Tourney The abyss - 8 hours level 1 (3 Viewers)

[Gobbs]

Eliminating antes has the huge con of not putting enough pressure on short stacks and causing tournaments to take longer. No ante creates tighter play, which IMO is not good for the game.

A) An appropriate blind schedule puts the exact appropriate amount of pressure on players. Antes are completely unnecessary for putting the proper amount of pressure on shorter stacks.
B) An appropriate blind structure can predictably end the tournament when you want it to (within a reasonable window). Again, antes are completely unnecessary for shortening tournaments to the desired length.
C) Longer tournaments are a con? I very much disagree with that statement. I would say you made an argument on the pro side of eliminating antes there. The longer the better!
D) As mentioned above, an appropriate blind schedule puts the exact appropriate amount of pressure on players. So, again, antes are completely unnecessary to promote looser play. In fact, one could argue looser play is not good for the game, but I will just say there are instances in which both loose and tight play are good, depending on the circumstances. Therefore, once again, a function that only promotes looser play (antes) is not necessarily good.

Yes, but then you have to make the level jumps bigger (which people generally don't want) and it doesn't solve the action problem. No ante means less action as pot odds are worse with no ante. Promoting tight play is not fun.

A) Without an ante, if done right, the level jumps are not bigger. Just the jump in the Big Blind is bigger. I can make level 15 (or any and all levels), with or without an ante, equal approximately the same investment per orbit. The difference is, without an ante, the jumps are more consistent.
B) There is no action problem. If players aren’t feeling the appropriate amount of pressure, that’s even better for skilled players. If they need antes to see they need to play looser, I say that’s a huge pro for taking them away. (NOTE: Antes typically do require looser play, but the lack of an ante should not produce tight play.)
C) No antes does not promote tight play. It simply does not promote looser (or reckless play). Tighter than loose does not equal tight play. One could even argue it promotes balanced play, which I would call a good thing.

Also, what constitutes a deep stack is subjective. An avg M of 40 (and increasing) that is set to last 10 hours is VERY deep for a tournament. It always boggles my mind how people only seen to care about being "deep" in a tournament in the beginning but not the middle and later stages. This structure (which is bad) seeks to emulate the early middle stages of a tournament and freeze it there for a long time by eliminating the super deep beginning.

As the levels increase, each hand you played in an earlier level has less and less an effect on your overall stack (in terms of big blinds). Winning 6 hands in the first level could have the same effect as winning a single hand 3-4 levels later. So there later levels carry more importance per hand than the early levels. I'm not sure how much the butterfly effect of winning some small pots early overcomes this fact. It's hard to quantify.

But it seems to me that having a more gradual depletion of avg stack size (in terms of big blinds) over the course of the entire tournament is better than having a beginning where the stack is super deep, and an end where the stacks are very shallow. So a tournament that starts me with 100bb but is structured such that the avg stack by the final table is still in the 30-40bb range seems more attractive to me than one that starts me 200bb deep, but the avg stack at the final table is only around 20bb.

Just because the first two levels are 10 hours, it doesn’t make it a big stack tournament at Hour 11. Any way you slice it, by level 10, a starting stack is only 4 orbits. Granted, the average stack in this tournament at level 10 is probably bigger than the average stack of a ‘normal’ tournament because there has been more opportunities for players to be eliminated, but that is definitely not real deep.

 

[Legend5555]

A) An appropriate blind schedule puts the exact appropriate amount of pressure on players. Antes are completely unnecessary for putting the proper amount of pressure on shorter stacks.
B) An appropriate blind structure can predictably end the tournament when you want it to (within a reasonable window). Again, antes are completely unnecessary for shortening tournaments to the desired length.
C) Longer tournaments are a con? I very much disagree with that statement. I would say you made an argument on the pro side of eliminating antes there. The longer the better!
D) As mentioned above, an appropriate blind schedule puts the exact appropriate amount of pressure on players. So, again, antes are completely unnecessary to promote looser play. In fact, one could argue looser play is not good for the game, but I will just say there are instances in which both loose and tight play are good, depending on the circumstances. Therefore, once again, a function that only promotes looser play (antes) is not necessarily good.



