Tourney What level do you introduce a BBA? (1 Viewer)

[Mandos]

But instead of BBA just set the structure so normal blinds are higher. Suddenly no need for any BBA, even simpler, right?

No, because changing the blinds just makes the stakes go up faster but doesn't add more DEAD money to the pot to fight over and promote/reward aggression, as @Legend5555 pointed out earlier.
This article from Negreanu is discussing the need for antes in tournaments in general but the same applies for the most part to the BBA, it's just a more convenient way of achieving antes which are good for moving the game along.
Of course, many players won't adjust no matter how much is out there, but i don't want to setup a structure where it's optimal to play super tight. I want the structure to reward/encourage more active play, and the ante helps achieve that.

 

[Nine_high]

If the Big Blind on a 200BB deep tourney is going all-in the first hand during a tourney... they have bigger problems in their poker game than putting in a BBA the first hand .

Still, I can see the merit of waiting until level 2.

Lol yep, which is why I don't think it's a big deal. I have seen it happen though, flopped set over flopped set in the first hand, someone busted out.

But if you started the BBA at level 1 I wouldn't care at all or pitch a fit about how unfair it was, it's quite minor I think. I just acknowledge it is an artificial disadvantage, and it's easy to avoid by waiting a round or something.

 

[BGinGA]

it is an artificial disadvantage, and it's easy to avoid by waiting a round or something.

Easiest way to avoid it is to use individual antes..... and they come with none of the disadvantages of table antes (of which there are many).

 

[dpeks13]

I play in a monthly tournament that starts off with an ungodly amount of chips but the structure is so that it's play money in the beginning and then the blinds start doubling quickly and it turns into an all-in fest once it's down to the final 10-15 people. I don't run the game but I've brought up adjusting the blind structure and BBA but people thought I was crazy. I usually only have a table or two for the games I run, but I'd be interested to play more tournaments with a BBA structure to see how noticeable the difference is

 

[upNdown]

individual antes

And for the dead money argument, I kinda think individual antes seem deader. Yeah, it’s all the same for good players. But for the more novice types, I feel like a lot of times the guy in the big blind feels the need to defend “his” BBA. I suppose that could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your perspective.
But who’s got time for all those little ante chips? We’ve moved on. BBA it is, I say, for better or worse.

 

[BGinGA]

I play in a monthly tournament that starts off with an ungodly amount of chips but the structure is so that it's play money in the beginning and then the blinds start doubling quickly and it turns into an all-in fest once it's down to the final 10-15 people. I don't run the game but I've brought up adjusting the blind structure and BBA but people thought I was crazy. I usually only have a table or two for the games I run, but I'd be interested to play more tournaments with a BBA structure to see how noticeable the difference is

I have ran 2-table tournaments for nealy 20 years, both with and without antes.

While there is a theoretical difference between the two, my real-life experience is there is no discernable difference in how the two play out if single- or two-table events. A tournament with antes (individual or table) is typically about one level shorter, but that's about it. Contrary to most theorists, actual play is really not affected at all.

 

[dpeks13]

I have ran 2-table tournaments for nealy 20 years, both with and without antes.

While there is a theoretical difference between the two, my real-life experience is there is no discernable difference in how the two play out if single- or two-table events. A tournament with antes (individual or table) is typically about one level shorter, but that's about it. Contrary to most theorists, actual play is really not affected at all.

Thanks for the info. I guess it's not a hill to die on after all.

 

[BGinGA]

Thanks for the info. I guess it's not a hill to die on after all.

Yeah, but that's not to say their structure couldn't use some tweaking.

 

[Legend5555]

I recall some discussion earlier on PCF about delaying the introduction of BBA because of an inherent unfairness when using it from the the start.

It made sense to me at the time, but I don't remember the particulars. Maybe @Legend5555 or @JustinInMN can chime in.

There is only one issue using at the start. But it's so rare and the effect when it happens so negligible as to render it nearly meaningless.

