talking about then. If you make a change that results in the majority of players having more fun, how does that not benefit the player?

 

[fieldsy]

You are certainly entitled to your feelings, but I'd argue that if one is unable to list or identify any benefits to players, then there must not be any.

As you say,, we all have our opinions, but I think it’s a bit disingenuous to say no one has articulated a benefit to antes. You disagree, and that’s cool. But a lot of players like antes. We’re talking about a rule that tends to reward an aggressive style of play, so by definition it is not going to benefit all players equally. If a player is particularly nitty, he probably shouldn’t like antes. I think the benefit to “the players” in general is that antes encourage more involvement in hands, and more involvement ultimately results in skill manifesting itself in the results as opposed to variance. It’s hard to outplay someone (or get outplayed) if you aren’t in the hand.

An additional benefit is the flexibility that antes offer in terms of pot odds. There was a discussion above saying that min-raising in tourneys with antes is uncommon, and a response (with which I agree) saying raise sizing isn’t as large as you think with antes present. By having the flexibility to go small, you can affect the pot odds for the BB and other players to an extent you cannot do with a no-ante structure. Alternatively, if you really want to give the BB the same pot odds as they would have in a no-ante structure, you can just size up accordingly.

Those are a couple of “player” benefits. I think subjectively antes are also more fun, because they encourage activity (steals, bluffs, thin value plays), but I readily admit that is only my opinion.

 

[Poker Zombie]

If antes tend to reward aggressive play, then the majority of players should play aggressive. When the majority of the table is looser/aggressive, the optimal strategy is to tighten up.

Therefore, antes reward nitty players.

 

[Frogzilla]

Loose and tight only make sense in the context of “optimal”. Loose for NLHE by VPIP% may be tight in another game. The point being made, several times over, is optimal is looser with antes. That’s the tangible benefit

 

[Jeff]

Button antes are fine as long as you don’t change them back to player antes in the last stages of the Horse Tournament. @Payback

 

[Gobbs]

I've seen how antes can change players' strategy. I still haven't seen a benefit to players, though. To me, a change in strategy is not a benefit, it's simply a change in strategy. Maybe some consider that a benefit if the strategy they switch to is one they like, but even a strategy that allows you to play one more hand per hour (maybe) is not a significant benefit.

The only benefit I see is for tournament directors who get the tournament done more quickly. How this benefits players is beyond me and even then, it's not something that tournament directors can't accomplish by having a different blind structure without antes.

 

[Gobbs]

I keep going back to this, and many people may not be persuaded by it, but it's significant to me that every major (and less-than-major, AFAIK) tournament series uses antes in its tournament structures. WSOP, WSOPC, HPT, EPT/PokerStarsLive, MSPT, WPT, etc. I don't think that's accidental. It seems to me that those tournament directors would only include them if (1) the market wants them (i.e., players like antes), and/or (2) antes serve administrators' interests like tournament efficiency.

Every doctor in the world asks patients to come into the office 15 minutes early. I don't think that's accidental. It seems to me that those doctors would only ask people to come into the office 15 minutes early if (1) the market wants them to (i.e.: people like getting to the doctor's office early), and/or (2) it serves administrators' interests like office efficiency.

I'm not trying to make fun of your point, but I felt a similar example would be the best way to illustrate the flaw in the logic. Simply because it's the way it's always been done and administrators like it, it doesn't mean it is right or good. Players may like it, but it doesn't necessarily benefit them in any way.

 

[fieldsy]

Every doctor in the world asks patients to come into the office 15 minutes early. I don't think that's accidental. It seems to me that those doctors would only ask people to come into the office 15 minutes early if (1) the market wants them to (i.e.: people like getting to the doctor's office early), and/or (2) it serves administrators' interests like office efficiency.

I'm not trying to make fun of your point, but I felt a similar example would be the best way to illustrate the flaw in the logic. Simply because it's the way it's always been done and administrators like it, it doesn't mean it is right or good. Players may like it, but it doesn't necessarily benefit them in any way.

Well, if every doctor’s office in the world is doing it, then if I’m starting my own doctor’s office (or running the tournament by analogy) you’re right, I would probably do it or at least think to myself that there must be a pretty good reason why everyone does it this way.