A) Without an ante, if done right, the level jumps are not bigger. Just the jump in the Big Blind is bigger. I can make level 15 (or any and all levels), with or without an ante, equal approximately the same investment per orbit. The difference is, without an ante, the jumps are more consistent.
B) There is no action problem. If players aren’t feeling the appropriate amount of pressure, that’s even better for skilled players. If they need antes to see they need to play looser, I say that’s a huge pro for taking them away. (NOTE: Antes typically do require looser play, but the lack of an ante should not produce tight play.)
C) No antes does not promote tight play. It simply does not promote looser (or reckless play). Tighter than loose does not equal tight play. One could even argue it promotes balanced play, which I would call a good thing.


Just because the first two levels are 10 hours, it doesn’t make it a big stack tournament at Hour 11. Any way you slice it, by level 10, a starting stack is only 4 orbits. Granted, the average stack in this tournament at level 10 is probably bigger than the average stack of a ‘normal’ tournament because there has been more opportunities for players to be eliminated, but that is definitely not real deep.

You obviously have not read all my posts yet as I explained that you can indeed have the two types of tournies end at the same time by messing with the structure. But the antes also have benefits in terms of stack to pot ratios post flop based on typical open raise sizes.

And you seem to misunderstand my point about the 10hr level. A "deep" stack in a tournament has a different meaning than a cash game. Outside of the early levels, being 100bb deep in a tournament is quite deep. So in effect what The Abyss is doing is creating a scenario where people get to play the "beginning of the middle" stages of a tournament for a long time and omit the first level or two. As many tournaments start at 200bb or deeper. So 10hr during which the avg stack is never below 100bb is very deep for a tournament.

But it's really all smoke and mirrors since the level length switches to 20min after that and it's no different than playing any other daily turbo tournament that just started everyone with 200bb in the first place. I'm not even sure half the field will even bust during the first level to cause the average to get to 200bb before that first level ends.

I think it's actually better to give people more play in the middle to late stages at the expense of really deep play early as the decisions you make later in a tournament tend to matter more. And to accomplish this you lengthen the level time and reduce starting stack size. This will tend to slow down how quickly the average stack decreases in terms of bbs over the course of the tournament. This is affected by bust out rates as well, and for small tournaments halvig the stack and only extending level time by a little bit might not be good enough.

A good example of this effect is the WSOP Main Event. They started 300bb deep this year, and average stack size at the end of most days was around 60bb. Even if you were to start with 800bb, but only used 30min levels, the decrease in average stack size given the same amount of play time (not same # of levels) would accelerate faster and likely result in a lower average stack in terms of bbs upon reaching the final table. People can only play hands so fast, meaning that bust outs just can't happen fsst enough to maintain pace with the increasing blinds as the levels get shorter.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Regardless, I think we all agree that "The Abyss" tournament structure sucks, with or without antes.

 

[Kensco]

Any system that creates the possibility of a player forced to be all-in (and risk elimination) with zero chance of winning any chips (except his own) is seriously -- and inherently -- flawed.

I played a BB Ante tournament at the Wildhorse in Pendleton, Oregon, recently. I came back from break to a 2,000 Big Blind and 2,000 BB Ante. Absolutely crippling. Didn't like the idea before playing it but I had an open mind. Now that I've experienced it; I hate it and am convinced it is ill-conceived and bad for the spirit of the game.

Take out the aspect of the BB Ante and I'd play the Abyss, it would probably be a fun first day.

 

[BGinGA]

It's no different than a person in the BB having only a single ante left with traditional antes. He wins only the antes.

Are you serious? It's totally different. He wins all of the antes, which is many times the single ante he posted, unlike BBA, where he cannot win any chips besides the chips he is forced to wager.

