Tourney BBA -> UTG ante; "stack surrender" conditions (2 Viewers)

[Jaxen]

Our group's 1st 2026 tournament is Saturday (yo @Schmendr1ck, got a couple seats left before we go to a 3rd table) and I'm thinking of making a couple subtle changes.

I've never liked Big Blind Ante. Our structures with antes are still a per-player ante. I get the ease of one per hand, but there's no guarantee we'll get all the way around a full table in a 20 minute level, how do you handle it when it gets down to 4-5 handed ... and I don't like that one player is responsible for 80% of the pot before anyone sees a card.

What do yous guys think of an under the gun ante? It might change the strategy in that position, but it spreads the pot commitment over 2 hands. Pay the ante and get away from a junk hand before paying the big blind next hand. (Don't know who thought making the BB pay the ante was a good idea ...)

Also, thinking of adding the "stack surrender" as a re-entry option ... but not until the stack gets below, say, 4 or 5 BBs. I'd like to get rid of the "I'm all-in and hope I lose so I can get a new full stack" but also am wary of those who try to buy their way to a deep finish. Anybody have a rule like this?

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

Number wise, you're putting the same amount of money into the pot each orbit, and you're vying for the same size pot each hand. You can move it to UTG but then you're making that position even worse. I'd rather pay once in a big fell swoop than have to pay twice. You're right that it does change strategy; it changes the number of hands you play without paying an amount and I would prefer to skip that. As a tournament director I already have to worry about moving someone who was just the big blind, now I have to consider who was just UTG and who paid the ante also.

Eh. I don't hate it but it makes my job harder and it hurts my strategy. I strongly prefer paying 2 BB and acting last vs. paying that BB ante as an UTG player, where the range of hands that I get to play is already much smaller. Yes, one player is responsible for the majority of the pot before anyone bets, but that's poker and the BB ante is incentivizing action.

We can surrender stacks but there's no stack size cutoff, I don't see a reason for one. I'd rather limit the number of rebuys or an earlier cutoff. Otherwise what if I have 11 BB and someone is tanking? Why the 4 or 5 BB threshold?

 

[Schmendr1ck]

Thanks for the invite! I'm hosting a cash game tomorrow, and Mrs. S only lets me have one poker night per weekend!

 

[Jaxen]

As a tournament director I already have to worry about moving someone who was just the big blind, now I have to consider who was just UTG and who paid the ante also.

That's a great point actually. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Huskerchipper]

For the first time, I had a player ask about a "stack surrender ". Like you, during the last blind level that allows rebuys, I have players desperately trying to lose their chips to rebuy. I have always had the policy that you have to be completely out to Rebuy. If you don't lose all of your chips that's just too bad. I had never considered allowing someone to surrender their chips but i want to think it thru before i decide. Let me ask a couple questions.

1) If you allow a stack surrender, when exactly does it happen? At the end of the last blind level? If so, do they forfeit their chips, whatever they have in chips are then removed from the table and nobody gets them, then they are allowed to rebuy?

Do you allow it on the last hand? Players muchs his cards irregardless if they might have won the hand? I don't like the thought of forfeiting on the last pot and someone basically receiving chips due to a "stack surrender ".

Any input would be appreciated.

 

[CdnBeerLover]

For the first time, I had a player ask about a "stack surrender ". Like you, during the last blind level that allows rebuys, I have players desperately trying to lose their chips to rebuy. I have always had the policy that you have to be completely out to Rebuy. If you don't lose all of your chips that's just too bad. I had never considered allowing someone to surrender their chips but i want to think it thru before i decide. Let me ask a couple questions.

1) If you allow a stack surrender, when exactly does it happen? At the end of the last blind level? If so, do they forfeit their chips, whatever they have in chips are then removed from the table and nobody gets them, then they are allowed to rebuy?

Do you allow it on the last hand? Players muchs his cards irregardless if they might have won the hand? I don't like the thought of forfeiting on the last pot and someone basically receiving chips due to a "stack surrender ".

Any input would be appreciated.

We do this in our tournaments. We only allow one rebuy for a player during the rebuy period (up to the first break). If a player rebuys prior to the break, they cannot surrender their stack. If they haven't rebought, then they can rebuy at the break to obtain a new starting stack. Any chips they have at that point come off the table. Most players do not take advantage of it unless they are very short stacked.

 

[Huskerchipper]

We do this in our tournaments. We only allow one rebuy for a player during the rebuy period (up to the first break). If a player rebuys prior to the break, they cannot surrender their stack. If they haven't rebought, then they can rebuy at the break to obtain a new starting stack. Any chips they have at that point come off the table. Most players do not take advantage of it unless they are very short stacked.

Thank you for the response. I run my tournaments the exact same way, as in only one rebuy allowed. I think i will go ahead and implement this stack surrender. Just trying to see if there are any drawbacks that I am not thinking of.