I’ve articulated the benefits to players in terms of flexibility in bet sizing relative to the pot and the escalation of skill relative to variance. You are unpersuaded, which is fine. I won’t lose any sleep over it. I am similarly unpersuaded that there is any downside to antes, especially when a big-blind- or button-ante removes the slowdown in dealing. If anyone is legitimately on the fence, they can see the arguments and make their own decisions for their home games.

 

[Tore]

Hi! I just joined this forum today, and came across this thread, so why not "chip in" in an infected debate on day one! Must be a great way to make friends ;-)

Compare the two structures:

Ante Structure vs. Non-Ante Structure
1. 50/100 vs. 100/200
2. 100/200 vs. 150/300
3. 150/300 vs. 200/400
4. 200/400/50 vs. 300/600
5. 250/500/50 vs. 400/800
6. 300/600/100 vs. 600/1200

Dependent on the amount of players, the amount of the pots to start the hand at each level are probably going to be somewhat similar. For example, in level 5, he's comparing 1200 chips (ante structure with nine players) vs only 750 in the pot without them. However, I seriously doubt the tournament would actually have the same blind levels for Level 5 if there were no antes. The tournament would be structured completely different. For example, I would expect Level 5 in the non-ante structure to be 400/800 or so, leaving the amount in the pot at the exact same 1200 chips. In

Isn't this an excellent reason to have antes? The blinds will consistently be lower, meaning the average stack will be higher, meaning more room for "real poker". If the average stack is, for example, 20000 at level five, then in the non-ante tournament that would be 20000/800=25 BBs, but in the ante-tournament it would be 20000/500=40 BBs. I would find the latter more enjoyable.

(This is why aggressive antes, 1/5 to 1/3 of SB, are important. The smaller the ante, the less effect it has)

So, I am now looking forward to hearing your list of specific benefits to players that using antes in tourmaments provides.

I'd like to submit the above, i.e. that it requires a lower BB to apply the same amount of pressure (M), meaning average stacks will be higher, meaning a more enjoyable game. Or in other words, a less aggressive blind structure can be used and the tournament will still finish on time.

Disclaimers:

1. I've hosted a lot of tournaments, but only the last two with antes. Even though I experienced positive effects (e.g. higher average stacks, and less people passively surviving round after round with <10 BBs like turds that won't flush), I do admit the sample set of 2 tourneys is far too few to draw any real conclusions.

 

[Gobbs]

Isn't this an excellent reason to have antes? The blinds will consistently be lower, meaning the average stack will be higher, meaning more room for "real poker". If the average stack is, for example, 20000 at level five, then in the non-ante tournament that would be 20000/800=25 BBs, but in the ante-tournament it would be 20000/500=40 BBs. I would find the latter more enjoyable.

No, not really a good reason at all.

The average stack will not be higher, no matter what structure you use. The average stack has nothing to do with structure, only the number of chips in play and the number of players remaining.

Also, when you have antes, the number of BBs in your stack is not what you need to be looking at. You need to look at the number of rotations you have left. In both, for the example you use, you’d have about the same number (about 16.67). That was the point. You can accomplish the same things without antes and (theoretically) you can get in more hands per level without antes since it takes time to collect them.

 

[Tore]

The average stack will not be higher, no matter what structure you use. The average stack has nothing to do with structure, only the number of chips in play and the number of players remaining..

I almost agree. Yes, those are the only two parameters involved. However, I meant in relation to the big blind, not to the amount of chips. You suggested yourself that a non-ante tournament needs higher blinds. Therefore, if you are correct (which I think you are), then the non-ante tournament will be played with fewer big blinds per player at average, which leaves less room for good poker. I think we can all agree the there is more room to play good poker with 40 big blinds than with 25.

Also, when you have antes, the number of BBs in your stack is not what you need to be looking at.

It is when it comes to quality of play, which is my point. After the initial rounds, a tournament with antes will have more big blinds per person.
I agree that you need to look at the number of rotations left regarding the amount of pressure you are putting on the players (that is actually the basis of my point), but my point is that with the same pressure antes allow for a lower big blind.

If you are not convinced, ask yourself this:

Which table do you think has more postflop non-all-in action of these two:

Table 1: Average stack has 25 big blinds
Table 2: Average stack has 40 big blinds

 

[Tore]

... (theoretically) you can get in more hands per level without antes since it takes time to collect them.