The player in the BB with the BBA at the start of a tournament has an effective stack smaller by 1BB than everyone else at the table. So if the BB gets all in vs another player, the other player can't be eliminated. Though, they will be down to 1bb if they lose. And while that does give them an advantage, being down to 1bb is so crippling, and makes it so unlikely they will last much longer, that the effect is negligible. And over the long term of a multitude of tournaments, this affects everyone equally.

As someone that has played a lot of big field events with dealers ranging from great to terrible, I think the BBA is MUCH better than individual antes. It's not even close IMO.

At home, you can do whatever you want. Most players aren't going to care at all whether you even use antes. Good players will be able to adapt to either. But I still think that if you or some of your players are planning on playing any casino events, even just once or twice a year, that you should just play with the BBA at home and from the start. It's the norm now. And that consistency will make it easier on everyone long term.

 

[Nine_high]

Easiest way to avoid it is to use individual antes..... and they come with none of the disadvantages of table antes (of which there are many).

True that solve all the problems with table antes obviously, though easiest seems to be debated. But don't individual typically come in later rounds anyway? Once the blinds increase to where the smallest chip is small enough relative to the BB to use as an ante.

 

[Mandos]

And for the dead money argument, I kinda think individual antes seem deader. Yeah, it’s all the same for good players. But for the more novice types, I feel like a lot of times the guy in the big blind feels the need to defend “his” BBA. I suppose that could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your perspective.
But who’s got time for all those little ante chips? We’ve moved on. BBA it is, I say, for better or worse.

You are absolutely right that I've seen people irrationally defend their big blind because they somehow feel like the ante is also theirs. I've never understood it, but I'm also not about to try to convince them otherwise.

 

[drdr]

This is unrealistic in practice. You would need a smaller denom than the SB in play at all times.

Probably why I recall it occuring online rather than live. Also could be why practice has moved from ante to BBA over the decades.

 

[Legend5555]

True that solve all the problems with table antes obviously, though easiest seems to be debated. But don't individual typically come in later rounds anyway? Once the blinds increase to where the smallest chip is small enough relative to the BB to use as an ante.

They did wait, but that was only because they didn't want to start tournaments with a chip that was only for antes. Old events typically started at 25/50 blinds. A correct are would have been 5. But that would take another chip that has no real purpose outside of ante.

Now that the smallest chips in play are determined by the size of SB and BB, they are also the same chips used for antes.

Another huge advantage of BBA over traditional antes is that there is no need for chips that are useless compared to the typical open sizes pre. BBA speeds to the have not just by eliminating dealer work and player error, but also because counting down stacks is MUCH easier in big field events when you don't have to count down large amounts of ante chips during all ins. BBA also creates much less table clutter.

I used to love having large amounts of chips in play. But after playing more big field tournaments, I've realized it's actually extremely cumbersome and slow to have extremely large amounts of chips. Tournaments are already slow enough in the later stages, adding time for traditional antes and awkward stack counting just makes it worse. Whule people played faster back then, watch the middle/late stages of the 2006 WSOP main event coverage to see just how bad it can get.

 

[JustinInMN]

I recall some discussion earlier on PCF about delaying the introduction of BBA because of an inherent unfairness when using it from the the start.

It made sense to me at the time, but I don't remember the particulars. Maybe @Legend5555 or @JustinInMN can chime in.

Honestly this doesn't ring a bell with me. In the individual ante days, it was common to hold off on introducing the ante until the structure reaches at least a 3 chip-6 chip level with a 1 chip ante. I think wsop main started out as 25-50, 50-100, 75-150, and then a25 75-100, a25 100-200, for example.

I may have written in the past about the BBA being harsh wherever it starts to whoever pays first.

I do recall my going deep in a pineapple event several years ago when I made the final table with about 5-6 BB and had the misfortune of being the BB when seats were redrawn and down to about 3BB after the button passes. (No regrets though, I still got in good with an 887 suited pre, but couldn't hold against a random ak6)

I have always had a strong preference for the button ante over the big blind ante, to spread this over 3 hands instead of 2. But the industry surely opened in to BBA and it's stuck for about 6-8 years now I would guess