MrCatPants
Full House
Do any of you have antes at later levels of your tournaments? If so, why did you start doing antes and how do you work them - each player pays, or a button or big blind ante? How do you like it?
Tourney Antes? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter MrCatPants
- Start date
I normally don't host tournaments but I prefer using antes because it forces more aggressive play. I've never tried a BB or button ante yet but I'm considering trying it in the future.
In my experience, it seems pretty much split 50-50 on players liking/disliking antes. The big complaint is that it slows down the game but I don't see that as a real concern.
In my experience, it seems pretty much split 50-50 on players liking/disliking antes. The big complaint is that it slows down the game but I don't see that as a real concern.
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
To me, this is a know your players issue. If antes attract players, and players that won't be confused, then do it. If they find it complicated or slow, don't.
Without center dealers, I really don't think antes are worth the trouble personally. I do hear the button ante is getting positive reviews to the point it adds 2-3 hands an hour.
Without center dealers, I really don't think antes are worth the trouble personally. I do hear the button ante is getting positive reviews to the point it adds 2-3 hands an hour.
We’ve adopted the big blind ante since the beginning of the year. Took 1 tournament for players to understand it. Now it’s just normal for us.
For us we pay the blind first then the ante. If a player has less than a big blind then there is no ante for that hand.
For us we pay the blind first then the ante. If a player has less than a big blind then there is no ante for that hand.
We use antes in one of our leagues, simply because it was initially modeled after the WSOP Main Event blind structure at the time. After 15 seaons, we will be changing the structure this year and eliminating antes.
We also have dedicated dealers, which makes a huge difference. No way would I ever use antes with a self-dealt game, as it considerably slows the game without a dealer always contolling the action.
Not a fan of either BB-antes or button-antes in tournaments, either -- both have significant drawbacks in tourney play, and antes just aren't necessary to justify it imo.
A well-designed blind structure can generate adequate action without the need for troublesome antes.
The only time I really like antes in flop games is in an antes-only tournament. With no forced blind bets, it makes more sense to have everyone equally vested in every hand, and it plays very well.
We also have dedicated dealers, which makes a huge difference. No way would I ever use antes with a self-dealt game, as it considerably slows the game without a dealer always contolling the action.
Not a fan of either BB-antes or button-antes in tournaments, either -- both have significant drawbacks in tourney play, and antes just aren't necessary to justify it imo.
A well-designed blind structure can generate adequate action without the need for troublesome antes.
The only time I really like antes in flop games is in an antes-only tournament. With no forced blind bets, it makes more sense to have everyone equally vested in every hand, and it plays very well.
We like Big Blind antes. Solved the problem of no dealer. If you havent played in a tourney where they are used you should try it. Matt Savage of WPT fame is a big proponant. He has almost no complaints and uses it in all his tourneys. Im a big fan. Game moves much more quickly when change is not being made.
I wouldn't bother with antes if you have less than 20 players.
That said, I would stick with the traditional ante model if your players are focused on the game and not easily distracted and a big blind or button ante.
That said, I would stick with the traditional ante model if your players are focused on the game and not easily distracted and a big blind or button ante.
Last edited by a moderator:
I haven't actually played in a big blind ante tournament yet, and I don't have a lot of interest in it. I can foresee some issues and I don't like them. And I really don't see the point for casino tournaments. They say you get more hands. What, two more per hour? Seriously, is that a big deal? I don't think so.
But like dave says here, I'd never consider antes for a self-dealt tournament. So I guess I'd be willing to give big blind antes a try for home tournaments, because I really do like antes.
To whom it may concern: NEVER EVER TAMPER WITH MY POSTS AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE! I FOR ONE WILL NO LONGER TOLERATE THE WILLY NILLY TINKERING OF MY WORDS AND OPINIONS. BE CAUTOUS!
Last edited:
Have any tourney structure tips for converting a NLHE blinds-only tournament to ante-only?
(If this question deserves it’s own thread, or it has been discussed LMK).
I plan on trying out big blind antes for a tournament for fun. Does the BBA change based on the number of players left? If so, what is the general guideline for changing it?