 

[CdnBeerLover]

Thank you for the response. I run my tournaments the exact same way, as in only one rebuy allowed. I think i will go ahead and implement this stack surrender. Just trying to see if there are any drawbacks that I am not thinking of.

Depends on how "serious" your game is. Some players used to tank excessively on every decision on every street during that last level if there was a short stack at the table, as it reduced the opportunities for short stacks to bust, thus keeping them short stacked after the rebuy period ended. No point in doing that if the short stack can just surrender at the end of the level, so it takes away that strategy.

For us, it's more of a social game, so giving people an opportunity to continue to play if they choose to do so makes sense for us. Given that we also have points as part of the league and rebuys impact the points (50% reduction in the points earned for that game if you rebuy), it's not automatic. Surrendering a stack is a rebuy. Some people will choose to play with a short stack if they are near the top of the leaderboard to avoid the hit to their points earned for the game.

 

[Huskerchipper]

Good information, I appreciate it. Lol...are we running the same game!? Mine is also simply a social and friendly game where nobody would use tactics like that to keep someone short stacked. We also have a point system and your points are also reduced by rebuying.

 

[Jaxen]

Postscript: We had 14 runners and 4 re-entries. None were "stack surrender".
And, of course, the top 2 finishers were re-enterers. The guy who won busted the last hand of the 4th level, last chance to get back in. Bought 20 BBs, ran it up and won (well, got the better end of the chop).

 

[buffalojim]

My games are social. I use re-buys and what I call add-ons till the first break (level 5). With my re-buys you also have the option to buy another bounty chip as you can't win one without one. My add-ons you surrender what you have and pay to get a new stack. It's an option, rarely gets used. In 22 games last year we had two add-ons and I was one of them. This structure works very well for my group.

 

[JustinInMN]

Our group's 1st 2026 tournament is Saturday (yo @Schmendr1ck, got a couple seats left before we go to a 3rd table) and I'm thinking of making a couple subtle changes.

I've never liked Big Blind Ante. Our structures with antes are still a per-player ante. I get the ease of one per hand, but there's no guarantee we'll get all the way around a full table in a 20 minute level, how do you handle it when it gets down to 4-5 handed ... and I don't like that one player is responsible for 80% of the pot before anyone sees a card.

What do yous guys think of an under the gun ante? It might change the strategy in that position, but it spreads the pot commitment over 2 hands. Pay the ante and get away from a junk hand before paying the big blind next hand. (Don't know who thought making the BB pay the ante was a good idea ...)

Also, thinking of adding the "stack surrender" as a re-entry option ... but not until the stack gets below, say, 4 or 5 BBs. I'd like to get rid of the "I'm all-in and hope I lose so I can get a new full stack" but also am wary of those who try to buy their way to a deep finish. Anybody have a rule like this?

Can think of a couple issues with UTG ante.

1) What happens when a player due for the BB is eliminated, does the new person still have to post both BB and UTG ante? Does the new UTG now also have to post the ante?
2) What do when heads up?

If you want to get away from BB ante, I think any argument you can make for UTG ante is better with button ante. There is a button every hand in a tournament, UTG can be much more flud. Even in the "dead button" situation (when button is in a seat of a player just eliminated), you can skip the ante for just that hand. That mitigates the advantage a player would otherwise have of acting last twice in a row.

As for surrender, I do have the fairly standard rule that a player has one option to surrender their stack and buy in for a full stack during the break when the rebuy period closes. I don't know if offering this option any sooner than that accomplishes what you are discussing though. I mean players in that spot are still going to go all-in with hopes of a double up to save the money on buying another stack, or having the option to buy another stack.

 

[Huskerchipper]

As for surrender, I do have the fairly standard rule that a player has one option to surrender their stack and buy in for a full stack during the break when the rebuy period closes. I don't know if offering this option any sooner than that accomplishes what you are discussing though. I mean players in that spot are still going to go all-in with hopes of a double up to save the money on buying another stack, or having the option to buy another stack.

I agree, now that i have had some time to think it thru, it seems like the only time to do it would be on the completion of the last blind level where rebuys are allowed. I also don't think it would be taken advantage of very often, just occasionally.

 

[Huskerchipper]

My games are social. I use re-buys and what I call add-ons till the first break (level 5). With my re-buys you also have the option to buy another bounty chip as you can't win one without one. My add-ons you surrender what you have and pay to get a new stack. It's an option, rarely gets used. In 22 games last year we had two add-ons and I was one of them. This structure works very well for my group.

My rebuys contain a mandatory Bounty purchase. I have done add-ons before but decided against continuing. I have a certain number of players that will likely never rebuy or add-on and i am trying really hard to not have them be at too much of a disadvantage.

 

[Preditor]

For us, it's more of a social game, so giving people an opportunity to continue to play if they choose to do so makes sense for us. Given that we also have points as part of the league and rebuys impact the points (50% reduction in the points earned for that game if you rebuy), it's not automatic. Surrendering a stack is a rebuy. Some people will choose to play with a short stack if they are near the top of the leaderboard to avoid the hit to their points earned for the game.