I agree! That's why I can't wait to try the Big Blind Ante

 

[Gobbs]

I almost agree. Yes, those are the only two parameters involved. However, I meant in relation to the big blind, not to the amount of chips. You suggested yourself that a non-ante tournament needs higher blinds. Therefore, if you are correct (which I think you are), then the non-ante tournament will be played with fewer big blinds per player at average, which leaves less room for good poker. I think we can all agree the there is more room to play good poker with 40 big blinds than with 25.

No, we don't all agree. Let me try a different illustration to make the point using your definition of "good poker" which seems to be "less post-flop non-all-in action".

1) When do you get more "good poker", when you have 40 BBs left or 25 BBs left? Initially, the correct answer is 40 BBs. Now, let me add a few parameters.

2) When do you get more "good poker", when you have 40 BBs and there are 3 players left or 25 BBs and there are 9 players left at the table? The answer is probably 25 BBs left, but I really just threw this one in here to prove a separate point - poker is not played in a vacuum. The real point is next.

3) When do you get more "good poker", when you have a stack of 10,000 chips, the blinds are 200/400, there is an ante of 50, and 9 players are left (in other words, you're putting in 1050 per round and your M is 9.5 or so) or when the blinds are 300/600 with no antes and 9 players left (in other words, you're putting in 900 per round and your M is over 11) The answers is obviously the second situation. You have to play more aggressively and make more post-flop moves in the first situation, thus, there would be more post-flop all-in situations. Again, you can't be myopic and only look at the number of big blinds. You have to look at how much of your stack is disappearing and how quickly it is disappearing.

It is when it comes to quality of play, which is my point. After the initial rounds, a tournament with antes will have more big blinds per person.
I agree that you need to look at the number of rotations left regarding the amount of pressure you are putting on the players (that is actually the basis of my point), but my point is that with the same pressure antes allow for a lower big blind.

If you are not convinced, ask yourself this:

Which table do you think has more postflop non-all-in action of these two:

Table 1: Average stack has 25 big blinds
Table 2: Average stack has 40 big blinds

Let me address what I think you are trying to say here. (NOTE: The last question is answered above and it's either that both tables are equal or Table 1 has more "good play" if there are no antes at Table 1 and antes at Table 2.)

I think you are trying to say that, since there are smaller big blinds, even though you have to put pressure on the table if you are short-stacked, you can do it with smaller bets??? Again, I would completely disagree with that statement (if that is, indeed, what you are trying to say).

1) If 3x is your standard post-flop raise and the blinds are 200/400, you would raise to 1200. However, an astute poker player notices this is not a 3x raise. There is 600 in the pot plus another 450 in antes for a total of 1050 in the pot. So, instead of getting 3/2 odds with a call (If there were no antes), a player gets 1200:1050, significantly better odds. The odds get even better when you already have a blind out there obviously. So, that 1200 bet is going to get a lot more action. Thus, you didn't put much pressure on the table (and you probably have more post-flop all-in action, too)

2) Realizing your 3x raise is not effective, you must increase your raise to something like 4x to account for the antes. Now, you are betting a larger portion of your stack and you have not put more pressure on the table by betting less. In fact, it could cost you even more, depending on the situation.

Again, bottom line, in a tournament, you don't need antes. Anything you want to accomplish with antes can be accomplished without them and sometimes, you can accomplish even more.

 

[Tore]

a stack of 10,000 chips, the blinds are 200/400, there is an ante of 50, and 9 players are left (in other words, you're putting in 1050 per round and your M is 9.5 or so) or when the blinds are 300/600 with no antes and 9 players left (in other words, you're putting in 900 per round and your M is over 11) The answers is obviously the second situation. You have to play more aggressively and make more post-flop moves in the first situation, thus, there would be more post-flop all-in situations. Again, you can't be myopic and only look at the number of big blinds. You have to look at how much of your stack is disappearing and how quickly it is disappearing.

If you make the M lower then yes, the tournament will end quicker. If you keep M roughly equal between the two, then a lower blind schedule can be enjoyed if using antes.

You chose a level where M was lower with antes. Had you picked level 6 instead you would have the same M with half (!) the big blind! That's a big difference. For example, a stack of 20k is far more playable when BB is 600 (with ante) than when it's 1200 (without ante).