Thanks,
Grant
Some tournament venues have started to make the ante the size of the small blind when there is less than 5 players. But our group just keeps it at the big blind size to keep the tournament moving along faster.
Sorry, I missed this question back in July. Shoot me a pm.
There are no hard rules, including the initial size of the BBA in relation to the blinds, or at what level it is introduced.
Typical (normal) antes in flop games range from 1/8 to 1/10 of the big blind amount, so you can generally set your BBA to any amount that would correspond to those amounts.
Some places make the BBA equal to the big blind amount (essentially representing 10 individual antes), while others establish a fixed amount per blind level (and generally smaller than the big blind amount).
Some keep it equal to the big blind amount regardless of table size, while others advocate reducing it to the size of the small blind amount with five or fewer players (which better approximates what actual individual antes would represent, if used).
But there are no hard rules, nor have 'best practices' been defined, proven, or adopted. It's really not yet ready for prime time imo.
Personally, I prefer to eliminate the BBA altogether once heads-up. At that point, antes (of any kind) really serve little purpose.
Thank you for the thorough response. I doubt I'd go with BBA ongoing, but like to try new structures once in a while.
Thanks,
Grant
Another question - I have a lot of experience organizing tournaments without antes and the end time is consistently (90% of the time) during the level where total chips/20 = final level BB (+/- a level).
Will having a big blind ante affect the estimated end time? What is everyone's experience?
Having just played with estimates below it seems like you'd drop off one or two levels from your end level, so in my case about a 5-10% reduction in overall time.
Rough estimate:
.I realize how BBA is dealt with at fewer players will effect this. That may make it near impossible to estimate using an updated factor considering the BBA is dead money. Assuming the BBA is kept in place as the BB until the end of the tournament for a STT with 9 players starting the average % of the BB the BBA represents to each person is 23%. Taking that 23% out of the last level BB results in a factor of 26 vs 20 to get the actual BB.
(Total chips)/26 = final level BB when using a BBA on a STT with 9 players.
In my standard 1K buy-in tournament with a 500k starting stack and 1 rebuy/add on of 500k where the tournament would be predicted to end at level 21 (250k/500k) with a BBA I'd estimate it to end at level 20 (200k/400k). Even if I only use the average % of 2-5 players it only brings the factor to 30 putting the last level at 19.
Thanks,
Grant
Will having a big blind ante affect the estimated end time? What is everyone's experience?
Having just played with estimates below it seems like you'd drop off one or two levels from your end level, so in my case about a 5-10% reduction in overall time.
Rough estimate:
.I realize how BBA is dealt with at fewer players will effect this. That may make it near impossible to estimate using an updated factor considering the BBA is dead money. Assuming the BBA is kept in place as the BB until the end of the tournament for a STT with 9 players starting the average % of the BB the BBA represents to each person is 23%. Taking that 23% out of the last level BB results in a factor of 26 vs 20 to get the actual BB.
(Total chips)/26 = final level BB when using a BBA on a STT with 9 players.
In my standard 1K buy-in tournament with a 500k starting stack and 1 rebuy/add on of 500k where the tournament would be predicted to end at level 21 (250k/500k) with a BBA I'd estimate it to end at level 20 (200k/400k). Even if I only use the average % of 2-5 players it only brings the factor to 30 putting the last level at 19.
Thanks,
Grant
Your estimate is about right for regular individually-posted antes with dedicated dealers. I use the level where total chips/20 = total blinds (instead of just BB), which generally works out to about 1-2 levels shorter than normal (offset somewhat by slightly fewer hands/hour due to the antes themselves). With most self-dealt events, it's basically a wash.
An event using a BBA that is equal to the BB for the entire event duration regardless of table size (a horrible combination of parameters imo) will take less time, since the antes are artificially over-represented.
Thanks for the info. I will definitely reduce the BBA to SB at some point (likely at 5), and drop it once at heads-up.
Thanks,
Grant
I prefer the table ante (button ante or BBA) = BB with 7-10 players and = SB with 3-6 players, and dropping it entirely once heads-up.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
Similar threads