This. Every strategy has its ups and downs; but if you are playing with friends? Short-stack surrender keeps player in longer. And more play = happier players which = a more satisfying game.

I have short-stack surrenders. I used to say if it was 50% blow starting stack; I removed that. Now anyone with less than starting stack can surrender at the break.

I do limit it to one (1) rebuy though.

 

[Jaxen]

Postscript: We had 14 runners and 4 re-entries. None were "stack surrender".
And, of course, the top 2 finishers were re-enterers. The guy who won busted the last hand of the 4th level, last chance to get back in. Bought 20 BBs, ran it up and won (well, got the better end of the chop).

2026 event #2 was last night. Extended the re-entries one level to allow stack surrenders, but made the rule you had to have a stack to surrender.
Of course the comments started, "If I'm re-entering who cares if I have chips or not?"
And then the guy who used strategy. Bet most of his chips, bigger stack pushed all in, he folded and surrender re-entered.
So ... yeah, that's the end of that. Bust out and re-enter by the 4th level ... or don't.

 

[ExileExistence]

My games are social. I use re-buys and what I call add-ons till the first break (level 5). With my re-buys you also have the option to buy another bounty chip as you can't win one without one. My add-ons you surrender what you have and pay to get a new stack. It's an option, rarely gets used. In 22 games last year we had two add-ons and I was one of them. This structure works very well for my group.

I'm wondering why do you need to buy another Bounty chip?

Say you buy in for $50 ($40 tournament price pool, $10 for Bounty) and you make it to the break but are relativly short stacked and want to "rebuy", so surrender your stack. Since no one knocked you out, you still have your bounty chip. Where would that chip be going to when surrendering? Because going to the bank would just be a profit for me as the host? Sharing it across ever other player? Bit conplicated I think. Why not just surrender the stack and rebuy for $40 (only the tournament pool)?

I recently hosted my first tournament and a single rebuy option after the break. I noticed when we approached the first break and end of rebuy phase (level 5), players started speculating on how to play now to get in again which felt a bit like a distortion to the game and tactics. One player then really had less than 10% of his starting stack at break and we just allowed him to buy another starting stack in addition to his few chips. For my next game, I will also officially introduce this stack surrender option and also wanted to make it a bounty tournament.

 

[buffalojim]

I'm wondering why do you need to buy another Bounty chip?

Say you buy in for $50 ($40 tournament price pool, $10 for Bounty) and you make it to the break but are relativly short stacked and want to "rebuy", so surrender your stack. Since no one knocked you out, you still have your bounty chip. Where would that chip be going to when surrendering? Because going to the bank would just be a profit for me as the host? Sharing it across ever other player? Bit conplicated I think. Why not just surrender the stack and rebuy for $40 (only the tournament pool)?

I recently hosted my first tournament and a single rebuy option after the break. I noticed when we approached the first break and end of rebuy phase (level 5), players started speculating on how to play now to get in again which felt a bit like a distortion to the game and tactics. One player then really had less than 10% of his starting stack at break and we just allowed him to buy another starting stack in addition to his few chips. For my next game, I will also officially introduce this stack surrender option and also wanted to make it a bounty tournament.

I'm sure I probably confused you. I think our terms for re-buy and add-on are being confused.

To simplify, the way I do it is, the initial buy-in is $50, $45 towards the pot and $5 for a bounty chip. If you get knocked out of the tournament you surrender your bounty chip to who knocked you out. As long as it is before the first break you can re-buy back in for $45. Optionally you can buy another bounty chip for $5. This way if you knock somebody out you can still collect a bounty chip, if you have no bounty chip you cannot collect one.

As long as it is before the first break you can do an add-on. You start with 10,000 in chips, you're down to 1,000. You can surrender your 1,000 for another 10,000 for $45 and keep your existing bounty chip if you still have one.

Hopefully that clarified things for you.

 

[ExileExistence]

Yes, thanks. Then your are doing it exactly the way like I planned my next tournament. Only difference: getting another bounty chip when rebuying after someone knocked you out is necessary and not optional. This simplifies it a bit for me. You kick someone out -> you get his bounty chip. But maybe I'll try out the optional variant aswell

 

[buffalojim]

Yes, thanks. Then your are doing it exactly the way like I planned my next tournament. Only difference: getting another bounty chip when rebuying after someone knocked you out is necessary and not optional. This simplifies it a bit for me. You kick someone out -> you get his bounty chip. But maybe I'll try out the optional variant aswell

Making it mandatory is fine I think. My guys are cheap so I like to give the option. They almost always buy another bounty. There have been times where someone did not after a re-buy and proceeded to knock out 5 people. They kicked themselves for not buying another bounty. I had a good laugh at their expense for being so frugal