For a given M, and assuming standard opening raise sizes, the ante structure allows more playability.

Define 'playability'. The only thing antes do is create larger pre-flop pots if not raised, or smaller pot sizes if raised (with similar 'standard opening raise sizes'). Neither one is necessarily better, just different.... and do not significantly affect play whatsoever.

 

[Legend5555]

Are you serious? It's totally different. He wins all of the antes, which is many times the single ante he posted, unlike BBA, where he cannot win any chips besides the chips he is forced to wager.



Define 'playability'. The only thing antes do is create larger pre-flop pots if not raised, or smaller pot sizes if raised (with similar 'standard opening raise sizes'). Neither one is necessarily better, just different.... and do not significantly affect play whatsoever.

1. Standard antes are significantly smaller. I thought that this point would be obvious. If you only have a single ante left in a standard ante structure and win, you won a full round of antes. The same is true of the BB Ante scenario. The only difference is you are paying for that full round all at once instead of in installments.

This also means that you have several "free" hands (excluding being in the SB) where your stack doesn't decrease every hand. So if you do double, you in several circumstances earn more than you would using traditional antes.

2. My example used 150/300 as a close approximation. For it to be actually even, then imagine blinds of 166/333 to actually make the round cost the same between the two scenarios. A walk at 166/333 or 100/200/200 is the same. But a limp in 166/333, a fold by the SB, and a check by the BB makes the pot 833. In the 100/200/200, the pot would be 700. And even the SB completing would only make the pot 800. So you are incorrect that the pot size going to the flop is larger in any typical scenario in the ante game.

So assuming standard open sizes, the ante game will have smaller pots going to the flop and thus larger stack to pot ratios throughout post flop play which gives more options on how to play hands. The effects of this are magnified on each street as larger flop bets mean larger turn bets mean larger river bets. It may not seem like much in an individual hand, but that adds up over several hands.

 

[BGinGA]

1. Standard antes are significantly smaller. I thought that this point would be obvious. If you only have a single ante left in a standard ante structure and win, you won a full round of antes. The same is true of the BB Ante scenario. The only difference is you are paying for that full round all at once instead of in installments.

This also means that you have several "free" hands (excluding being in the SB) where your stack doesn't decrease every hand. So if you do double, you in several circumstances earn more than you would using traditional antes.

2. My example used 150/300 as a close approximation. For it to be actually even, then imagine blinds of 166/333 to actually make the round cost the same between the two scenarios. A walk at 166/333 or 100/200/200 is the same. But a limp in 166/333, a fold by the SB, and a check by the BB makes the pot 833. In the 100/200/200, the pot would be 700. And even the SB completing would only make the pot 800. So you are incorrect that the pot size going to the flop is larger in any typical scenario in the ante game.

So assuming standard open sizes, the ante game will have smaller pots going to the flop and thus larger stack to pot ratios throughout post flop play which gives more options on how to play hands. The effects of this are magnified on each street as larger flop bets mean larger turn bets mean larger river bets. It may not seem like much in an individual hand, but that adds up over several hands.

It's pretty obvious that your logic is flawed. Nice try on manipulating the examples to fit your argument, however.

 

[Legend5555]

It's pretty obvious that your logic is flawed. Nice try on manipulating the examples to fit your argument, however.

I didn't manipulate it, we just had a misunderstanding. I didn't think I had to explain that a single ante at the same level in normal ante and bb ante are different sizes. Why so hostile? You language of "nice try" and "manipulate" insinuate to me that you don't think I'm trying to have a good faith discussion.

In both situations, you win a round of antes when all in for a single ante. How is that logic flawed?

If you want to actually discuss why my logic is flawed, I'm all ears (or eyes I guess in internetland). I feel I'm being quite civil and making my points pretty clearly for the most part. You haven't really explained why you think my justifications of the BB ante are wrong.

Can I take your silence on point 2 to mean that I'm right about that?

 

[DeeVee8]

Isn't paying 1 in 8 a little on the nasty side?