2) Realizing your 3x raise is not effective, you must increase your raise to something like 4x to account for the antes.

I respectfully disagree, sir. I'm too bad a poker player to know exactly how much to adjust, but according to post 55 in this thread the "GTO wizards" only adjust with a 10% increase. Also, looking at for example WSOP, the pros' preflop raises are never near 4x, more like x2.5, if not less.

Using the blinds above, that would be raising the 600 BB to 1500 with antes, compared to raising the 1200 BB to roughly 27- or 2800 (having removed the 10% "GTO approved" increase) without antes. I feel that there's more room left for poker in the first case.

Again, bottom line, in a tournament, you don't need antes.

I respectfully disagree, sir. But, don't take my word for it. I started using antes after reading an article on it by Daniel Negreanu, so the theories are not mine. Please, if I've got this all wrong, then read this article and let me know where Daniel gets it wrong. That way I can stand corrected and learn.

https://www.cardplayer.com/poker-blogs/2-daniel-negreanu/entries/263684-antes-in-tournaments

 

[Tore]

If you make the M higher then yes, the tournament will end quicker

Ehhh... I might have typed too quickly there, but hopefully you get my point

Edit: I have now found the edit button, problem solved

 

[Tore]

Sorry for bumping, but I missed one

I think you are trying to say that, since there are smaller big blinds, even though you have to put pressure on the table if you are short-stacked, you can do it with smaller bets???

No, that's not what I'm saying. I meant "pressure" from an organizer's viewpoint, i.e. getting people to bust so the tournament finishes on time and we all can go home. The blinds can be lower with antes than without them (as you pointed out earlier).

 

[Gobbs]

You certainly don’t need antes to put pressure on players to bust. I would have never figured out that’s what you meant.

Also, if you’re basing your homegame raises on WSOP raises, you may want to re-evaluate your game. Those raises are in games with much longer levels and usually a much less aggressive structure. Players are less likely to call and can afford to be more patient in those games. My raises are closer to 2.5x in those situations, too; however, in a home game, you can’t often afford to be so passive. Faster blind levels and steeper structures call for bigger raises pre-flop if you want to be successful. There is usually a large correlation between the number of small pre-flop raises and the number of complaints about somebody hitting a lucky flop against you. Players can’t afford to be as patient and call those types of raises a lot more often in home games.

 

[Tore]

I've got three questions for you

1)

You certainly don’t need antes to put pressure on players to bust.

I don't quite follow. You suggested yourself that ante-structures need to be adjusted by lowering the blinds in this post:

I read it and it is severely flawed. It is comparing 250/500 blinds vs. 250/500 blinds with a 50 ante. That's making an assumption that whomever is making the blind structure simply does away with antes. That is a horrible assumption.

Compare the two structures:

Ante Structure vs. Non-Ante Structure
1. 50/100 vs. 100/200
2. 100/200 vs. 150/300
3. 150/300 vs. 200/400
4. 200/400/50 vs. 300/600
5. 250/500/50 vs. 400/800
6. 300/600/100 vs. 600/1200

Dependent on the amount of players, the amount of the pots to start the hand at each level are probably going to be somewhat similar. For example, in level 5, he's comparing 1200 chips (ante structure with nine players) vs only 750 in the pot without them. However, I seriously doubt the tournament would actually have the same blind levels for Level 5 if there were no antes. The tournament would be structured completely different. For example, I would expect Level 5 in the non-ante structure to be 400/800 or so, leaving the amount in the pot at the exact same 1200 chips. In fact, if there were fewer than nine players at the table, there would be fewer chips in the pot with the ante structure.

Why would you suggest lowering the blinds in ante-tournaments, if antes don't help busting players? Why not keep the same blinds? Please fill in the gaps for me.
I assumed both tournaments should take the same amount of time, was than an error on my part?

2) Do you agree that in your example the 300/600-100 level offers more room for "playing poker" than the 600/1200 level? I mean, it's HALF the BB for the same M.

3) Did you read the article? Takes no more than 5-10 minutes, even for a foreigner like me ;-)

Where is he wrong?

