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

[Preditor]

I am curious what level is considered appropriate to introduce a BBA into a tournament?

I am hoping to run a larger tournament in the fall, and was debating if it would be appropriate to start the BBA at level 1, or best to wait until after the first break (4-5 levels).

Does it really matter? Any reason not to start the BBA at level 1? What point in a 20-minutes per level tourney would you recommend adding them?

 

[doublebooyah85]

I haven’t introduced it yet because half my locals still haven’t planned in a tournament with one. Don’t feel like putting up w the explaining and complaining lol

I would start level 1 to educate everyone…

 

[Mojo1312]

I haven’t introduced it yet because half my locals still haven’t planned in a tournament with one. Don’t feel like putting up w the explaining and complaining lol

I would start level 1 to educate everyone…

IMO, a BBA is unnecessary for smaller tournaments comprising one or two tables. @krafticus has experience running larger three table plus tournaments. He may be the person to ask.

 

[Legend5555]

I start it from the beginning. And I never start people with more than 200bb. Often 150bb.

 

[Moxie Mike]

I am curious what level is considered appropriate to introduce a BBA into a tournament?

I am hoping to run a larger tournament in the fall, and was debating if it would be appropriate to start the BBA at level 1, or best to wait until after the first break (4-5 levels).

Does it really matter? Any reason not to start the BBA at level 1? What point in a 20-minutes per level tourney would you recommend adding them?

I don't know if there's a point where it's 'considered appropriate'.

It all depends on how you long you want your event to last. Our league events are designed to end around 12:30 am - so the number of chips in play is engineered accordingly. There are usually around 1.2 - 1.5m chips in play and the last level is the 40k/80k round that starts around 12:10 and runs in perpetuity. With only 12-20 BBs in play at that point, the event invariably will end within 15-20 minutes.

 

[drdr]

I'd rather a single chip ante on all players. Big blind already punished enough without more pressure to defend.

Edit for relevance:
I'd add ante of any type from the start for consistency. Less confusing for some.

 

[upNdown]

IMO, a BBA is unnecessary for smaller tournaments comprising one or two tables.

I’ll go with this.
But if I wanted to play with antes, I’d do it from level 1. I feel like this is the current trend?
But if you have reasons and if it works, do whatever you want.

 

[Preditor]

I’ll go with this.
But if I wanted to play with antes, I’d do it from level 1. I feel like this is the current trend?
But if you have reasons and if it works, do whatever you want.

Thanks! My home game has 6-10 players so I agree about no BBA there.

But as ststed in the OP, I am hoping to run a 25-30 person tourney in the fall. To keep the time manageable, I want to do a BBA at some point. Level 1 preferably.

I just wanted to get a sense if there were any disadvantages from level 1.

 

[krafticus]

I am curious what level is considered appropriate to introduce a BBA into a tournament?

I am hoping to run a larger tournament in the fall, and was debating if it would be appropriate to start the BBA at level 1, or best to wait until after the first break (4-5 levels).

Does it really matter? Any reason not to start the BBA at level 1? What point in a 20-minutes per level tourney would you recommend adding them?

How big is big?

 

[Preditor]

How big is big?

About 30 people if I get the quota I want. With that many I would like to keep the tourney to 6-7 hours, and a BBA should help me do that.

 

[springbox]

Never, the concept of the blinds going up is confusing enough for my crew

 

[DaneWoj]

Level 1. Antes are intended to create action and have added incentive to steal blinds. All major tournaments use them. So we use them. We also run events with over 100 players.

 

[tabletalker7]

I am hoping to run a 25-30 person tourney in the fall. To keep the time manageable, I want to do a BBA at some point. Level 1 preferably.

I run 60 player tournaments after union meetings. Never used a BBA. You want control over the end time, you do that with your starting stacks and blind schedule. All a BBA does is make people mad.

 

[Legend5555]

Honestly, NLHE should always have an ante. Tournament or cash. In theory, without an ante, everyone should play extremely tight. The single SB and BB aren't enough to warrant fighting over very hard.

Now in practice, this doesn't happen. Especially in cash. But I wholeheartedly believe that tournaments should have antes at all times.

 

[krafticus]

About 30 people if I get the quota I want. With that many I would like to keep the tourney to 6-7 hours, and a BBA should help me do that.

That's about the size of my normal monthly game, and I never use the BB ante. I also start with an average stack (10k 25/50 blinds), and the game runs about 5 hours. I think if you use a decent structure and a good starting amount of chips, you'll be fine without the antes.

and sometimes they slow the game down, when you need to track down if the ante was in, or what to do with short stacks that can't cover both the ante and the BB, etc...

I'd personally stay away from them

 

[Legend5555]

and sometimes they slow the game down, when you need to track down if the ante was in, or what to do with short stacks that can't cover both the ante and the BB, etc..