 

[DoubleEagle]

I think it's actually better to give people more play in the middle to late stages at the expense of really deep play early as the decisions you make later in a tournament tend to matter more.

Very true.

 

[Gobbs]

Can I take your silence on point 2 to mean that I'm right about that?

Only if I can take your silence (or simply repeating your flawed logic in a couple cases) to mean I am right.

 

[Legend5555]

Only if I can take your silence (or simply repeating your flawed logic in a couple cases) to mean I am right.

Again, please explain where I'm flawed and I'm happy to respond.

 

[Gobbs]

Again, please explain where I'm flawed and I'm happy to respond.

You assume players playing tighter than loose is tight play. It is not.

You prefer forced looser play over balanced play and believe it’s superior simply because it’s the way you like tournaments. It is not.

You believe antes causing a higher pot to BB ratio is the only good way to put pressure on players. It is not.

You stated 100 BBs in a tournament is quite deep. It is not.

You think winning your own chips back when posting a BBA is the same as winning everybody else’s antes. It is not.

 

[Legend5555]

You assume players playing tighter than loose is tight play. It is not.

You prefer forced looser play over balanced play and believe it’s superior simply because it’s the way you like tournaments. It is not.

You believe antes causing a higher pot to BB ratio is the only good way to put pressure on players. It is not.

You stated 100 BBs in a tournament is quite deep. It is not.

You think winning your own chips back when posting a BBA is the same as winning everybody else’s antes. It is not.

It seems like the majority of things you take issue with are just my preferences. Which I have not claimed are universally correct or that I even think others are wrong for thinking otherwise. Preferences are just preferences, they can be different and that's okay.

1. Never made that assumption. You are possibly projecting based on how I phrased my points. I'm actually pretty nitty myself. But regardless, this is really just tangential to the ante issue being discussed anyway.

Sidenote: Can you explain how playing tighter rather than looser is not tight play in the relative sense? If you simply mean playing tighter is warranted by the hands you are receiving or by the table dynamics, then I agree. If you mean as part of your overall general strategy regardless of the factors I mentioned in the previous sentence, then I'm not sure what you mean as your statement seems contradictory. If your general strategy has you folding certain hands more than others would, that's tighter.

2. I have no idea where you get that I think balanced play isn't correct. Playing looser because of antes is balanced. Playing tighter when there are no antes is also balanced. I do indeed prefer to incentivize people to raise lighter to steal as I like me and others to see more flops and play more marginal situations. That's not wrong as it's just a preference, and I made no absolute claim that I'm aware of that indicated this was strictly better than not doing so.

3. I freely admitted that increasing blinds with no ante also exerts pressure. If I didn't make that explicit, I apologize. I never claimed antes were the only good way to do this. Just that I preferred antes because they induce more action as you get a good price to try and steal, and given standard opening sizes they allow for a wider range of post flop decisions. The post flop pots are generally smaller in games with an ante when the per orbit cost between ante and no ante games are the same. I personally think that's good for the game, but completely understand how that's not everyone's cup of tea.

4. What typical tournament has the average stack at or over 100bbs for more than the first few levels? Only at the beginning of tournaments (with the exception of slower structured tournaments) are stacks even close to that deep. "Deep stacked" in a tournament is very different than "deep stacked" in a cash game. Average tournament stacks spend more time well below 100bb than they do at or above 100bb for the majority of the tournament. So 100bb is "quite deep" relative to typical tournament stacks. In the final few days of even the slowest structured tournament, the WSOP Main Event, only the top 10-15% of players are above 100bb. The majority of that tournament has the average stack around 60bb. Which is incredibly high especially in the late stsges compared to most other tournaments. I agree that in an absolute sense 100bb is not very deep though.

5. This point I believe I can do a decent job of proving it's essentially the same thing. Before I do, I totally understand that it's a real feel bad situation for the person it happens to. And I want to explain why it's also the most fair way of handling the BB Ante before addressing your main point.