(Spoiler: He actually goes a bit further, claiming that even low-ante tournaments are bad, and no-ante tournaments are extreme)

 

[Gobbs]

1) I did not say anything needed to be lowered. I said you can accomplish the same things with a no-ante structure as you can with an ante structure.
2) No, you’re trying to play in a vacuum. It’s not a vacuum. You’re still forced to play just as much because your chips are going to disappear just as fast. You’re also not going to be able to bet less because you’re going to get more callers and be less likely to win the pot. L
3) I did read the article. I was trying to be nice and not bring it up, but it really has nothing to do with antes vs. no antes. It is lower antes vs. bigger antes. It really does not apply to anything here and the concepts are not transferable. In fact, if you were to transfer his concepts (with which I do not agree), it supports bigger blinds. The overall gist of his article is that forcing players out earlier, instead of allowing them to hang around with shorter stacks, is better for the players that remain. Therefore, bigger antes force players out earlier and that is good. By the same logic, I can argue for a blind structure that looks like this would be desirable:

Starting stack = 10000
1. 1000/2000 (5 minutes)
2. 100/200 (30 minutes)
3. 150/300 (30 minutes)
.
.
.
It would be a ridiculous structure, but it would accomplish the same thing he is saying about knocking players out early. Therefore, no, I don’t necessarily agree with his logic in the article (although I do agree with him that small antes are about worthless). Also remember, he is not necessarily speaking in the best interests of players, but his sponsors. He also advocated for a larger rake. (I like Daniel a lot, but don’t agree with him in a few things.)

 

[Tore]

1) I did not say anything needed to be lowered. I said you can accomplish the same things with a no-ante structure

What did you want to accomplish? You wrote that a tournament director wouldn't have the same blinds in an ante structure, that they would be lower. I'm sure you didn't do that because you wanted the ante tournament to be longer.

2) No, you’re trying to play in a vacuum. It’s not a vacuum. You’re still forced to play just as much because your chips are going to disappear just as fast. You’re also not going to be able to bet less because you’re going to get more callers and be less likely to win the pot.

But when you do play, you have a larger stack compared to the big blind. This is a fact.
Whether players need to bet as big in 300/600-100 as they do in 600/1200, that is up for discussion. You were talking about 3x in non-ante, that would be 3600. That is 6x in the ante tourney, which in my opinion is way to large a bet. Around 1500 would suffice, but let's agree to disagree, as we won't solve pre-flop raise sizes.

3) I did read the article. I was trying to be nice and not bring it up, but it really has nothing to do with antes vs. no antes. It is lower antes vs. bigger antes. It really does not apply to anything here and the concepts are not transferable.

Of course it does, zero ante is just the extreme of a low ante. If not, where is the cut-off when a low ante is not an ante? 1/12 of BB? 1/20? 1/100? Zero? If zero, then do you mean it would apply for 1/100...000 but not for zero?

The effects of antes simply diminish with the ante size, and hits rock bottom at 0.

He even mentions it! To quote:
"An extreme example. Have you ever played a no limit tournament with no antes? ..."

In fact, if you were to transfer his concepts (with which I do not agree), it supports bigger blinds

No. His concept is that he wants the average stack size to be as many BBs as possible. Bigger blinds is the opposite of that.

The overall gist of his article is that forcing players out earlier, instead of allowing them to hang around with shorter stacks, is better for the players that remain

That's true. But think of it like this: Busting players quicker means a quicker tournament. Is that good? No. But, if you adjust the blind structure it will be good!

Let's say you have an X hour long tournament without antes. You add antes, and the tournament is over after Y hours, where Y < X. (I know you disagree that antes help busting players, but trust me, they do since it lowers their M)

Now, lower the blind schedule to get back at X. There you have it: Same tournament length, but lower blinds, therefore more room for play and therefore skill will be rewarded to a larger extent.

By the same logic, I can argue for a blind structure that looks like this would be desirable:

Starting stack = 10000
1. 1000/2000 (5 minutes)
2. 100/200 (30 minutes)
3. 150/300 (30 minutes)
.
.
.
It would be a ridiculous structure, but it would accomplish the same thing he is saying about knocking players out early.

Gotta love that example! Yes, that would kick out a lot of players, letting the rest feast on the remains!
Using antes is more fun, though.

He also advocated for a larger rake

Yes, he did. That has nothing to do with this, though, does it? Let's attack the logic, not the man, shall we?