It's extremely easy to determine if a BBA was missed and who owes it. Much easier than individual antes.

 

[Taghkanic]

I'd rather a single chip ante on all players. Big blind already punished enough without more pressure to defend.

It’s the same either way. But a BBA saves a ton of time.

Having to check that all players have put their ante out every single hand slows the game down enormously. So better to have each player pay for the table once per orbit.

 

[krafticus]

It's extremely easy to determine if a BBA was missed and who owes it. Much easier than individual antes.

true, unless you get a bunch of limpers. chances are that it won't happen much, if at all.

I think if you have a field of 80-100+ players, use the BBA. With home games, chip stacks vs blind levels don't justify the need.

Even if you have 30 players with 20k stacks, you only have 600k in play. Once you get the 5k-10k level, there are only 60bb in play. chances are, most players will only have 10-25bb stacks, and the BBA really adds an unnecessary disadvantage.

If you have 100 players with 20k stacks, you have 2mil in play, and that same level, you have much more playability. Then, I see the need for a BBA to move the game along

 

[Taghkanic]

As far as timing, I used to start at my first break (after level 5).

 

[drdr]

It’s the same either way. But a BBA saves a ton of time.

Having to check that all players have put their ante out every single hand slows the game down enormously. So better to have each player pay for the table once per orbit.

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

 

[BGinGA]

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.

 

[Nine_high]

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.

Isn't the issue that whoever is in the BB first is at risk of getting felted against anyone else at the table, but no one else would have that risk against them? BB is effectively short stacked by one BBA due to their seat draw, before a single card is dealt.

 

[upNdown]

Isn't the issue that whoever is in the BB first is at risk of getting felted against anyone else at the table, but no one else would have that risk against them? BB is effectively short stacked by one BBA due to their seat draw, before a single card is dealt.

Oh right! I forgot about that.
Interesting issue, but does anybody really care about that?
I guess it matters for a bounty tournament.

 

[Nine_high]

Oh right! I forgot about that.
Interesting issue, but does anybody really care about that?
I guess it matters for a bounty tournament.

I personally don't think it's a huge deal, but it is in fact a real (even if small) disadvantage and also easily avoided.

I've never actually run a tournament with BBA but if I did I would probably start them after the break or perhaps on level 2 depending on the structure.

 

[Preditor]

Isn't the issue that whoever is in the BB first is at risk of getting felted against anyone else at the table, but no one else would have that risk against them? BB is effectively short stacked by one BBA due to their seat draw, before a single card is dealt.

This seems hyperbolic to me. If you start with a 200 or 300BB starting stack... one extra BB at the beginning due to a BBA makes you "short stacked"? So you're down to 198BB instead of 199BB?

It's unfortunate luck to be the first hand with a big blind, ante or not. Adding a BBA at start doesn't seem to be a huge disadvantage.

 

[BGinGA]

Waiting an orbit (or two, pending blind level times) before adding the table ante (BBA or otherwise) seems reasonable.

 

[jamesjkim]

I'd rather a single chip ante on all players.

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

For example, T25 starting at 25 SB, 50 BB, 50 BBA, you would need to divide 50 among the players at the table (9? 8?); doesn't quite work. That is, unless you would change the BBA value altogether but then things just start to get weird(er).

For fairness to the initial BB (or lack thereof), I like the idea of waiting an orbit or until Level 2 to start BBA - not uncommon to go L1 100/200 then L2 100/200/200.

 

[MeridianFC]

I would certainly defer to whatever @krafticus & @BGinGA say, since they're two of the resident tourney gurus. I really like the @Chris Manzoni structure and he advises BBA only for tourneys with more than 15 players and his structure, which I agree with, has one stage (to the first color up) without and then with if you have the the 15+ players.

Philosophically I hate the idea of the BBA. I do love Antes though. That said needs must sometimes. I utilized the BBA in the 6 table charity tourney thing I do once a year and folks absolutely hated it. That said it made the tournament come in at a reasonable time which has not been the case previously. Pick your poison.

 

[Nine_high]

This seems hyperbolic to me. If you start with a 200 or 300BB starting stack... one extra BB at the beginning due to a BBA makes you "short stacked"? So you're down to 198BB instead of 199BB?

It's unfortunate luck to be the first hand with a big blind, ante or not. Adding a BBA at start doesn't seem to be a huge disadvantage.

I don't think it's a huge disadvantage but I do think it's a real disadvantage. It's not about the 0.5% difference in chips per se... it's the fact that if the BB goes all in on the first hand their tournament life is on the line but their opponent's is not. Without a BBA they would both be facing elimination.

 

[Preditor]

I don't think it's a huge disadvantage but I do think it's a real disadvantage. It's not about the 0.5% difference in chips per se... it's the fact that if the BB goes all in on the first hand their tournament life is on the line but their opponent's is not. Without a BBA they would both be facing elimination.

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.