Imagine the BB has only 1bb and posts the bb before the ante. If that person is isolated by a raiser and wins, they now have 2.5bb and never had to pay the ante. But for the rest of the orbit, they are eligible to win the ante that they never had to post. Thus it's unfair to the rest of the table as this player never paid an ante for an entire round. Imagine if in a regular ante game that a player didn't pay their per hand ante for an entire round and each other player took a turn paying an extra ante to make up for that player. That player essentially stole an ante from everyone. That's what can happen when the bb is posted before the ante in BB Ante games.

Now back to your point. Imagine a player that folds every hand in a regular ante game only has enough chips such that they start with enough antes to last until they are in the BB and have only one ante left when they get to the BB. That player is now all in for a single ante and is only eligible to win their ante and everyone else's ante. So all they win if they win the hand is a round of antes. And meanwhile as they are folding and approaching the BB, their stack keeps decreasing and their double up should they decide stop folding and move in will be smaller and smaller the longer they wait.

Now look at the same situation in a BB Ante game where the sum total of the individual antes in the previous example and the size of the BB Ante are the same. When the player gets all in for the BB Ante all they can win is their money back, which is still just a round of antes. In addition, their stack was not decreasing before that, so no matter which hand they may double up on prior to their ante, they win more than they would have in the regular ante game because they aren't losing an ante every hand.

In both scenarios everyone has paid the same per round ante. The BB Ante just defers each players ante obligation until their BB, and makes them pay in a lump sum. So it seems that the two situations are identical though I agree the BB Ante one feels weird, unintuitive, and bad when it happens to you.

The only solid argument IMO against the BB Ante is the equal stack all in problem. Whereby a person that paid the ante can't actually bust a player that started the hand on an equal stack as their effective stack is now 1bb smaller. But this affects everyone equally over time and IMO just isn't going to happen often enough to offset what I see are the benefits of the BB Ante.

Now if you simply don't like antes, that's perfectly fine. Again that is just a preference as I don't think playing with an ante is absolutely right and not playing with an ante absolutely wrong. I don't play NLHE cash games with an ante. It's just a different way to play and I happen to like how antes affect the game, especially tournaments.

 

[BGinGA]

You always assume that a player is not having to post individual antes and therefor gets to 'save' those chips until it's his turn to post the BBA. In reality, it all depends on where in the button rotation his seat lies. Sometimes he gets zero free passes and must post immediately.

 

[Legend5555]

You always assume that a player is not having to post individual antes and therefor gets to 'save' those chips until it's his turn to post the BBA. In reality, it all depends on where in the button rotation his seat lies. Sometimes he gets zero free passes and must post immediately.

I'm not quite following what you are saying, can you give an example? What I think you mean is what if the person got down to a single ante and wasn't in the BB? They win a round of antes obviously whereas on the BBA game a player could win more than just a round of antes if they choose to move in. And in the BBA game, a person on less than an ante and not in the BB can win the full ante regardless of their stack size. Seems like the BBA game is better in this scenario.

But if that's not what you mean, please explain.

 

[BGinGA]

If a player posts his lone big blind as BBA as the first player to do so at the table, he doesn't get an orbit to use those chips to try and double-up (plus win the posted BBA) before having to post himself -- he must risk them immediately, and for no possible gain.. You always assume he is the last player to post the BBA, which simply isn't true.

 

[Legend5555]

If a player posts his lone big blind as BBA as the first player to do so at the table, he doesn't get an orbit to use those chips to try and double-up (plus win the posted BBA) before having to post himself -- he must risk them immediately, and for no possible gain.. You always assume he is the last player to post the BBA, which simply isn't true.

Ah, well that's no different than getting moved to a table and being forced to be the BB when redrawing after you just were the BB. Or the opposite, play from button to UTG then redrawing and getting button again. But if you disagree because of the "when did he pay" argument you can also view it as it can happen to everyone equally. Over time it evens out. It's a pretty niche case to worry about.