It seems to me that we agree on that the M decreases with antes. I think we agree that the smaller the average M is accross the tournament, the short the tournament will be. (I'm uncertain if you agree, since in one post you're saying that I need to look at the M, but in another you claim that antes won't help busting players.)

Let's assume we agree, then the only way to get back to the original tournament length is to lower the blinds.
(Which is what you actually suggested in an earlier post)

What we don't agree on is that I think the room for "playing poker" is larger when the blinds are smaller, even with the ante (and so does Daniel: "Average big blinds per player in the tournament is what you'd look at to see how much "play" there is in a tournament"), but if I understand you correctly you claim that this effect is completely eliminated by the necessity for larger bets.

Have I understood our agreements/disagreements correctly, or do you disagree?

 

[BGinGA]

Holy crap. I understand this whole discussion's concepts better than most, and my head is about to explode.

Suffice it to say that I disagree with several of your base conclusions, but will not engage because it's clear that you aren't capable of understanding why (mostly based on you just repeating yourself when it's pointed out and explained).

 

[Gobbs]

Holy crap. I understand this whole discussion's concepts better than most, and my head is about to explode.

Suffice it to say that I disagree with several of your base conclusions, but will not engage because it's clear that you aren't capable of understanding why (mostly based on you just repeating yourself when it's pointed out and explained).

That's what I should have typed the first time he repeated himself instead of trying to educate. My mistake.
.

 

[Tore]

Sorry for repeating, it won't happen again. Rookie mistake.

I just don't understand why lower blinds for the same M isn't desirable? You keep saying that you can accomplish the same thing with just blinds. How?

 

[Poker Zombie]

I just want to add-in that more BB does not equal "better" play. It does not necessarily equate.

More BB means being able to wait for premium hands. Too many BB, and you can wait for Aces all day long. Too few, and it turns into a no-look jam fest. Somewhere in between, lies the money spot - the point where you must make a move and where you get risky to make the move.

In the end, there is no one answer that fits all. I like tournaments where the pressure remains on. Too many BB and it becomes a snooze fest. Why play a tournament with 1000 BB to start, if I can buy-in late and get 500 BB? For the chance that I double up with AA over KK - or worse, being eliminated with AA over KK? Too long isn't just a snooze-fest, it starts to increase the odds it's a luck-fest as well.

 

[Tore]

you aren't capable of understanding

Wow. Nice. I thought this was supposed to be a friendly forum?

That's what I should have typed

I'm glad you didn't, because that would have been rude.

Somewhere in between, lies the money spot - the point where you must make a move and where you get risky to make the move.

I agree. When having a tournament that needs to be completed within X hours (rather than X days) I see no need to start too deep. But that's just personal preference.

Too long isn't just a snooze-fest, it starts to increase the odds it's a luck-fest as well

I respectfully don't agree on the luck-fest part (please don't insult me!), but I do agree on that the length shouldn't be too long, it needs to fit the specific crowd.

In general:
If antes can help bring the average stack (in BBs) up a bit then I'm all for it. If that's not how it works, please specify where Daniel's article is wrong. I didn't come up with this myself, guys.
So far the tournaments I've run with antes (although just 2) have had less "shove-or-fold" play in the middle and end game than the countless tournaments I've run without.

 

[riotouslevity]

I've seen cash games with antes. I've played some ante cash games on pokerstars. I've never played one live though.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...IwAnoECAgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0jMa2r4cTL6iH2lUFmfTih

Live at the bike has been Running 5/5 + 5 ante typical opening raise comes in for 80-100. I've heard commentary that it plays like a 15/30 game.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I respectfully don't agree on the luck-fest part (please don't insult me!), but I do agree on that the length shouldn't be too long, it needs to fit the specific crowd.

Without insulting you, I will try to explain it to you...

Antes and blinds force action. You are constantly paying a "fee" out of your limited tournament chipstack waiting for "a good hand". If the percentage of the fee is a significant portion of your chipstack, then you must be willing to open up your range. Conversely, if the range is too small a percentage, your range can tighten up. The more hands that are played with tight ranges, the greater the chance that two monster hands will clash. When that happens, it doesn't matter if you "played it right", you (or your opponent) were dealt a cooler. That is just dumb luck too.

Too few hands in the expected tournament = luck.
Too many hands in the expected tournament = luck.

 

[Gobbs]