 

[BGinGA]

Also not buying the argument that antes leads to smaller pots post-flop. That's a fallacy that can't be proven using real world examples, if comparing apples to apples.

 

[Legend5555]

Also not buying the argument that antes leads to smaller pots post-flop. That's a fallacy that can't be proven using real world examples, if comparing apples to apples.

I showed the math earlier in the thread. If you keep the same per orbit cost between an ante game and no ante game, and assume people are making standard sized open raises, then ante pots are generally smaller going to the flop.

 

[BGinGA]

Ah, well that's no different than getting moved to a table and being forced to be the BB when redrawing after you just were the BB. Or the opposite, play from button to UTG then redrawing and getting button again. But if you disagree because of the "when did he pay" argument you can also view it as it can happen to everyone equally. Over time it evens out. It's a pretty niche case to worry about.

Well, it's a LOT different, and a key difference you seem to consistently ignore. When forced to immediately post the BB, a player is actually competing for a pot where he can show a profit. Not so if forced to post a BBA.

I'm not anti-ante, in fact, our premier league events have used them for 16 seasons. I'm not even opposed to the concept of table antes either (great for certain cash game formats), so long as they don't introduce unneccessary inequalities into the equation. But so far, nobody has been able to do that for tournament play, making the concept inferior to other proven methods.

 

[BGinGA]

I showed the math earlier in the thread. If you keep the same per orbit cost between an ante game and no ante game, and assume people are making standard sized open raises, then ante pots are generally smaller going to the flop.

And as stated earlier, your math is wrong and doesn't take into account real world examples of how people actually play.

 

[Legend5555]

Well, it's a LOT different, and a key difference you seem to consistently ignore. When forced to immediately post the BB, a player is actually competing for a pot where he can show a profit. Not so if forced to post a BBA.

I'm not anti-ante, in fact, our premier league events have used them for 16 seasons. I'm not even opposed to the concept of table antes either (great for certain cash game formats), so long as they don't introduce unneccessary inequalities into the equation. But so far, nobody has been able to do that for tournament play, making the concept inferior to other proven methods.

In a regular ante game the person makes a profit on that particular hand, and not so in BBA, true. But the per orbit profit is the same and the BBA player has the benefit that they can't dwindle to 0 chips before their BB comes back around again. Plus it's not like gambling doesn't have wagers that end up showing no profit. Like a push in blackjack. Or a split pot between SB and BB.

 

[Legend5555]

And as stated earlier, your math is wrong and doesn't take into account real world examples of how people actually play.

My math isn’t wrong. It just controls for preflop raise sizes. Yes there are obviously real world examples that cause differences. But look at this:

300/600/600 BBA vs. 500/1000

Both have the same per orbit cost of 1500.

In BBA, a player on 60k in MP opens to 1800 (3x) and gets called by the button who covers.

1800+1800+300+600+600 = 5100

Pot is 5100 and each player has 58.2k behind for a stack to pot ratio of 11.4:1.

In no ante game, a player on 60k in MP opens to 2000 (2x, can’t raise to 1800) and gets called by the button who covers.

2000+2000+500+1000 = 5500

Pot is 5500 and each player has 58k behind for a stack to pot ratio of 10.5:1

Almost a full SPR difference between the 2, and the BBA ante raiser has more raise size options. If they raise around 2.5bb, the SPR will be even larger in the ante game. Larger SPR means a wider range of hands you can play, and a wider range of bet sizing options post flop. This can both benefit some hands and be bad for others. With big pairs you’d much rather have small SPR as you can’t get bluffed off the hand as easily. But large SPR means you have more maneuverability with marginal hands.

If instead we assume it’s the BB who calls and not the button, then the pots will be equal in the 2 scenarios above. But the BB’s odds to call preflop will be different.

In the BBA game he must call 1200 to win 3300, or 2.75:1. In the no ante game he must call 1000 to win 3500 or 3.5:1. So if the goal is to steal the blinds and antes while keeping the pot size the same when you go to the flop, the ante game is better. If you want the BB to call, then no ante is better.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Does a BBA get smaller as the table goes short-handed?

If not, it seems to me that when nearing the end of a tournament, say heads-up, the BBA forces the tournament into a shove-fest because the Big blind is essentially doubled, as opposed to a standard ante which would be a much smaller M.

If so, doesn't that cause issues with a constantly changing ante as people are added/removed from the table?

 

[Legend5555]

Does a BBA get smaller as the table goes short-handed?

If not, it seems to me that when nearing the end of a tournament, say heads-up, the BBA forces the tournament into a shove-fest because the Big blind is essentially doubled, as opposed to a standard ante which would be a much smaller M.

If so, doesn't that cause issues with a constantly changing ante as people are added/removed from the table?

That is a debate going on right now. Currently, most tournaments don't change it even heads up. Some argue for going to a Small Blind Ante around 5-6 handed. And eliminating it heads up. It only creates a shove fest heads up if the structure is suitably fast and shortstacked, but that isn't much different as adjusting to no ante would cause stacks to be a bit shorter at that point. So it's probably close to a wash. Deeper, it actually incentivizes A LOT of limping from the small blind button.

 

[Poker Zombie]

it actually incentivizes A LOT of limping from the small blind button

So it suggests having to play differently (unless you tend to limp a lot).

Add one more way it's broken.

 

[BGinGA]

My math isn’t wrong. It just controls for preflop raise sizes. Yes there are obviously real world examples that cause differences. But look at this:

300/600/600 BBA vs. 500/1000

Both have the same per orbit cost of 1500.

In BBA, a player on 60k in MP opens to 1800 (3x) and gets called by the button who covers.

1800+1800+300+600+600 = 5100

Pot is 5100 and each player has 58.2k behind for a stack to pot ratio of 11.4:1.

In no ante game, a player on 60k in MP opens to 2000 (2x, can’t raise to 1800) and gets called by the button who covers.

2000+2000+500+1000 = 5500

Pot is 5500 and each player has 58k behind for a stack to pot ratio of 10.5:1

Almost a full SPR difference between the 2, and the BBA ante raiser has more raise size options. If they raise around 2.5bb, the SPR will be even larger in the ante game. Larger SPR means a wider range of hands you can play, and a wider range of bet sizing options post flop. This can both benefit some hands and be bad for others. With big pairs you’d much rather have small SPR as you can’t get bluffed off the hand as easily. But large SPR means you have more maneuverability with marginal hands.

If instead we assume it’s the BB who calls and not the button, then the pots will be equal in the 2 scenarios above. But the BB’s odds to call preflop will be different.

In the BBA game he must call 1200 to win 3300, or 2.75:1. In the no ante game he must call 1000 to win 3500 or 3.5:1. So if the goal is to steal the blinds and antes while keeping the pot size the same when you go to the flop, the ante game is better. If you want the BB to call, then no ante is better.

Again, you're using raise amounts which are not comparative. Players that raise 3xBB in non-ante games are going to raise 4xBB in ante games, maintaining similar pot odds for callers. Bigger base pots (those with antes) create larger pots after raises/calls.... and if you want to argue that smaller raise amounts equals smaller pots, I'll counter that smaller raises leads to more 3-betting, which also leads to larger post-flop pots.

Pots in ante games are larger, not smaller. At least in the real world.

 

[Legend5555]

So it suggests having to play differently (unless you tend to limp a lot).

Add one more way it's broken.

Why is playing differently preflop based on pot size broken? Or is the fact that the size didn't change broken? I'm not sure why either is "broken," just different.

 

[BGinGA]

You speaketh with forked tongue.

On one front you claim the BBA promotes extra action (a good thing iyo), yet when the same construct (improperly implemented, imo) creates a no-action environment (limping heads-up), you claim that's just fine, too. Really?

The BBA concept simply has too many downsides.